Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

We may reasonably suppose that the first six civilizations were founded by high IQ peoples. Their homelands are now all occupied by low IQ peoples, as for example Egypt and the Indus Valley. And any smart people currently in the vicinity of the Indus valley are descended from foreign invaders who conquered a low IQ population that had lost or was losing the capability to operate cities and irrigation.

The Maya created writing and the positional number system, and used it to accurately predict the motions of the moon and sun. Their descendents were for the most part homeless nomads, their largest city being two hundred mud huts. Their great cities were abandoned, even when they commanded key resources. The descendants of the Maya are obviously incapable of operating a great civilization, indeed, without white rule, could not even have cities, or political units larger than tiny tribes with poorly defined territories. They wound up running naked through the jungle with pointy sticks to the extent that they had any jungle.

You would think that positive eugenics is natural in a civilization. The smartest people get to the top, command and effectively utilize all the good stuff, so have more surviving children. And sometimes it does work like that.

But if the smart people are the ruling and fertile people, they will proceed to ensure that their smart children get all the top jobs. This will disturb the topmost rulers, who would like to have limitless freedom to appoint obedient people to the good jobs, regardless of ability, and more importantly, regardless of family. In particular, they would like the freedom to not appoint the sons of powerful rival families. If you have a bunch of fertile smart industrious men inserting their kids into the top jobs, then you wind up with aristocratic or semi aristocratic system. The Bishop is succeeded by the Bishop’s son, which bothers the pope no end. The colonel is succeeded by the colonel’s son, which bothers the general, which bothers the King. One drastic solution, popular in China, is to give the top jobs to eunuchs. You want a top job, have to give up your man parts. Note the striking similarity with today’s political correctness, which requires metaphorical castration of males, and prefers literal castration of males.

Affirmative action for women makes a lot more sense when we recall that working women, unlike working males, do not reproduce, therefore will not be succeeded by their children. If you are a ruler, able (aristos) fertile patriarchal families are a problem, working women and eunuchs are the solution. And if the very smartest women are not all that bright, all the better, will be less capable of plotting against you. So the smartest females do not reproduce. Even if working women are substantially less productive than working men, working men are threat, working women are not a threat. Similarly any measures to prevent the affluent white male children of affluent white males from getting ahead. Such measures are rationalized in the name of social justice, but such measures give the most powerful more power.

From the point of view of the emperor, eunuchs are a better solution than working women, since eunuchs are substantially smarter than women, and have zero offspring, not merely near zero offspring.

A system of rule by the best (aristos) will, if the best are fertile, tend to become hereditary or semi hereditary. Thus patriarchy plus meritocracy will give rise to aristocracy, because affluent patriarchs have numerous sons, the meritocrats start running the system as a job placement program for their numerous sons, and the Pope will not be happy. Conversely, when the King tries to do stuff to make it less hereditary, he is apt to make the best less fertile.

One would suppose the mandarinate to be eugenic, and indeed China, unlike other civilizations, has not become a low IQ wasteland. But mandarin exam was corrupted to select for grinds rather than smarts. Any test can be gamed. The more that scoring high in the test matters, the less predictive of accomplishment it is. Thus selecting people on the accomplishments of their family and recent ancestors is apt to produce more accurate predictions than over reliance on an examination system. If the outcome of an IQ test has little direct effect on your career, it will accurately predict accomplishment. If you hand out nice jobs on the basis of an IQ test, considerably less so. If nice jobs are handed out on the basis of the test, the test is apt to become a marathon of rote memorization, which is what happened with the Chinese mandarinate exam. But for obvious reasons, emperors were unenthusiastic about handing out nice jobs on the basis of family accomplishment, for accomplished families are rivals.

Fertility in our civilization is of course massively dysgenic, because women are artificially placed in the workforce and education, with the most able women being most forcefully helicoptered into courses and jobs far beyond their ability.

As “Smart and Sexy” demonstrates, our mandarinate exam (the SAT and LSAT) has been jiggered to avoid selecting too heavily for ability. If, however, our mandarinate exam was fixed as proposed in “Smart and Sexy”, and if we had patriarchy, our civilization, like the Chinese, could avoid becoming a desolate wasteland of low IQ savages running through the woods with sharp sticks. And it would not be hard to make our mandarinate exam better than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam.

The Chinese communist party currently selects on test results, on family accomplishment, and on individual accomplishment. This is likely to give substantially better results than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam. Unfortunately they also are affirmative actioning women, probably for the same reasons we are, and this is producing significant dysgenesis in China.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty thought there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she has been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The reactionary program is fallen governance for a fallen world: Immanentizing the Eschaton is the progressive program, it is the opposite of the reactionary program. Whosoever claims that the truest and most pure reaction will Immanentize the Eschaton is a progressive entryist, like those telling Muslims that Islam is the religion of peace, therefore the truest Islam is something that is suspiciously progressive sounding, like those telling Christians that single mothers are heroes, and that they should adopt blacks from Saharan Africa.

“hello fellow white male hetero sexual reactionaries. My reaction is purer than your reaction. And yet at the same time we need to be acceptable to moderates in order to obtain the broadest possible outreach.”

Reaction deals with fallen men as they actually are – hence we want our ruling bandit to be a stationary bandit evil overlord, and view the primary problem with government as mobile banditry – that anonymous bureaucrats have, as Taleb says, no stake in the game. We are worried about the evil overlord’s incentives, and not much worried about whether he represents the people, and not much worried whether he is nice and virtuous. We want a good man for Archbishop, but someone mighty like Trump for President, President for Life, King, God King, and Holy American Emperor.

If Trump successfully does a Stalin or a Cromwell, freezes leftism at the current year, that will be great, for the full implementation of the reactionary program is likely to be through all out war, where cities get burned, likely by nuclear fire, women and children get massacred, and the winning side is the side most willing to do the most terrible things.

If he does a Sulla, and rolls leftism back to 1933 that will be even better.

If he rolls leftism back to the leftism of the founders, better still. Best of all if he gets crowned God Emperor of the New Holy American empire, does a Charles the Hammer and a Charles the Second and rolls things back to 1660, in which case we are likely to get one hundred and sixty years of reaction.

The worst case outcome however, and a very likely outcome, is long, bloody, and terrible civil war with our enemies masters of the state. Trump gets impeached, not long after that imprisoned, and not long after that he and his entire family is murdered like the Romanovs as civil war and white genocide begins. In which case we will have to whip up our own state in one hell of a hurry.

Everyone who practices with a gun on the gun range is on our side.
Most men who lift iron are on our side.
Most men who practice the seriously dangerous martial arts on our side.
The great majority of young white males are our side.
Deus Vult. God is on our side.

But as well as that, if our enemies have a state, we will need a state.

Whites are in line for hot genocide. Whites also have more capability for war than any other race. No other race, no other people, have ever shown anything close to the capacity for organized mass violence. Which means that to re-awaken our capability, we need organization and mass.

To re-awaken the sleeping warrior, reward him for victory personally and individually with land, women and power, as well as with land and power for his platoon, his company, and his regiment. He will be back.

Set the status of women back to what it was in eighteenth century England, or better, back to what it was in the Carolingian empire. He will be back.

If the state remains in the hands of people who wish to destroy us, we will have to build our own state, and the quickest way to whip up a state from nothing much is feudalism and freehold – the full reactionary program. Every company and every regiment needs to be largely responsible for its own logistics, and will need its own pool of camp followers, thus will need its own domain of state power.

It would be better if part of the existing state comes over to us, with its existing institutions, in which case we will get something considerably less than the full reactionary program, very likely will get a Cromwellian program. We are not in this to build utopia. Reaction is impure in its essence, being committed to doing the best we can in a regrettably fallen world. The Cromwellian program would be great. Whosoever signals reactionary purity, signals leftism. We are, however, in this to win. If we cannot win with the existing state, or a breakaway part of it, will have to win without, and the full reactionary program is fully optimized for power, war, and the regrettable necessity of dreadful deeds.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

"Although it seems you hate Islam for various ethno-nationalist-religious reasons, you obviously admire their commitment to patriarchy, theocracy, etc."

Yes. They are our enemies, but they get lots of stuff right that we get wrong.

"Given that a Christian revival is unlikely, should we root for Muslims to destroy Europe from within?"

Islam is the solution that we do not want. But, because of differential fertility, it is the solution we are likely to get.

I remarked elsewhere that if Islam kills our gays we lose sovereignty. We should protect our gays from Muslims and kill them ourselves.

Come the restoration, will decree a period of amnesia to allow gays to get back in the closet. Gays that come out of the closet will get the high jump. We will claim, truthfully enough, that there was something about the pre restoration environment that caused people to become gay, and pretend, half truthfully, that come the restoration, large numbers of gays turned straight.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[From "The reactionary program"]

Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.

Our current problems are the result of an excessively numerous priesthood overflowing and intruding on the activities more properly performed by merchants and warriors. Thus human resources disrupts the corporation, wars are overrun by lawyers, and the military is forced to pretend that women can be warriors. This excess of priests is a result of priestly dominance with open entry into the priesthood and the resulting overflow of people into the priesthood.

We plan to cut off open entry into the priesthood. The Marxist and progressive program is a rationale for the priesthood intruding into the affairs of merchants and warriors. It is full employment program for Academia. Hence the joke that LIA, Low Intensity War, actually stands Lawyer Infested War. Hence the cat ladies of Human Resources, and the transformation of accounting from tracking value and value creation, to talmudic generation and enforcement of obscure, obstructive, and incomprehensible rules. Today, accounting is not about tracking value when it is transferred from one entity to another, and measuring the creation of value, but rather what rituals one must perform if one wants to transfer value from one entity to another.

Lawyers (who tend to be the day to day ruling class even if academia sets doctrine long term) and writers like all the priestly professions overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

In a reactionary state, the state will enforce marriage, and end open entry into the priesthood. Military priests will be trained in military academies under the control of retired warriors. Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part and will be denied access to men who are not yet contributing to the state and society.

Women feel that a man who is single and lonely, especially in today’s world of open sexual market, is not fully a male of the human species. At best, he may be an animal with some horrid infectious disease of the skin to be pitied from a distance. But much more often they are just ignored or laughed at. No amount of ideology can override these hard wired settings in the female brain.

On the other hand, men see this in women and join the mocking and the laughter in order to signal that they’re definitely not that type.

Since women are hypergamous, the natural tendency is for there to be a very large number of young males in this hyperoppressed class.

Further, this incel class cuts across the reactionary classes (warrior, priest, merchant, and followers), since high status wealthy businessmen, merchant class, often do very badly with women, and people that we categorize as priestly class, high status males whose career requires strict political correctness, who are required to very politically correct, usually do very badly with women.

But if we look at successful past societies, they have generally taken extraordinarily drastic coercive measures to minimize this class of men, to overule female hypergamy.

While socialism in goods invariably fails catastrophically, in part because the priests run businesses to produce holiness, rather than value, drastic coercive intervention in the market for love and sex seems to be a basic requirement of civilization, without which civilizations fail. We need to ensure that every man who pays taxes and every man who fights for order tribe, society, King and God, gets pussy, which runs contrary to natural female inclination.

Marriage is a contract between the former owner of the bride, normally her father, and the new owner of the bride, normally her husband. Reproductive sex is an essential part of this contract.
Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.

Male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father. Women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male in authority over her. That is not the reactionary program. That is biological reality, manifesting in the disastrous consequences of attempting have female run corporations. Today, we don’t have equal women, we have feral women.

Late marriage west of the Hajnal line was, in the towns, linked to enforceable apprenticeship, up to about 1800 or so. A man was typically an apprentice till about twenty four or so, and it was ok to be lonely, despised, and mistreated, since upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, he would cease to be despised and mistreated, and would soon afterwards marry a virgin about four or so years younger than himself – who had been apprenticed to housewifery, to servant and housekeeping type tasks, or some traditionally feminine occupation, but who upon marriage would perform those tasks for her husband, or under the supervision of her husband. For women, apprenticeship was typically ended by marriage, for men, marriage typically followed not long after the completion of apprenticeship, at least in the towns, where work was formalized. In rural areas, work relationships and education were informal, so no connection between formal work, education, and getting married appears in the records for rural areas.

Apprenticeship was emasculating, but apprentices were expected learn from a manly role model who was working at producing value, and expected to become that man. Today, they are trained by priests who have no knowledge of the real world, and will not read old books, instead reading what other twenty first century academics say about old books that they have not read either.

The apprentice role was effeminate and emasculating, with the vows of apprenticeship and the restraints of apprenticeship resembling a wife’s marital vows, but it was intended to prepare them for life as a man, not to prevent them from becoming men, whereas modern priestly education aims at preventing men from becoming men.

In North America apprenticeship typically ended about three years earlier at twenty one, and people correspondingly got married earlier.

Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.

History shows that whoever tells you capitalism is a recent economic system intends to murder you. Notice that no one making this claim is prepared to argue it or defend it – they just frame it a way that presupposes it is indisputable fact that one doubts, that you agree that it is true. They will never argue on the basis of history, only try to project their frame on to you. Commies murdered a hundred million people, and commies told all of those people commies were on their side against evil capital.

The reactionary program is being met with efforts to frame it as if we agreed, as if everyone agreed, with progressive frame. Supposedly we want different rules for women because we hate women. Supposedly we want capitalism and security of property because we favor rule by the capitalist class. Supposedly we want families to be protected by society, Church, Sovereign, and God, because we hate women and want to beat our wives and children. Supposedly property rights are rule by capital, and did not exist for anyone except aristocrats until quite recently. Supposedly whites fled Detroit because they hate blacks, not because their houses were being burned down around their ears.

I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, capitalism and modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

As progressivism spirals to ever greater heights of madness, ever faster, there is bound to be a crack up – bound to be a Kemal Atatürk, a Cromwell if we are lucky or a Stalin if not quite as lucky, and, eventually, if we are brave, effective, prudent, and lucky, a Charles the Second.

Female emancipation never lasts, because peoples, tribes, cultures, states, and religions with emancipated females fail to reproduce. Pretty soon Japan will not have the Japanese. They either restore patriarchy, as the Japanese have done once before, or they will be conquered by manly patriarchs who enslave their women, as happened to the Chinese, or they just disappear and are replaced by outsiders. Peoples with emancipated women cannot fight very well, because they are short of young males, because involuntarily celibate young males prefer to hang out in mum’s basement, and because young males are reluctant to fight for family, society, sovereign and God, because they don’t have family. They are even more reluctant when society, official state religion, and the sovereign is hostile to them having sexual opportunity, and ejects husbands from their families. Why fight when you have no pussy to fight for, and when if you got married, would likely face a court order parting you from your children and denying you your assets. Our descendants will patriarchs, or we will be mighty short of grandchildren and we will be replaced by patriarchs.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Vox Day has been campaigning against evolution, arguing that like Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is fake science, demon worshiping religion dressed in the sacerdotal lab coats of science.

Vox is a great man, and I am a huge admirer of his. He had the courage, doubtless strengthened by his faith in God, to take on the enemy and show that the enemy can bleed. He should be an inspiration to all of us, and you would be wise to buy SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 1) I can report from personal experience that this is how you survive attack by social justice warriors. Long before this book was written, I dealt with weaponized sexual harassment complaints (directed against other men, not against me, even though I am the only male in any workplace I have ever been who actually does sexually harass women) in a fashion similar to that advised by this book, with the result that the complainant “resigned”, and I did not get fired.

But on evolution, Vox Day is full of crap, and it is getting in the way of his understanding of women, with the result that he is purple pilled, and his novels feature kick ass action girl who rescues lad in distress.

Yes, the evolutionism of Gould, Jerry Coyne, and Richard Lewontin is demon worship wearing lab coats as sacerdotal robes. But Darwinism is true. Species originate by natural selection. We became human through a thousand genocides. We are risen killer apes. Jerry Coyne theoretically does not go full Gould, but rejects the obvious implication of Darwinism that subsaharan Africans are substantially less distant from chimps than whites are distant from chimps. He kind of knows its true, but favors silencing anyone who mentions it, having his cake and eating it too.

It is impossible to understand the nature of women except from the point of view that humans and races of humans were formed by natural selection over an immensity of time. Believing in the curse of Eve gets you half way there, but one can theoretically believe in the curse of Eve and still be blue pilled. Natural selection explains the desire of women for invasion, conquest, and rape, while the Curse of Eve merely tells us that husbands should rule wives.

The origin of species by Natural selection, Darwinism, is true science.

“Evolution” is indeed fake science: – the doctrine that humans arose from non human forms without the inconveniently racist and sexist conclusions that flow from the idea that humans arose from lower forms by natural selection.

Hence my koan: A creationist, an evolutionist, and a Darwinist were walking in the woods

You will notice that in this koan the evolutionist is depicted as, like Global Warmers, unscientific, indeed hostile to science, and, like a gnostic, hostile to reality and the world.

Gnosticism is an anti human, and anti this world Christian heresy. Reaction worships Nature’s God, and to understand the will of Gnon, have to see men and women as they truly are, and one can only see them as they truly are if one accepts Darwinism. The red pill on woman only makes sense from the point of view of natural selection – that for women abduction and enslavement is an escape from prisoner’s dilemma, and that their resistance to rape, enslavement, and the authority of their husband is merely a fitness test.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

For a long time I have been urging the left to engage in dialogue with us. I complain that they will neither listen to us nor speak to us, and that this will end in war, and mass murder.

Well, suddenly they have started to talk at us, with leftist NPCs showing up on reactionary blogs and lecturing right wingers on twitter and facebook. Listening, not so much. Their stuff tends to be robotic and spammy. Attempting to interact with them is like talking to an NPC (Non Player Character) in a video game. To some extent they actually are NPCs – we are seeing stuff that looks as if generated by Google’s AI, and that AI programmed by people who has no understanding of, nor interest in, the ideas of the people he is supposedly addressing. Looks very like a hasty makeover of a similar operation and similar software directed against Muslims, with the major change in the software being a global search for Mohammed, and a global replace with Moldbug or Heartiste.

To some extent it seems to be actual humans who are mechanically following a script written for them by someone else, and who are not allowed to deviate from the script, which sooner or later results in them being endlessly repetitious, somewhat resembling a non player character in a video game, but more resembling one of those highly unhelpful telephone help systems, where one is talking to an actual human, but if your problem is not one of the very limited set of problems covered by the script that that human is required to follow, you are sol, and find yourself trapped in the same script over and over.

It is an improvement, a genuine attempt to get off the path leading to civil war. Not really an adequate attempt, since to the extent that it is actual humans, those humans are not permitted to show comprehension of the ideas that they are attempting to rebut, and crimestop genuinely prevents them from comprehending the ideas that they are attempting to rebut. In place of dialog being totally forbidden, we are getting the superficial appearance of dialog, but so severely supervised and tightly controlled that it is not genuine dialog.

They make their preprogrammed argument, you make the obvious and well known counterargument, which is not covered by the script, even though it was first made one hundred and seventy years ago, and they repeat their original preprogrammed argument, claiming to observe and to have experienced the reality that progressives are trying to wish into existence.

Show post
Jim #racist blog.jim.com

The American empire, aka anti American Empire, aka The international community, aka rule by rootless childless cosmopolitans with no future and no past, is in retreat.

Having lost Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Philippines, it just took another body blow in Australia.

A shark has to keep swimming, or it will drown, and the ever increasing holiness of the left has to keep knocking over new applecarts, or else there will be no apples rolling around for ambitious leftist to pick up.

They never stop; they only pause to re-group and change strategy. They can’t stop.

The Trump like Australian Prime minister Tony Abbot decisively stopped illegal immigration, (Zero illegal arrivals since 2014, yes, zero. You read that correctly. Zero.) and busted near every illegal visa overstay and violation of visa conditions, as near to all of them as makes no difference

Leftism had to start advancing in Australia on another front, on something other than white genocide. They dithered between expanding legal immigration as a slower route to white genocide, and smashing western civilization by rolling back the industrial revolution. And eventually coalesced on smashing western civilization, rolling back the industrial revolution.

Western civilization depends on concentrated and reliable energy sources, power on tap. Which means carbon or nuclear.

Nuclear was stopped primarily the way NASA was stopped, by putting stupid people in charge. It is not apparent that fusion power would be workable even with smart people in charge, but to be on the safe side, they put stupid people in charge of developing thermonuclear as well. The big vulnerability of nuclear power is not the imaginary evils of nuclear power (The long term effect of Chernobyl was the deaths of at most nine people outside the power plant outer fence) it is that you need smart people in charge of nuclear power. It is easy to disrupt cooperation between smart people by inserting stupid people.

The objective of the global warming scam is to stop carbon power, coal and oil.

And the left decided that was the front it would advance on in Australia was, instead of eradicating the white race. Expanding legal immigration had some success, but legal means that the numbers are known, and political pushback likely to be effective.

South Australia, and to a lesser extent Queensland, proceeded to smash their energy industries at the state level, but for any one Australian state to destroy its energy industry has limited effect if energy using businesses can flee to other states, and if energy can be imported through the grid from one state to another. For the policy to be effective, has to be federally implemented.

The Australian federal Prime minister bowed to pressure and introduced an “energy security” plan, which would have provided energy security the way that Lucy was going to hold the football for Charlie Brown. The real intent of the Global Warming scam was revealed in South Australia, where the South Australian state government did to South Australia what Obama did to flyover country.

With the “energy security plan” it became obvious that greenies would absolutely never accept any compromise that left Western high tech civilization viable, that any attempt compromise with greenies would end with a result that would do to the Australian economy what it damn near did to the South Australian economy.

...

The more stuff leftists knock over, the more loot for leftists, the more leftist activism you get. Conversely, when the expected gold rush fails to eventuate, you get loss of left wing morale and energy.

As leftism goes ever lefter, you have more people seeking holiness jobs, which means that ever larger apple carts have to be knocked over at ever shorter intervals. The shark cannot stop swimming, and will do whatever it takes to keep on swimming. And it is going to take measures that increasing collapse constitutional legitimacy and peaceful relations between nations, leading to internal war, external war, or both. Notice that when the color revolution in Libya failed, the state department turned spectacularly murderous and destructive, and that when the color revolution in Syria failed, it turned genocidal.

Expect, therefore, the unexpected. As the arc of history bends ever more to indiscriminate, destructive, and malicious evil, it encounters more resistance. One might expect that this will result in stability at some tolerable level of evil. This stabilization has never happened in the past and is unlikely to happen in the future. What happens instead is what we see happening in the US. The left escalates, drifting closer to war internal and external.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Splitting this into multiple submissions because it's long as fuck but all of it is fundie]

There is a lot of bad female behavior. It gets worse as they get older, but it starts very young indeed, typically around four years below fertile age, with a great deal of variance, much more variance than occurs in males.

People complain that when I notice sexual misbehavior in very young girls, that this is “bad optics”.

I say that there is severe and widespread female misconduct getting right in our faces, that we need to stop them, and that we need start stopping them very young.

People then claim I advocate raping little girls, and that this is “bad optics”.

I say that female consent is always unclear and ambiguous, and is usually foolish and given to very bad men with very bad consequences, and that therefore such decisions need to be made by the parent or guardian.

People then claim that I say that I should be allowed to have sex with other men’s children and they should not be allowed to stop me, even though that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.

Suppose someone genuinely fails to see women behaving badly. Then, if he disagrees with me, the natural response is

“No you are wrong, women are not behaving badly, they don’t need to be controlled”

But instead I hear

“horrible men need to be controlled and you are a horrible man, you rape other men’s daughters and seduce other men’s wives”

Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage. If one does not see what I see, if one does not see a great deal of very bad behavior, it makes neither logical nor emotional sense to accuse me of these absurd views. For someone to make these angry hostile denunciations is displacement of anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if female misbehavior is causing him anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if he sees what I see.

Blaming men for female misconduct is fear, weakness and white knighting. People say that speaking the truth about women is “bad optics”, but weakness is the worst optics. We are the strong horse.

I am indeed saying that women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, like sex, like rape, and rather like brutal rape. To conclude from this that I am arguing in favor of brutal rape, one has to attribute to me the white knight position that women should get what they want. But that is an implausible position to attribute to someone who is arguing that women want very bad things, wicked, foolish, and self destructive things, and who frequently says in the plainest possible words that women should not be allowed to get what they want. Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and needs to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.

When I talk about nine year old girls finding an older male to fuck them, I say “but she does not want to fuck someone like you – she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old motorcycle gang leader and drug dealer.” When a heavily tattooed drug dealer is my example of youthful female hypergamy in action it is unreasonable to attribute to me the argument “This is what little girls want, and therefore giving it to them should be fine.” What I say is that this is indeed what little girls want, and therefore they need to be whacked with a stick and in some cases shotgun married. We need to deal with this problem with domestic discipline and the threat of early shotgun marriage, not by doubling down on prohibitions against men, prohibitions that are only effective against respectable men, and thus wind up reinforcing the little girl’s feeling that bad men are higher status.

Attributing to me outrageous and absurd positions only makes emotional sense as emotional displacement, and emotional displacement only makes sense if a problem is hurting one badly, and one is powerless and afraid to do anything about it.

Blaming men for the behavior of women is weakness and fear, and smells to everyone like weakness and fear. When people see the strong horse and the weak horse, naturally they will prefer the strong horse.

There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face. That this epidemic starts at a very early age is just a small part of what people are refusing to see, and this small part is no different from the rest of it. Mostly what we see is bad female behavior in college and in the workplace, and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.

...

Now suppose instead the boss bulls his way through, and insists on talking about X, ignoring her gentle steering towards Y? Well, chances are that at first the interruptions become considerably less helpful, less respectful, less friendly and less supportive, more openly hostile and disruptive. But maybe, indeed very likely, her stiffening resistance will suddenly collapse, and she will accept the boss talking about X. In which case he has passed the shit test, and when he wins and when she capitulates to his verbal domination you will see her emit some subtle or not so subtle body language that signals that if he were to try some physical domination on her for size, maybe that might well go down similarly. Which was, of course the whole point of the exercise, the whole point of disrupting the bosses talk and attempting to silence him. The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. To reproduce successfully, men and women have to form stable families, which means that men have to conquer, and women have to surrender. She is provoking him to aggress against her, so that he can conquer her. She never actually cared one way or the other whether the boss talked about X or Y.

Now you might suppose you can stay out of trouble by always capitulating, by losing to every shit test, by white knighting. Accepting defeat, accepting the higher status of your adversary, works in a conflict with a fellow male. It fails catastrophically in a conflict with a woman. Male conflicts are resolved by establishing hierarchy. Female conflicts ae resolve by eliminating the losers. If you submit to male dominance, he would like to keep you around. If you submit to female dominance, she will casually destroy you. Men reproduce most successfully by ruling, females reproduce most successfully by being ruled, thus are maladapted to rule. White knighting fails.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Part 3/end, goddammit Jim]

At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.

What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.

The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.

So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.

The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. 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 yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.

I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.

For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.

Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.

Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles. So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.

Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.

These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Part 2 of the previous Jim quote]

To be more precise, white knighting fails as a strategy for men with women. It works as a cover for defecting on your fellow males. If one tells a woman one is supporting and protecting her, she will despise one. If one tells a man one is supporting and protecting his wife and his daughters, it will likely persuade him to refrain from killing one.

White knighting works as a sneaky fucker strategy for high status males. If a male is acting in a role that makes him higher status than you, as for example a preacher, he is in a good position to fuck your women. If, in that high status role, he preaches that women are higher status than himself, that is going to impair his chances. But if, in that role, he preaches that your women are pure and chaste (and therefore your women would never have sex with him)) and also preaches that women are higher status than you, that is going to improve his chances. “Domestic violence” laws are a white knight strategy targeting men who are low status in the male hierarchy but high status in female perception, because violent. People in authority are pissed that women like are criminals and men with no income, and so push “domestic violence””in an effort to undermine the authority of those men over their women, with the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of all men over all women. The correct way to reduce the propensity of women to hang out with stone broke criminals and ignore the guy with the corner office in the skyscraper is to support male authority over females, but only for males in good standing, as the Mormon Church does. Of course, that has the effect that people in authority don’t get to fuck the women of men in good standing, which is why this strategy is so frequently unpopular with men in authority.

Which is how we got into this mess. King George the fourth slept with the wives of aristocrats. His own wife slept around. He tried to divorce her, revealing himself as powerless and cuckolded. The power of Kings went away, and anglosphere fertility has been falling ever since, with a temporary recovery between first wave and second wave feminism. The elite go after each other’s women, lose social cohesion, and social disorder ensues.

Recollect my story about the first men inventing chastity and monogamy: The leader of the first men assigns one woman to each of his followers who is any use, and a dozen to himself. Noticing that some of that dozen are apt to be frisky, he issues a commandment that marriage is eternal. If a woman has sex with a man, she may only have sex with that one man all her days. Further, if a woman does have sex with another man, it is absolutely fine for her husband to kill her and/or that man, and the rest of the tribe should support him in that endeavor.

Time passes, and the leader of the first men is getting a bit frail. A new leader is rising, and this new leader has as yet only one woman. As his power an status rises, he notices other men’s women giving him the eye. The new leader announces that women are chaste and virtuous, and it is important to protect them. That works for him in the short run, but it is going to be bad for all the other men in the tribe.

I call them the first men, because they were smart enough to have laws and commandments, and likely smart enough to attribute those commandments to God, but looked like upright apes. It seems likely that they looked like upright apes, because women find male apes sexually attractive, while men do not find female apes sexually attractive, which indicates that in our evolutionary history, men have been exercising sexual choice, but women in the lines that we are descended from did not get to exercise sexual choice since the days we looked like apes. Which indicates that populations that allow female sexual choice die out, and explains the female propensity to make very bad sexual choices.

It is unlikely that males would have been able to coordinate well enough to prevent female sexual choice till smart enough to have laws and commandments (which is smarter than some present day peoples) so this implies a population with human intelligence and human social order but apelike appearance.

You cannot suppress female sexual choice except you have laws and commandments that prevent men from defecting on other men, from which I conclude that we are descended from a very long line of populations that had the law:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

in effect, that though entire peoples kept falling away from such laws, peoples that fall away from those laws disappear from history.

That females are severely maladapted to an environment of female sexual choice, while men can accurately assess female fertility at thirty paces in seven seconds tells me that we are descended from peoples that were pretty relaxed about male choice, while forcefully suppressing female choice, people who only restricted males from impinging on the other male’s property rights in female sexuality, and were otherwise fine with it being open season for male predation. So if we look back in history to the family law of a people that did survive, this is what we should see. Open go for male predation, except that other men’s wives and fiancees are very much off limits, death penalty for women who sleep with one man, then cheerfully sleep with another man while the first man still lives.

And this is in fact what we do see. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was … shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of a betrothed woman, was death. Which implies that if someone raped an unbetrothed woman, kept her around, fed her, looked after her, and she nonetheless sneaked off when he was not looking, the penalty was death, both for her and for whichever man she sneaked off to.

So who killed the offenders? The state, the temple, or the man whose property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capabilities were violated?

Show post
Jim #racist blog.jim.com

Sarah Jeong issued, over many years, an enormous pile of tweets expressing hatred of white people, and among those tweets a few expressing intent to murder all white people.

Naturally she was appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times.

Needless to say this appointment has been stoutly defended by every goodthinking leftist, though I see some white male leftists showing symptoms of mental breakdown, their mask of sanity slipping.

Interestingly, some conservative commentators have also rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, their arguments inevitably sliding into implicit advocacy of white genocide. What characteristic do all these conservatives have in common?

‘Tis a mystery. [Joke sarcasm tag removed for submission purposes]

“The Cathedral” accurately depicts our enemies as the centralized and authoritarian movement that they in fact are.

The puritan hypothesis depicts them as the pharisaical holier than thou religious fanatics that they are in fact are, which account is more concisely expressed as “Social Justice Warrior”.

All men are supposedly created equal. Observed inequality must, therefore, be the result of “hate”. Evil noticers are supposedly causing the underperformance that they notice. Thus, war on noticing. Since underperformance continues, the punishment of whites and males must be endlessly escalated. Endless escalation of punishment must eventually manifest as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I see white non Jewish social justice warriors getting crazier, as trapped in their own logic, they are reasoning their way to their own destruction. Jewish social justice warriors tend more to evil and less to madness, though, like Scott, male Jews are apt reason their way to self destruction to punish themselves for their maleness, while enthusiastically supporting the destruction of non Jewish whites without ensuing mental disorder. So male Jews tend to be driven to madness by their maleness, while non Jewish social justice warriors are driven to madness both by their maleness and by their whiteness.

...

The next big leftwing cause is killing all white people.

It is not like they appointed some fifty year old fat gay who recently emancipated his recently adopted nine year old boy child from toxic masculinity, which is what I was half expecting.

I am seeing a whole lot of schizophrenia among white progressives. They know this, and they do not know it. They support it, and they do not support it. Massive doublethink and split personality.

It is interesting how completely normal and mainstream the advocacy of white genocide feels. They are telling us that we must be hateful, evil, and crazy to disagree.

In the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case, it was obvious that those who supported Trayvon were advocating genocide, but they could plausibly deny it, deny it to themselves, because, after all, Zimmerman deliberately shot Trayvon through the heart when Trayvon attacked him, while Trayvon was merely indifferent as to whether he was endangering Zimmerman’s life by his attack on Zimmerman. Zimmerman aimed for the heart, and knew his shot was true.

But with everyone who defends and supports Sarah Jeong, there is no real ambiguity. They want to kill us all. If they are going to come up with some motte and bailey argument “we are not actually advocating white genocide, we are actually advocating …”, what is the motte? If they are not advocating white genocide, what are they advocating?

During the Trayvon case, I would point out to a Trayvon supporter that she (and it was usually a white woman) was advocating white genocide, in that though she was supposedly arguing that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, she was actually presenting arguments that Trayvon was right to attack Zimmerman. And often she would realize that she was arguing that, and respond “Well, yes, but Zimmerman could have solved the problem without lethal force” (The implicit assumption not being that white people need killing, but rather being that white people are not only expected to behave well, but use their super magic powers to prevent other races from behaving badly, and if other races behave badly, it is the fault of white males.)

OK, so what is the motte in the Sarah Jeong case? When you advocate the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining. When you support someone who advocates the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining.

Heartiste accurately analyzes those that hate us, and intend to exterminate us

Anti-White hatred is channeled through Trump, which explains why the rage against Trump is so unhinged.

Democracy is going to kill us all. People inevitably vote their tribe and their religion, which inevitably tends towards tribal warfare and holy war. The Democrats brought in hostile tribes for a vote bank, as the Populares allied with the Samnites against the Optimates. Of course the Samnites did not care about the differences between Populares and Optimates. They intended to level Rome and kill all Romans, Populares and Optimates both. And now the Democrats have a brown problem, as the Populares had a Samnite problem.

For us to survive, Democracy and the Constitution has got to go, and the Declaration of Independence needs to be taught in schools as treason against the King motivated by religious fanaticism. There is no middle course that ends with us alive. While the Jewish role in the promotion of genocide is obvious, they are simultaneously becoming irrelevant as their pets push them aside. Just as the Jewish question becomes more relevant, it renders itself irrelevant as the processes they set in motion escalate beyond their control. To focus unduly on the Jewish Question is too suppose that we can solve this problem while retaining Democracy, the Constitution, and the Declaration of independence. The Jewish role in advocacy of white genocide is obvious, but if you focus unduly on Jews, you think you can set things back to yesterday’s leftism, back to 1933 leftism. The course we are on was not set by Jews, but by the founders. If all men are created equal, then it follows that I must be causing the problems encountered by black military age Muslims in Subsaharan Africa, in which case they all are entitled to claim asylum and come here to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat, a conclusion that, however congenial to Jews and Democrats, logically follows from the Declaration of Independence. And even if we gassed every Jew, still a conclusion highly congenial to the representatives of fifty percent of the voters. We cannot afford the Declaration, and we cannot afford one man one vote, Jews or no Jews.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Evolution is on topic for reaction, for the nature of women makes sense and is explicable in terms of Darwinian evolution, in terms of evolutionary psychology. You can also explain it as the curse of Eve, but if you explain it as the curse of Eve, it is rather arbitrary. Why did God curse women that way, and not some other way? (Answer, because we are risen killer apes, not fallen angels.) And because women are cursed in this fashion we cannot trust them to make sexual and reproductive choices. Nor can we trust them to vote, for they are going to vote for invasion, conquest, and the extermination of their menfolk.

...

Vox Day’s advice on handling women is not very good. It may well have been adversely affected by his reluctance to believe in evolution. Similarly, his faith in the sexless character of females under eighteen.

While I am delighted that #metoo is devouring those who funded it and sponsored it I know perfectly well that every notable #metoo allegation is a malicious lie, for the targets are always the men whom women very much want, wealthy and powerful men, and the accusers are mostly washed up narcissistic whores that men no longer want – the accusations are directed against those men who are most likely to be sexually contacted by women in a sexually aggressive manner, and the accusations come from those women who are most apt to sexually contact men in a sexually aggressive manner.

While we should never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake, and should enthusiastically cheer our enemies as they devour each other, Vox Day is a blue pilled sucker for failing to identify vicious lying whores as vicious lying whores. Weinstein and company deserve what they are going to get – but they deserve it for sponsoring the movement that is now devouring them. Similarly, when Stalin sent those who set up death camps to their own death camps for “objective fascism”, it was a good thing that they were sent to their own death camps, but one should not be persuaded that they were actually were objectively fascists. And it will be a good thing if Weinstein and company are convicted of rape, but they are no more rapists than Trots were fascists, and if Vox Day thinks they are guilty, he is ignorant of the nature of women, to which ignorance his rejection of evolution has likely contributed.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The reactionary position is that leftism was evil, absurd, and mad in 1820, has been getting more evil, more absurd, and more mad, ever since, and the Restorationist program is that we need to be ruled by Kings.

The central insight of Moldbug was to look at anglosphere movement left starting the clock with the overthrow of Charles the First, rather than starting with the Nazis.

Nazis were and are leftists, just leftists who have been left behind by ninety years of movement further left, so if you start the clock at Nazism, the trend is less obvious, and less obviously headed towards catastrophe, mass murder, and social collapse. Hitler was weak on the women question, turning the clock back to early Weimar or moderate Weimar, rather than pre Weimar, while America and Hollywood from 1939 to 1963, after first wave anglosphere feminism and before second wave anglosphere feminism, was far to the right of Hitler, and far more red pilled that Hitler, whose beta orbiter propensities were notorious. Thus, for example, in the immensely popular show “I love Lucy”, it is frequently implied that Lucy is going to be spanked for her many amusing misdeeds, that domestic discipline is a normal part of a normal and healthy marriage. The plotline of an “I Love Lucy” episode is that Lucy is a naughty girl, who does something naughty, which always turns out badly, implying that women need rule by husbands to keep them from getting into trouble.

If, however, you start the clock at Charles the First, the trend line is clear. Puritans are holier than thou, and Social Justice Warriors are holier than thou. Puritans make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas, and Social Justice Warriors make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas.

The restoration of Charles the Second in 1660 rolls them back and keeps them back for one hundred and sixty years in England. Hence our program of the Restoration.

The left has continuity of organization, personnel, and institutions all the way from the Puritans. Harvard was their theological headquarters, their Rome, once exiled from England by Charles the second. The American Revolution was a bad thing, and the founders were bad people, because it gave the Puritans control of a large part of America, and the War of Northern Aggression a worse thing, the Puritans conquering those states whose state religion was different from their own to impose a single unified state religion, headquartered in Harvard, on all of the United States. The War of Northern Aggression was not fought to make slaves free, nor to impose tariffs on the South, but to erase the Episcopalianism of Charles the Second and to capture the schools and universities for Harvard.

Progressivism is not Judaism, but is Christianity, a Christianity that first became holier than thou, then holier than Jesus, and is now holier than God. The founding fathers were Deists because they were holier than Jesus, and the progressives are holier than God. If you endorse the founding fathers, you endorse leftism. If all men are created equal then our civilization is going to be erased from history, and white people are going to be ethnically cleansed. If all men are created equal, it is totally unfair that not everyone in the world is free to move to America, vote in American elections, and get their share of my stuff. The failure of the founding fathers to torture each other to death for insufficient leftism was an unprincipled exception, and every unprincipled exception gets rolled back by those even more holy.

...

If you blame men for the misconduct of women, you endorse leftism. Women need to be under male authority in order to flourish and form families, and males need authority over their families to flourish and form families. Women should remain under the authority of their fathers till transferred to the authority of their husbands. If state and society fails to back legitimate male authority over females, you get defect/defect equilibrium, and everyone, male and female, finds it difficult to form families and have children. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium is inconsistent with moment to moment consent to sex. In order to reproduce, men and women have to agree to stick it out for richer for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, which means that people should be incapable of making sense of the self contradictory thought and phrase “marital rape” – it should be inexpressible and unthinkable.

...

This is the restoration that we talk about. We want Trump or some general to do a Deng, to do a Charles the Second. We need democracy to end so that the mess can be put right. George the Third was on the right side, continuing the sane, sensible, and successful program of Charles the Second. The founding fathers were on the wrong side. Charles the second was Deng Xiaoping. Locke and Jefferson were Trotsky and Lenin, knocking over the apple cart to grab some of the apples.

Things go wrong in England with increasing unwillingness to discipline upper class wives. George the fourth screws the wives of aristocrats, while his wife cuckolds him. In 1820 He attempts to divorce his wife, in the process revealing that he is massively cuckolded, and becomes a figure of ridicule. His divorce is denied, because women are supposedly naturally so pure and virtuous that they can only do bad things because bad men make them do those bad things. The power of Kings ends when George the fourth goes massively public with how badly he has been cuckolded, instead of locking his wife in the tower. When George the Third told Pitt to take a long walk off a short pier, that showed Kings in charge. When the adulterous George the fourth could not divorce his flagrantly adulterous wife, that showed kings absurd.

Immediately British fertility starts falling, and has continue to fall to the present day, because if women are saints, they should rule men. Hence the current condition of marriage.

...

The whore Florence nightingale was made into a hero. Camp followers were deemed to be actual soldiers and put in uniform, with the inevitable consequence that proportion of actual soldiers in the military has been falling ever since. The British army, which has about two hundred generals, can now today field only about two hundred actual fighting men.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.

But others have been making more sophisticated arguments, which arguments deserve to be promoted into a post.

Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders, which requires the Christian program of peace with outsiders, which is apt to result in the hyper Christian holier than Jesus program of surrender to outsiders.

Obviously the Libertarian Party promotes free markets, and also promotes poz that will at best result in whites being ethnically cleansed out of America, and males being spiritually castrated, and at worst could result in whites being physically genocided and males being physically castrated. This started with the nineteenth century English prime minister Gladstone building a coalition between economists and the hyperpuritan leftist evangelicals, which was swiftly devoured by the left, and ever since then libertarians have been trying to revive that coalition by accepting ever greater levels of ever more suicidal poz and ever more emasculating poz.

So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz, manifest in the logic of trade, manifest in the holiness spiral of Christianity, manifest in Gladstone and manifest in the Libertarian party.

(But not however manifest in capitalists selling wedding cakes to gays, nor in capitalists selling mortgages to cat-eating illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets. Obviously making marriage gay reduces marriage, does not increase it, obviously gays do not get married except to humiliate Christians and prevent straights from getting and staying married, and obviously selling mortgages to cat-eating unemployed illegal immigrants loses money. Obviously very few non Asian minorities can successfully handle a substantial mortgage, thus attempts to provide a substantial number of non Asian minorities with substantial mortgages inevitably and entirely predictably blew up in the loss of a trillion dollars. Whiteness predicts loan repayment better than credit history, except for the longest and most stringent credit histories. Even Asian nonwhites have substantially higher levels of credit scam for the same level of credit history, and non Asian non whites are all scammers, as near to all of them as makes no difference, just as all female CEOs and board members blow up the company as if it was a marriage to a beta male. If a non Asian nonwhite repaid a mortgage, it is solely because he flipped the house for a profit, and the real estate agent had to take the back payments on the mortgage out of the sale, in order to deliver a clean deed to the buyer. If he had a clean credit history before he took the mortgage, it was faked up. All women are like that, and all non asian minorities are like that.)

Carlylean Restorationist argues

Are you happy with Poz so long as there’s a free market liberated from central planners?

I’m sorry but I’m just not, at all. I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin not because I love five year plans, Soviets deciding what brands of breakfast cereal will be on the shelves (if any) and tanks on every corner.
I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin than 2018 Berlin because 2018 Berlin’s violent, rapey and full of filth, while 1988 Berlin isn’t.
I’d feel safer, more at home, in the 1988 version of Berlin.

(I use Berlin rather than London not because of any preference for it – quite the opposite in fact. The reason is that 1988 Berlin had the worst kind of economic policy imaginable to one of our mindset. The thing is, in spite of that policy – or (red pill) because of it – it doesn’t suffer from what 2018 Berlin suffers from under global relatively free trade.)

Well yes, but the brown face of the Democratic party, like Venezuela, has close to the worst economic policy imaginable, and also at the same time has poz at ethnic cleansing levels, in that the whiteish minority is being driven out of Venezuela Kristallnacht style.

Eighteenth century England had reasonably sound economic policy, and also far less poz than any twentieth or twenty first century society.

So, if we compare 1988 Berlin with 2018 Berlin, or with the suicidal ethnomasochist globohomo policy of the Libertarian party, looks like a strong connection between sound economics, and suicidal poz.

If we compare eighteenth century England, with Gladstone’s England, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, and seriously damaging levels of poz. Gladstone began today’s attack on the family, began the replacement of marriage with child support, and turned the British empire into the anti British empire, foreshadowing today’s anti American “International Community” empire.

If we compare the Libertarian Party with almost anyone, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, suicidal ethnomasochism, and globohomo self castration.

On the other hand, if we compare Trump’s America with Venezuela, or Trump with the brown face of the Democratic Party, or eighteenth century England with almost anywhere, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, free markets, and lack of poz. The libertarians attack Trump for insufficient capitalism, and insufficient poz, while the brown Democrats attack him for excessive capitalism, and insufficient poz.

The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy. I read that the “lavish lifestyles” of the nobility were harshly curtailed, and I also read that famine followed so it would seem that the lavish lifestyles of the serfs were also harshly curtailed. Which only makes sense if leftism did exactly what it always does: Knock over the apple cart to grab the apples. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster for almost everyone in agriculture, particularly the serfs. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster from day one, and steadily got worse and worse all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks, because the emancipation was accompanied by the introduction of collective land ownership. The correct solution was to emancipate serfs without land, converting them into agricultural laborers, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers. But the left was already campaigning vehemently against emancipation, and had it been done that way Alexander would have gone down in Whig history as worse than Vlad the impaler. So in Czarist Russia we see a connection between unsound economic policy, and poz leading to suicidal poz. Bad economic policy, in the form of collective land ownership, led to more poz, which eventually led to a disproportionately Jewish communist party taking charge. (Albeit Stalin continued bad economic policy while massively reducing poz.)

So yes, there is a connection between sound economic policy and ethnomasochistic rule by globohomos, since sound economics favors peace with outsiders, and favoring peace with outsiders is apt to blur into favoring surrender to hostile outsiders.

But Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Leftists have a word “entryism”, which they use when privately talking amongst themselves. They never plainly state what entryism is, but if you are part of the in group, it becomes obvious that they are talking in code. If the chans got hold of some emails about “entryism”, would probably interpret it as referring to satanic rituals involving sex with children.

I don’t know what “pizza” means in the pizzagate emails, other than that it obviously does not mean pizza, but I know what entryism means:

Identify a respected institution.
kill it.
gut it.
wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect

Since outsiders have never heard the word “entryism” used, they invented their own word for this: “Barnacling”

Science died with peer review, and is now a skin suit worn by a demon. As social justice warriors moved into technology companies, the same has happened with technology. If you are a gamer, you will have noticed that you no longer need new hardware every year. If you are a fan of self driving cars, you will have noticed that they can self drive just fine 99.99% of the time, which is 0.01% less than is useful, and that impressive as this is, it is not getting any better, nor is it likely to get any better. Similarly, Google Translate was a gigantic achievement, but no real progress has been made in automatic translation since Google went social justice, quite a long time ago.

Musk is a serial scammer, always hyping technology that does not exist and that he has no real intention of producing, but his reusable booster was a real technological achievement. It was, of course, produced by male geeks, and now that the eye of Soros has fallen upon them, they are finding their job redefined from producing a reusable earth to orbit rocket, Musk’s proposed, and genuinely intended BFR, to proving that black muslim women produced all technology, and whites stole it from them. Musk’s electric cars and solar city are scams, which could have only produced a profit through Hillary’s crony capitalism, but he really did intend the BFR, the re-usable earth to orbit and back again rocket. Reading between the lines, I feel him giving up hope for it now, which is going to destroy the lives and careers of a horde of really great rocket scientists. If no BFR, there is not much for them to do now. Their careers are going through the same dead end arc as a Fortran engineer’s, or a nuclear engineer’s or a climate scientist who tells peer reviewers what he actually observed, instead of observing what they tell him he observed.

The term “Barnacling” was coined in reference to the Social Justice takeover and destruction of the Star Wars mythos and intellectual property, but I have seen the same thing happen to various open source projects that adopted a contributor code of conduct. Instead of the objective being to produce good software to serve some valuable purpose, the objective becomes giving black women STEM credits, and the project suffers bitrot and technical debt. The creators are, sooner or later, accused of mansplaining, sexual harassment, rape and racism, they become radioactive and permanently unemployable. And without them, the project mysteriously languishes while being used to adorn the resumes of progressives who do not know what a dongle or a fork is.

If you adopt Github’s community code of conduct, your STEM career is going to die, because you are giving people who hate you and everything you stand for, who hate your race, hate your sex, and hate the entire civilization that your ancestors created, the tools with which to destroy your life.

If you have heard leftists talk about entryism (and you will have only heard them talking about it if they are confident you are a fellow leftist) it swiftly becomes obvious that they are talking in code about something that gives them great pleasure. You might suppose that the code is code for satanic rituals and diddling little boys, which is probably how the chans would interpret it, but they are talking about something more fun that that: They are talking in code about destroying the lives of people that they hate. And they hate you, and they hate everything you represent.

Stealing from the best, here is a detailed description of how social justice warriors destroy games and movies:

SJW CRITICISM – The intellectual property is criticized by SJWs for being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and a smattering of other things.
Intellectual property IS ABOUT TO UNDERGO REBOOT – or reimagining, or remake, or whatever term is fashionable at the time.
THE BARNACLING – SJWs barnacle themselves to the intellectual property both within its production and without in the fan base, and start lecturing long time fans.
FAN CRITICISM – Long time fans of the intellectual property voice legitimate criticism of the new direction.
SJW RESPONSE TO FAN CRITICISM – A large fan backlash is created when SJWs both within and without the production falsely accuse critics of being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic etc.
DISMISSING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces declaring the backlash doesn’t exist.
IGNORING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces instructing others to ignore the “tiny vocal minority.
SUPPRESSING THE BACKLASH – Blogs and websites delete or otherwise “redact” critical comments and posts in discussion forums under the aegis of “hate speech.”
BACKLASH INTENSIFIES – As an inevitable side effect of suppression, backlashers seek out other venues to express their criticism, and some publish their own, growing the backlash exponentially.
HATE HOAXES & FALSE FLAGS – The rank and file SJW activists get heavily involved in shouting down critics, and creating false flags and hate hoaxes in an effort to discredit critics.
Intellectual property FAILURES – The intellectual property starts to falter as fans drift away and sales plummet.
THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS – A female member of the production (it could also be a gay man) is granted victim status over a fishy event in order to deflect from the failures of the intellectual property, and shame critics into silence.
DESPERATE PLEAS FOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT – “White Knights” in the media call for creative authorities to smack down the backlash and restore control of the narrative in response to The Damsel In Distress event. Media publishes multiple articles with the same talking points and buzzwords such as “toxic” in an effort to mischaracterize the fan base. Major news outlets report on the story, and quote these “think” pieces as authoritative.
ANSWERING THE CALL – Celebrities and creative cast & crew answer the media’s call, and make public statements admonishing critical fans, typically over false accusations.
THE FINAL PUSH – Media entities, and rank and file SJWs tell long time fans to go find something else if they don’t like it anymore, in a last ditch effort to push critics out of the “community” once and for all.
Intellectual property BLEEDING – The intellectual property continues to hemorrhage money, as long time fans continue to abandon the intellectual property in droves.
FANBASE OBLITERATION – The fanbase is utterly destroyed, leaving behind only the small handful of SJWs who don’t make any purchases.
THE END – The new incarnation of the intellectual property comes to an end. Since the majority of the fan base has abandoned it, there’s no more controversy or discussion about it. It’s over. The best case scenario is that the original intellectual property is largely forgotten with the exception of a few die-hards who still carry the torch. The worst case scenario is that the new incarnation of the intellectual property overwrites the original intellectual property, and the original intellectual property is forgotten altogether and overshadowed by the new incarnation in all future media mentions.
MIGRATION – The remaining SJWs jump ship to devour a new intellectual property that is popular, and undergoing a transitional phase.
REBIRTH – The process begins anew.

If you are working in tech or science, as for example Musk’s rocket, expect the same, though with far less reporting by major newsmedia. I have seen the same at Google and at projects that adopted a community code of conduct, and reading between the lines of Musk’s tech announcements, I can feel his reusable earth to orbit rocket fading from a real project that would create income, purpose, dignity, and status for a great many rocket scientists, to yet another of his many tech scams. (As, for example, his self driving car: When Musk decided to produce a self driving car without lidar, it was obvious he had given up on the possibility of producing an actual self driving car.) Today, only a scammer can produce science and technology, because you have lie to social justice warriors, and scammers are apt to scam all sides, scamming those who have high hopes for science and technology, and scamming those who hope to have income, purpose, and dignity in creating it. Trump is the only notable scammer who seems to be genuinely on our side.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Kathy Forth offed herself, leaving a lengthy suicide note in which she accused numerous men of sexually harassing her, and the entire society of ignoring this terrible sexual harassment, thereby driving her to suicide.

Fat, pushing forty, and supposedly suffers unbearable amounts of sexual assault.

Back when she was hot, the amount of sexual assault she suffered was entirely bearable.

All women love drama, all women create drama, and all women create drama because they are looking for a spanking from a strong man. All women are like that. Childlessness and the lack of a strong man in their lives greatly worsens this problem.

Not all women make false accusations of sexual harassment, not all women kill themselves, but all disruptively create drama and problems: The ones not under the authority of an alpha male, and the ones that have remained childless while their fertility is running out, create more disruption, more drama, and more problems.

They are all cruising for a spanking, every single one.

All the sides in this debate that are permitted within the Overton Window are the same insane side. Scott is evil, depraved, decadent, and insane, #metoo is even more evil and more insane, and the fat old cat lady who offed herself was ridiculous, hilarious, evil, sinful and insane, her over the top evil, and her over the top vanity being hilariously funny to any sane person. Any remotely sane person commenting on that reddit thread gets instabanned. Anyone who manages to post twice on that thread is evil or insane, and most likely both. That thread is a conversation in the lunatic asylum.

Every woman lusts for drama. Fat, and pushing forty, people were ignoring her: Men were ignoring her. So she decided to go out in a blaze of glory, the ultimate “Hey look at me” opera, a gigantic soap opera of martyrdom.

Kathy Forth was evil and spent her life ruining other people’s lives out of depraved, foolish, and ridiculous sexual lust.

It is normal, and indeed universal, for childless unowned women who are fertile age, or not very long past fertile age, to destructively and self destructively destroy their social and organizational environment, burn the family assets, disrupt the business, divorce, etc. Kathy took this to extremes.

All Women Are Like That. Kathy more than others.

When a woman creates drama she is unconsciously, and in Kathy’s case quite consciously, hoping to smoke the alpha male out of hiding so that he will take possession of her and give her a spanking. She flat out tells us in her suicide note. In her suicide note she tells of her fantasies for powerful alpha male to take possession of her, to own her, to command her, supposedly in order to protect her from all this supposedly terrible sexual harassment.

This is what female lust looks like. It is not genitally focused like male lust, but that does not make it better, it makes it worse. Much worse.

During her fertile years, a lustful woman is not funny. Past fertile age, a lustful childless woman is hilarious.

Not every woman makes false rape and false sexual harassment allegations, but every woman acts disruptively, every unowned fertile age woman acts more disruptively and causes great damage, childless unowned women even more so, and childless unowned women continue doing so well past fertile age, while women with children calm down as their fertile period ends, particularly women who have previously experienced the firm hand of the father of their children.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

A hundred years ago the Czar and his family were murdered, which murder foreshadowed and led to the murder of huge numbers of ordinary people.

Progressives, including supposedly very moderate centrist progressives, made, and continue to make all sorts of myths justifying and rationalizing the murder, revealing their intent to do it all over again.

Myth: The Czar was brutal and oppressive, but the soldiers refused to fire on the revolting masses, so he was overthrown, and thus the communists, representing the masses to power.

Reality: The Czar was a cucked progressive. He had Lenin and Stalin his hands, guilty of all sorts of crimes that gave him grounds for execution or indefinite imprisonment, but let them off because letists are holier than thou. There were no revolting masses, just a series of coups made in the name of the revolting masses, and such riots and looting as occurred, occurred Ferguson style – the police were ordered to stand back and let the mobs loot stuff and smash stuff.

The February revolution was no revolution – rather the elite allowed the mobs to knock over a few breweries, to provide an excuse for them seizing power from the Czar while he was away at the front.

The communists did not overthrow the Czar. The Kadets overthrew the Czar. Then Kerensky overthrew the Kadets with a policy of no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, which meant he disarmed the military officers, and armed the communists. Then the communists overthrew Kerensky. The leftism of the Czar led to his overthrow by the even lefter Kadets, the indecisive leftism of the Kadets led to their overthrow by Kerensky, and the radical leftism of Kerensky led to his overthrow by the even lefter communists, who then murdered the Czar, and millions of peasants, until the madness ended with them murdering each other.

What happened to Russia was leftism leading to more leftism.

Progressives agree that serfdom was absolutely horrid, and perhaps it was. If it was horrid, the solution should have been to free the serfs and leave the land with the lords. Or perhaps give some of the land to the more competent, successful, and wealthy serfs. But this solution was considered unthinkably horrible and inconceivably reactionary, which implicitly acknowledged that most serfs were not ready to run their own lives. What progressives wanted was the serfs freed with the land. But quite obviously, most serfs were incompetent to operate a small farm. So progressives wanted them to operate the land collectively. But if one man trying to run a small farm is hard, one hundred men trying to run a large farm is considerably harder.

So, Alexander the liberator freed them with collective ownership of the land. Which was predictably a disaster. And there was thereafter a succession of ever lefter government measures to try to deal with the problem, each of which made the problem worse. Russian agriculture still has not recovered. By freeing the serfs and giving them the land collectively, but not individually, Alexander the liberator set in motion a slide ever leftwards that continued steadily all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks.

The liberation of the serfs with collective ownership of the land created a crisis, for which the solution was always more leftism, which led to more crisis. This created an expectation that the way to power was to be lefter than thou. The Czar’s generals and bureaucrats outflanked him on the left. Kerensky’s socialists outflanked them on the left, and the Communists outflanked Kerensky on the left. Then the communists proceeded to outflank each other, till Stalin put a stop to that.

If at any time any of Alexander the Liberator’s successors had been so horribly repressive as to demonstrate that lefter than thou was a seriously bad career move, as Stalin belatedly demonstrated, the slide leftwards would have halted and stayed halted. But instead the Czars allowed to the progressives to guilt them into doing whatever the progs demanded, which merely excited progressive bloodlust.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Entropy is always increasing. A fully disordered society is illustrated by wild animals and primitive peoples such as the Tasmanian aboriginals, where all other creatures except for close kin are enemies, obstacles or sources of raw materials – Hobbes state of war. So if you look back in history, you can always see entropic processes, bringing us back towards that condition.

So, how come ordered societies exist, how come surviving and prosperous societies are generally at least somewhat orderly?

You cannot make something clean without making something else dirty, but you can make any amount of stuff dirty without making anything clean. Order for the ingroup always comes at the expense of someone else: Thus, for example, chastity and monogamy requires men hitting badly behaved women with a stick. (Dalrock banned me for pointing this out.) Thus, for example, in Africa we saw societies that herded cattle and planted crops had to enslave, or kill and eat, vagrants that were apt to hunt other people’s cattle and gather from other people’s gardens. The shift from hunting and gathering to herding and gardening involved extended cooperation – and a fair bit of brutality to hunters and gatherers.

As birds are born to fly, humans are born to cooperate. That is our key capability. Our telos is various forms of cooperation, as the heart’s telos is to circulate blood. The whites of our eyes are white, so that other people can see what we are looking at. We are vulnerable to choking, because our throat is optimized towards making a wider variety of distinct sounds than other animals. We have a more muscles in our face than other animals, so that we can unfalsifiably communicate our emotional state, just as every feature of a bird’s anatomy is optimized for low weight and high metabolic output. This cooperation manifested as tribes cooperating to kill other tribes and capture their women. Order consists of extended cooperation. Because entropy naturally tends to increase, because there are a near infinity of ways for society to be disordered, but only a small number of ways for it to be ordered, maintaining order requires a fair bit of ruthlessness towards disorderly people and towards outgroups whose cooperation is unlikely. Gays undermine male solidarity. David’s mighty men could cohere because David could love Jonathan. David could love Jonathan because gays were put to death. Peoples who have gay parades do not win wars.

The ten commandments consist of four commandments concerning man’s relationship to God, five commandments that had the effect of ensuring that congregation of the Lord operated on a cooperate cooperate basis, and the final commandment, the tenth commandment, prohibited coming up with clever rationales for undermining, subverting, and re-interpreting those five.

The four commandments that facilitate cooperation are:
Exodus 20:

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

The rule on honoring thy parents and committing adultery secured ownership of family, thus cooperation within the family. The rules against killing, stealing, and false witness enabled economic cooperation on the basis of property rights and the market economy.

And the final commandment:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

prohibits people from concocting ingenious theories as to why someone else’s property or wife is rightfully their own – forbids the entire ideology and program of Social Justice.

Compliance to the four commandments concerning God made fellow members of the congregation readily identifiable, and by complying with these four commandments, for which compliance was as visible as possible, one gave other members of the congregation reason to believe one would comply with the other five commandments, for which compliance was less visible, and thus reason to believe that cooperation with people who complied with the first four would be reciprocated and rewarded by cooperation, resulting in cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Social Justice Warriors have turned the tenth commandment on its head, making envy and covetousness a sacrament. This explains their chronic failure to cooperate, explains why rallies to save the earth leave a snail trail of trash behind them. Social Justice declares that what people have is “privilege” and should be taken away from them. Which creates a society in which people have no reason to have wealth or family.

A religion is a synthetic tribe. If the priesthood has power and status, and also has open entry into the priesthood, one gets holiness spirals – as for example priestly celibacy. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium, giving every man his due, makes all good members of the religion equal in holiness though unequal in property and power, thus a holiness spiral is going to redefine holiness away from forms that promote cooperation. The tribal religion has to reward exceptional and unusual holiness with honor, but not power and wealth. Send saints to live in a hermitage with spartan living conditions on a remote island as far from the capital as possible, where they can demonstrate superior holiness without subverting and undermining social order. On the one hand, to encourage good behavior, the society must honor supererogatory holiness. On the other hand preaching superogatory holiness always threatens to redefine holiness in ways that undermine order, making holiness a force of disorder instead of order.

...

Starbucks hates its customers, and LucasFilm hates its customers, which subverts cooperation on the basis of exchange. While practicing supererogation should be honored, preaching it needs to be forcefully suppressed. People who preach supererogation should not be martyred, which might increase their status, but rather treated like a stray dog that chases chickens – punished in ways that lower their status.

...

If the Sovereign is forced to punish someone who preaches supererogatory holiness in a way that might potentially increase their status (and Charles the second was forced to burn one conspicuously and irritatingly holy nonconformist woman at the stake) the Sovereign should lock the body in a mortuary for three days, and on the third day ironically check the body to see if they have risen from the dead. But it is as dangerous to martyr those who preach supererogatory holiness, as it is to tolerate them. The Sovereign must always strike at primarily at their status, as Russia dealt with Pussy Riot and European University.

While entropy always increases, it is always possible to locally reduce entropy, usually at the expense of someone else less effective and successful at extended cooperation (as, for example, women, pussy riot, gays, or hunter gatherer outgroups).

The highest and best example of this is western civilization, which is anglo civilization, which is the restoration of Charles the Second. The restoration gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, industrialization, and world empire, which represent the highest level of extended cooperation ever achieved.

The restoration cured the disorderly tendencies of the protestant holiness spiral by putting priests under bishops, and bishops under the King. Which was the imposition of order, at the expense of “non conformists” – whose very name implies their disorderly tendencies. “Non conformists” were priests, professors, judges, and suchlike who were disinclined to accept this hierarchy, on the grounds that the King at the top was conspicuously lacking in holiness. We need to do something similar with our university system, as well as radically reducing its size and the amount of time it sucks out of people’s lives – we need to do Charles the Second’s Bishops, and Henry the Eighth’s dissolution of the monasteries.

Universities have always had as their primary job inculcating people in the official religion, and giving people cultural and scientific knowledge has always been merely their secondary job. Lately, their secondary job has largely been abandoned. It used to be that giving people job skills was entirely irrelevant, since this was done by enforceable apprenticeship.

We shall restore the enforceable apprenticeship system and divest universities of the task of giving people job skills, in the process divesting them of the power to accredit people to jobs. We shall give considerably higher, but still secondary, priority to the task of giving people cultural and scientific knowledge, and change the official religion to make it saner, by erasing all doctrines that are potentially falsifiable by the realities of this world. Members of the elite will still be required to adhere to the official religion, as they are now, but the task of checking adherence will not be outsourced to the universities. Instead, people in state jobs and quasi statal jobs will be required to recite a catechism and take an oath.

Contrary to the myth about the plymouth rock puritans, that early puritans supposedly filled the North American continent, where we have genealogies, puritans are descended from those who left restoration England to establish their own dissident theocracy, not from the pre english civil war wave of migrants fleeing Charles the first, but from the post civil war wave of “noncomformist” migrants fleeing the restoration, fleeing Charles the Second and subsequent Kings. The first wave, the pre civil war wave, left very few direct descendants.

Restoration England was successful at elite eugenic reproduction, because women were kept under control, and cured the disorderly propensities of the protestant reformation by keeping “non conformists” under control, thereby enabling the extended cooperation that made science and industry possible. Immediately after the restoration, we see Ayn Rand’s heroic archetype appear, the scientist engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make that technology widely available. Often these were people who before the restoration had competed for superior holiness, (analogous to Musk’s subsidized and money burning tesla, solar panels, and solar batteries), but after the restoration competed for creating technology to produce value (analogous to Musk’s reusable booster rocket.) This form of order was made possible at the expense of “non conformists”, such as the excessively holy woman that Charles the Second burned at the stake.

In order for society to have cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, the science, industry, and technology that we see promoted by the corporate form, in order to promote cooperation with cooperators, the sovereign must promote defection on defectors. One such defector being a holy woman conspicuously holier than Charles the Second. Charles the second successfully redirected status competition from unproductive channels into productive channels, as for example members of the Royal Society gaining status by discovering truth and speaking truth, while previously puritans had gained power and status by having a Christianity that was purer than the other man’s Christianity. You will notice that Putin dealt with Pussy Riot’s weaponized supererogatory holiness preaching in a way that deliberately maximized disorder – maximized outgroup disorder in order to sustain ingroup order. That is the way to do it.

The restoration created a society that had the greatest cooperate/cooperate equilibrium ever, where people were able to engage in positive sum cooperation, which was made possible by severely negative sum uncooperation – you cannot get more negative sum than burning an excessively holy woman at the stake. If Charles the Second had not burned a holy woman at the stake for excessive, conspicuous, and obnoxiously superior holiness, he would have had the William Wilberforce problem.

Humans are inherently tribal. We have ethnicities and religions, all of which are in substantial part the same phenomenon. A millet is a smaller tribe (religion) within the empire that the empire recognizes and grants some limited self rule and autonomy.

Two tribes cannot co-exist in overlapping territory, except they create little zones for themselves, for example the black table in school cafe. One tribe will always rule, and another will always be ruled. Segregation and Jim Crow was an effort to give blacks autonomy and self rule, make them into a millet, conditional on the black rulers assimilating to white middle class values and behavior. Integration proved to be black dominion. When the blacks were allowed to the front of the bus, they inevitably wound up forcing white people off the buses.

This tribalism is the problem with libertarianism – if you allow liberty, people will use it to synthesize smaller ingroups within the larger group in order to dominate the detribalized majority. William Wilberforce and his “elect” destroyed what the restoration had accomplished, undermining the small scale cooperation between men and women to have children, and the cooperation between elites and individual members of the elite to maintain an empire that kept large scale economic cooperation over the oceans. His successors transliterated the religion of the elect from the next world to this world, creating modern progressivism. Since the transliterated tenets, such as equality, are transparently false to this world, this required them to reject truth telling and truth speaking, resulting in peer review and the replication crisis that has destroyed science.

The earthly telos of holiness is to promote the broadest possible cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Holiness competition results in people finding grounds to declare other people unholy, thus Starbucks and LucasFilms declare their customers unholy, thus holiness competition destroys the earthly telos of holiness. Therefore we cannot allow excessively holy people to gain power in the state religion. Instead, need to send Social Justice Warriors away from the universities off to a hermitage in a remote island and honor their superior holiness from a safe distance. If someone wants to demonstrate superior holiness, it should be costly for himself, rather profitable for himself, and costly for everyone around him. Superior holiness and performing superogatory acts has to be made unprofitable.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Until recently, everyone in power everywhere in the world was culturally aligned with the Blue Empire, or at least reluctant to be openly unaligned. Every government, every head of government, every government school, every university everywhere, every television station (including Fox), every newspaper (including the Murdoch newspapers). The Cathedral would from time to time go into high dudgeon because not everyone was as enthusiastic as they would like, but anyone who outright opposed them was low status and powerless.

Universities and their endowments are still converged, and all the mass media and internet giants are converged. Trump has few loyalists among his political appointees in government. But it is a start. A start that denies the inevitability of Blue Empire power, a start that tells us that surrender is not the only option. That Trump had the last laugh over Gay Mulatto gives every man a shot of testosterone. That Melanie is hot, while Michelle belongs in a zoo, makes every progressive everywhere look and feel bad.

When we successfully do the Dissolution of the Monasteries on the universities, confiscating their endowments, and ending their power as gatekeepers to high status high pay jobs, when we are no longer ruled by the clergy, that will be victory, and the rest will be mopping up operations. It is a long way from here to there, some very bad things will happen on the way, and there may well be a red terror and a civil war along the route, but in the far distance, we can see hope for victory. If Trump fails, he will nonetheless have pointed the way for one that will follow.

The best outcome would be that Democrats launch a coup prematurely, leading to civil war prematurely, and lose it, leaving Trump as King, as happened in the Social War of the Roman Republic, when the Populares played their hand too soon and too recklessly. Worst outcome would be that they launch their coup, get away with it, leading to a rapid succession of coups by ever more extreme factions, as in the coups against Czar Nicolas and King Louis XVI, and, as in those coups, we launch the civil war too late, and lose it. But we have something that they did not have. We can see the pattern, making it possible to step off that path early rather than late, getting an outcome more like that of Social War of Rome, than the French and Russian Revolutions. That would buy us time enough for technological progress in gene editing technologies to save the day, assuming we can fix the fertility problem. The failure of the Roman elite to reproduce led to endless waves of elite replacement, resulting in chaos and instability, so Sulla’s restoration failed to last. To fix the fertility problem, we have to restrict sexual female choice. We have to force women to get married, to stay with their husbands, to refrain from sex with anyone other than their husbands, and to obey their husband. Even if we have gene editing, still takes two to raise a child. A high IQ species necessarily has a long childhood, which requires cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between husbands and wives, which equilibrium requires substantial external enforcement. Peoples that allow female sexual choice disappear. Rome got in trouble despite Sulla’s restoration because its elite kept disappearing, resulting a dangerous degree of social mobility at the top.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The Victorian theory that women were angels, therefore no coercion was needed against naturally saintly women, only against demonic males who make saintly women do bad things, led to an intolerable flood of bastards and women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, which in turn led to “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, which brought us the welfare state, and the replacement of the nuclear family with child support. As people in the eighteenth century were aware, people need marriage in order to reproduce, and marriage needs coercion to make it stick, and the primary victims of this coercion need to be women, otherwise they will have sex with one man, then sex with another, making it difficult and unpleasant to father children.

Similarly, “White Man’s Burden”, and “la haute mission civilisatrice” was the death of colonialism.

It led the British general who was invading Afghanistan to believe he was doing Afghans a favor, and if he was sufficiently nice to them they would throw flowers at his troops. So he forbade his troops to take necessary measures for self defense, and, as a result, he and his troops died.

The white man’s burden was profoundly counterproductive to social cohesion, because it led to them sacrificing near (British officers and troops) for far (afghan officers and troops)

If it is a burden, then you proceed to conspicuously display your holiness by burden carrying – which is apt to mean making your troops carry burdens.

Before the British intervened in Afghanistan, the most recent news that most people had of it was records of Alexander’s army passing through two millenia ago.

The empire of the East India company was expanding, and the empire of the Russias was expanding, and it was inevitable that the two would meet. And so it came to pass that the Kings of Afghanistan encountered both, and played each against the other.

When the British became aware of Afghanistan, they interpreted its inhabitants as predominantly white or whitish – as descendants of Alexander’s troops and camp followers and/or descendants of Jews converted to Islam at swordpoint.

Afghanistan was, and arguably still is, a elective monarchy, and the fractious electors tended to fight each other and elect weak kings who could scarcely control their followers, and so it has been ever since Alexander’s troops lost Alexander.

Mister Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his account of is mission to Kabul in 1809, says he once urged upon a very intelligent old man of the tribe of Meankheile, the superiority of a quiet life under a powerful monarch, over the state of chaotic anarchy that so frequently prevailed.

The reply was “We are content with alarms, we are content with discord, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master!”

As Machiavelli observed, such places are easy to conquer, but hard to hold, and so it proved.

To conquer and hold such places, one must massacre, castrate, or enslave all of the ruling elite that seems fractious, which is pretty much all of them, and replace them with your own people, speaking your own language, and practicing your own customs, as the Normans did in England, and the French did in Algeria, starting 1830. The British of 1840, however, had no stomach for French methods, and were already starting to fall short of the population growth necessary for such methods.

So what the British could have done is paid the occasional visit to kill any king that they found obnoxious, kill his friends, family, his children, and leading supporters, install a replacement king, and leave. The replacement king would have found his throne shaky, because Afghan Kings have usually found their thrones shaky, but the British did not need to view that as their problem, knowing the solution to that problem to be drastic and extreme. If the throne has been shaky for two thousand years, it is apt to be difficult to stop it from rocking.

After a long period of disorderly violence, where brother savagely tortured brother to death, and all sorts of utterly horrifying crimes were committed, King Dost Mahomed Khan took power in Kabul in 1826, and proceeded to rule well, creating order, peace, and prosperity, and receiving near universal support from the fractious and quarreling clans of Afghanistan.

The only tax under his rule was a tariff of one fortieth on goods entering and leaving the country. This and the Jizya poll tax are the only taxes allowed by the Koran, at least as Islamic law is interpreted in this rebellious country which has historically been disinclined to pay taxes, and because this tax was actually paid, it brought him unprecedented revenues. On paying this tax “the merchant may travel without guard or protection from one border to the other, an unheard of circumstance”

However he did not rule Herat, which was controlled by one of his enemies, who been King before and had ambitions to be King again. He therefore offered Herat to the Shah of Persia in return for the Shah’s support against another of his enemies, Runjeet Singh. He was probably scarcely aware that Runjeet Singh was allied to the British, and the Shah was allied to the Tsar of all the Russias.

Notice that this deal was remarkably tight fisted, as was infamously typical of deals made by Dost Mahomed Khan. He would give the Persians that which he did not possess, in return for them taking care of one of his enemies and helping him against another.

The British East India Company, however, saw this as Afghanistan moving into Russian empire, though I am pretty sure that neither the Shah of Persia nor the King of Aghanistan thought they were part of anyone’s empire.

So Russia and the East India Company sent ambassadors to the King of Afghanistan, who held a bidding contest asking which of them could best protect him against Runjeet Singh. He then duplicitously accepted both bids from both empires, which was a little too clever by half, though absolutely typical of the deals he made with his neighbors.

Dost Mahomed Khan was a very clever king, but double crossing the East India Company was never very clever at all. No one ever got ahead double crossing the East India Company. It is like borrowing money from the Mafia and forgetting to pay them back.

Russia and England then agreed to not get overly agitated over the doings of unreliable and duplicitous proxies that they could scarcely control – which agreement the East India Company took as permission to hold a gun to the head of the Shah of Persia. The East India company seized control of the Persian Gulf, an implicit threat to invade if the Shah intervened in Afghanistan to protect Dost Mahomed Khan. It then let Runjeet Singh off the leash, and promised to support his invasion of Afghanistan.

So far, so sane. Someone double crosses you, then you make an horrible example of him, and no one will do it again. Then get out, and whoever rules in Afghanistan, if anyone does manage to rule, will refrain from pissing you off a second time.

The British decided to give a large part of Afghanistan to Runjeet Singh, and install Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk, a Kinglet with somewhat plausible pretensions to the Afghan throne, in place of Dost Mahomet Khan.

Up to this point everything the East India Company is doing is sane, honorable, competent, just, and wonderfully eighteenth century.

Unfortunately, it is the nineteenth century. And the nineteenth century is when the rot set in.

His Majesty Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk will enter Afghanistan, surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference, and factious opposition, by the British Army. The Governor-general confidently hopes, that the Shah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents, and that the independence and integrity of Afghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn. The Governor-general has been led to these acts by the duty which is imposed upon him, of providing for the security of the possessions of the British crown, but he rejoices, that, in the discharge of this duty, he will be enabled to assist in restoring the union and prosperity of the Afghan people.

So: The English tell themselves and each other: We not smacking Afghans against a wall to teach them not to play games with the East India Company. On the contrary, we are doing them a favor. A really big favor. Because we love everyone. We even love total strangers in far away places very different from ourselves. We are defending the independence of Afghanistan by removing the strongest King it has had in centuries and installing our puppet, and defending its integrity by arranging for invasion, conquest, rape and pillage by its ancient enemies the Sikhs, in particular Runjeet Singh. Because we love far away strangers who speak a language different from our own and live in places we cannot find on the map. We just love them to pieces. And when we invade, we will doubtless be greeted by people throwing flowers at us.

You might ask who would believe such guff? Obviously not the Afghans, who are being smacked against the wall. Obviously not the Russians. Obviously not the Persians. Obviously not the British troops who are apt to notice they are not being pelted with flowers.

The answer is, the commanding officer believed this guff. And not long thereafter, he and his troops died of it, the first great defeat of British colonialism. And, of course, the same causes are today leading to our current defeat in Afghanistan.

The commanding officer of the British expedition made a long series of horrifyingly evil and stupid decisions, which decisions only made sense if he was doing the Afghans a big favor, if the Afghans were likely to appreciate the big favor he was doing them, and his troops were being pelted with flowers, or Afghans were likely to start pelting them with flowers real soon now. The East India company was no stranger to evil acts, being in the business of piracy, brigandry, conquest, and extortion, but people tend to forgive evil acts that lead to success, prosperity, good roads, safe roads, and strong government. These evil acts, the evil acts committed by the British expedition to Afghanistan, are long remembered because they led to failure, defeat, lawlessness, disorder, and weak government.

As a result, he, his men, and their camp followers, were all killed.

Progressives tend to judge people by their good intentions, and the intentions of the British Empire in invading Afghanistan were absolutely wonderful, but the man who does evil because insane is a worse problem than the man who does evil because he expects to profit. The rational profit seeking evildoer, you can pay off, or deter. You can surrender on terms that will probaby not be too bad. The irrational evildoer just has to be killed. Before 1840, the East India Company was sometimes deterred, frequently paid off, and frequently accepted surrender on reasonable terms. In 1841, just had to be killed.

This illustrates the importance of the rectification of names, of formalism. If you lie to yourself, you are deceived. I have been reading the Clinton emails, and one of the most striking features is that Clinton and company are deluded and deceived by self flattering lies, that despite having vast spy networks in far flung places, are seriously out of contact with reality, as their circle tells each other what they want to hear.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Hillary and her advisers, and therefore I suppose the entire state department, know neither the enemy nor themselves. They dream grandiose delusions, in which they are the terribly smart and virtuous people, rather than a drunken old sow surrounded by lying flatterers.

The East India Company did not realize that it was about to be recast, or was recasting itself, from being a for profit company, empowered to make war and engage in acts of piracy and extortion for private profit, to being the British government’s instrument of holy do gooding, benevolently carrying the white man’s burden for the benefit of a bunch of strangely ungrateful foreigners. In place of a ruthless mafia with uniformed soldiers, the East India Company was about to become an NGO with uniformed nursemaids.

Yet strangely, the greater the good intentions, the more they were to be resented. [Sarcasm tag removed because it broke the quote submission] The East India Company seems to have been more popular when they were pirates and bandits than when they were pious do gooders. No one seemed to appreciate the East India Company doing good to them at gunpoint. The ridiculous part of the white man’s burden was the striking ingratitude of the supposed beneficiaries, resembling the striking ingratitude of Middle Easterner’s towards meddling by presidents Bush and Obama in the Middle East. Those @!^&$ Middle Easterners just somehow do not know what is good for them, unlike far away strangers, who, being terribly clever, know exactly what is good for the Middle East without ever having lived there.

If an elite attempt to rule distant places, they will rule them very badly, unless some of the children of the elite move to those places, and stay there to rule them. Carpetbaggers who come and go tend to leave horror and devastation in their wake, as for example the looting of Haiti by do gooder ngos after the earthquake. If you are not going to stick around, the incentive is to take everything and smash everything, which is what happened to Haiti when the US State Department ngos got coercive quasi governmental power. Haitians wound up eating dirt, sleeping in the rain, and got cholera. So, not going to rule well, unless you have a fertile elite, which needs more governmental and quasi governmental jobs for its excessively numerous offspring. In which case good rule will naturally follow from the desire of that elite to make a nice place for themselves and their descendants. This is necessarily going to be rough on the existing local elite, but an ideology of doing good to far away strangers does not result in doing good to far away strangers, but at best to famine, destruction of property, and disease, as recently demonstrated in Haiti.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Kathy Forth offed herself, leaving a lengthy suicide note in which she accused numerous men of sexually harassing her, and the entire society of ignoring this terrible sexual harassment, thereby driving her to suicide.

Fat, pushing forty, and supposedly suffers unbearable amounts of sexual assault.

...

Back when she was hot, the amount of sexual assault she suffered was entirely bearable.

All women love drama, all women create drama, and all women create drama because they are looking for a spanking from a strong man. All women are like that. Childlessness and the lack of a strong man in their lives greatly worsens this problem.

Not all women make false accusations of sexual harassment, not all women kill themselves, but all disruptively create drama and problems: The ones not under the authority of an alpha male, and the ones that have remained childless while their fertility is running out, create more disruption, more drama, and more problems.

They are all cruising for a spanking, every single one.

All the sides in this debate that are permitted within the Overton Window are the same insane side. Scott is evil, depraved, decadent, and insane, #metoo is even more evil and more insane, and the fat old cat lady who offed herself was ridiculous, hilarious, evil, sinful and insane, her over the top evil, and her over the top vanity being hilariously funny to any sane person. Any remotely sane person commenting on that reddit thread gets instabanned. Anyone who manages to post twice on that thread is evil or insane, and most likely both. That thread is a conversation in the lunatic asylum.

Every woman lusts for drama. Fat, and pushing forty, people were ignoring her: Men were ignoring her. So she decided to go out in a blaze of glory, the ultimate “Hey look at me” opera, a gigantic soap opera of martyrdom.

Kathy Forth was evil and spent her life ruining other people’s lives out of depraved, foolish, and ridiculous sexual lust.

It is normal, and indeed universal, for childless unowned women who are fertile age, or not very long past fertile age, to destructively and self destructively destroy their social and organizational environment, burn the family assets, disrupt the business, divorce, etc. Kathy took this to extremes.

All Women Are Like That. Kathy more than others.

When a woman creates drama she is unconsciously, and in Kathy’s case quite consciously, hoping to smoke the alpha male out of hiding so that he will take possession of her and give her a spanking. She flat out tells us in her suicide note. In her suicide note she tells of her fantasies for powerful alpha male to take possession of her, to own her, to command her, supposedly in order to protect her from all this supposedly terrible sexual harassment.

This is what female lust looks like. It is not genitally focused like male lust, but that does not make it better, it makes it worse. Much worse.

During her fertile years, a lustful woman is not funny. Past fertile age, a lustful childless woman is hilarious.

Not every woman makes false rape and false sexual harassment allegations, but every woman acts disruptively, every unowned fertile age woman acts more disruptively and causes great damage, childless unowned women even more so, and childless unowned women continue doing so well past fertile age, while women with children calm down as their fertile period ends, particularly women who have previously experienced the firm hand of the father of their children.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

I have tried lots of different personas on women. I know what persona works. Heartiste is correct, and indeed understates his case. Playing a really bad man, even worse than that recommended by Heartiste, works best. I can play that character convincingly because I have monsters inside, and I let them out to play, but I am not really that person. I must dance, and women call the tune. The solution is not to clean up your room, but to project the masculinity of the vicious psychopathic criminal, combined with the assets and material lifestyle of the respectable male, staying out of jail while superficially seeming the kind of man that they would find in jail. Jordan offers fatherless boys the same old blue pill solutions to dealing with women, which result in them living in involuntary celibacy.

Of course insufficient spitting looks to the left like hard core genocidal nazism, so you still get the same enemies. Peterson gets in trouble for saying that commies murdered a hundred million or so, and are entirely unrepentant. Jordan Peterson neglects to say that they hunger and thirst to do it all again, and that Democrats are on the same course, a course headed directly for the Red Terror of 1794, which eighteenth century horror prefigured the enormously larger mass murders of the twentieth century, and the extraordinary increase in war, state violence, and private criminal violence that we have seen starting with the French Revolution.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior, their attraction to very bad men, makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren. It also makes total sense according to curse of Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

In order that we can make men into sheep dogs rather than wolves, have to make women into property. For men to become sheep dogs, women must become sheep.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Trump, in accordance with his campaign promises to the rust belt and flyover country, has just slapped a tariff on steel and aluminum.

If you look at the Nucor product catalog, you can see that the USA has ceded high end steel production to foreigners.

Ceding high end steel production to foreigners is militarily unwise.

Ceding the high end is also likely to have externalities. A network of skills unravels. If company A does something high tech, it cultivates employees, customers, and suppliers that make it substantially easier and cheaper for company B to do something high tech, and this benefit is not captured by company A, unless, as in South Korea during the dictatorship, the state gives company A substantial monopolistic privileges, something difficult to do in a democracy, particularly a democracy where covetousness is deemed the highest virtue and high status.

And if company A stops doing something high tech causing other companies to stop doing high tech stuff – you have the rust belt, which is the network of high skilled white males unravelling. You have smart white men deskilling, taking opiates, and committing suicide.

That the rust belt is rusting means that white males commit suicide or move to the big coastal megacities. Which means they move from where their votes are useful to Trump and Republicans, to where their votes are useless, because massively outvoted by hordes of aliens imported to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat.

Stopping the rust gives republicans a little more time, regardless of whether it is economically justified or not. Even if it was a total money loser (and quite likely externalities make it economically lucrative) it would still be politically a big winner, by halting the great centralization.

Recollect that the government was importing hordes of black male military age Mohammedans screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, and bombing marginal electorates in flyover country with them. The permanent government continued doing this for the first year of the Trump presidency, but in 2017 December, Trump finally managed to put a stop to it. This also gives Trump and Republicans a little more time.

A policy of economic autarky ruined Nazi Germany. The very similar Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was also an economic disaster, ruining the USA. And, similarly, India’s program of economic autarky kept India stagnant and desperately poor for decades. But these three examples of bad, indeed utterly disastrous, protectionism were accompanied by massive regulation. Trump is deregulating. That is a big and important difference.

Show post
Jim #racist blog.jim.com

The Florida school shootings did not happen for lack of gun control. They happened because of refusal to enforce law and maintain order when blacks and hispanics attack white children.

Back in 2015 I said:

> Difficult to say what will happen to Mestizos and Indios. In Mexico, the old gods walk again, but this has not happened in the US,

Well now the Old Gods have walked from Mexico to Florida, and spoken to Nikolas Cruz.

Nicolas Cruz had a long history of violence, menace, evil, and madness. And, of course, the school’s response was:

> “We do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”

Maybe when someone hears voices commanding him to terrible things and willfully chooses to obey those voices, it is time to think about not about helping him, but helping those near him.

But, instead:

> that harsh approach fell out of favor amid concerns that it was funneling too many young people — and particularly black and Hispanic students — into the juvenile justice system.

When a fat feminist who is hitting the wall complains that group of white males have an unhealthy attitude to women, does anyone say “We should do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”. No, they say “Let us throw the book at them, and not worry whether these accusations are true, false, or even remotely believable.”

When white males are accused of misbehavior, everyone has total confidence in the effectiveness of swift and harsh penalties, which should not be slowed down by old fashioned concerns about evidence or guilt. When a bunch of white males get together for some purpose that does not involve fucking each other, they are automatically suspected of being an evil terrorist organization.

> In recent years, Broward schools became a leader in the national move toward a different kind of discipline — one that would not just punish students, but also would help them address the root causes of their misbehavior. Such policies aim to combat what is known as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” giving teenagers a chance to stick with their education rather than get derailed, often permanently, by criminal charges.

In other words, a free pass for blacks and Hispanics to attack people at random, while if a white kid nibbles a slice of bread into the shape of a gun, the social workers get called to take him from his parents.

Blacks attack kids to take lunch money and such, without much regard for race, religion, ethnicity or social class. They are dangerous to everyone near them, ingroup or outgroup. Education and culture has little effect. Harvard blacks almost as dangerous as ghetto blacks. Blacks are more responsive to effective law enforcement than whites, thus black misbehavior is always a symptom of refusal to enforce the law on blacks.

But in Mexico, killings are generally human sacrifices of outgroup members to the old gods. People say they are drug cartel related, but this is politically correct bullshit. War is good for business only if someone else is paying for it. War is bad for business if you are paying for it. If a black drug gang commits mass murder, it is because they are doing it for business reasons but are incompetent at business. If a Mexican drug cartel in Mexico commits mass murder, they are murdering members of the a near outgroup because they hear the voices of the Old Gods. The black drug gang commits murders because too stupid to find a peaceful resolution of a business dispute. The Mexican drug gang commits mass murders because listening to demons.

And now the voices of old gods have been heard in Florida.

Show post
Koanic and peppermint #fundie blog.jim.com

(Koanic)
> Jesus said “resist not evil”,

https://infogalactic.com/info/Turning_the_other_cheek#Nonviolent_resistance_interpretation

> We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion

No, it dampens the culture of honor dueling by submitting the aggressor’s personal insults to the community for judgment, instead of personally enforcing one’s own justice, which renders murky who’s at fault.

(peppermint)
((Jesus)) was a gommie, and the destruction of personal honor in favor of ((community judgement)) is an early form of gommieism, like forbidding men from seeing whores instead of stuffing whores into convents.

(Koanic)

It does not destroy personal honor. King David had plenty of honor, but he did not revenge personal insults. Those were avenged by God and his son. He revenged insults against his ambassadors, for example, with genocide.

Idiots in bars fight on their own account, each being right in his own eyes. This is not honor.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Many women deserve to be punched, and do not get punched, but punching a woman indicates loss of control and weakness. You should avoid getting into fights except where you can bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and you should always be able to bring overwhelming supremacy to bear on a woman. If you have overwhelming supremacy, you can pin the opponent, and either put a painful submission hold on them, or whack him part of the body where it is safe to do so without likelihood of causing injury.

I have found I can use this kind of violence on a woman in public, safe and controlled irresistible violence, and everyone just grins. Especially other women.

Part of being able to control what kind of fights you get into is to be well prepared for a terrible, destructive, and uncontrolled fight where you cannot bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and I am always prepared for such a fight. I am trained in unarmed combat, and when going into an unpredictable situation carry the most dangerous concealed weapon legally permitted, but the reason to be prepared for such a fight is not to get into such a fight and win, but to be able to better get out of such a fight by offering your opponent a safer path, offering your opponent a dignified way out of such a fight. One prepares for such a fight in order to better obtain your opponents cooperation in staying out of such fights, not to fight and win them, for even if you win, seldom profitable. Even if you win, you lose. Having the potential to do your adversary great harm is often profitable. Actually exercising that potential is rarely profitable.

Jesus said “resist not evil”, but we cannot take this literally, because if evil smells that you are a soft target, evil will be on to you like a dingo on a baby. We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion, and pointing at our inability to attain salvation by personal virtue in a fallen world. Literal application of the Sermon on the Mount would be suicidal in a fallen world. We apply it by always being willing to do what it takes to find the path that does not involve terrible and destructive combat. But it takes two to make peace, only one to make war, and to find the peaceful path requires the ability to dissuade your opponent from the path of combat.

White knights are evil men – a man who white knights another man’s woman is a man who will spread hateful lies about his friend behind his friend’s back to sow discord and anger between friends. A man who white knights another man’s woman also engages in every kind of depraved and cowardly evil. When you punch a woman, no matter how much she deserves it, you show weakness and loss of frame, and weakness attracts evil. Deal with a misbehaving woman with firmness and strength, you will have no problems. Deal with her from weakness, white knights will materialize like flies on rotting meat.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Women cannot do men’s jobs, and the pretense that they can and are is doing immense damage to men’s work and the creation of value by men.

Women in men’s positions subtract value. Women in powerful male positions subtract enormous amounts of value. Men at work get paid for creating value, and are forced to pay women for destroying the value that men create.

The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating. The problem is that if she does not get the supervision that she emotionally needs, she will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the family assets and the lives of their children.

Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes.

...

I would explain the fact that a company with a female founder was one eighth as likely to get follow on funding by the fact that absolutely none of them should have received funding, and the only reason that any of them got any follow on funding was that the venture capitalists wanted to deny that anything was wrong. The official and enforced explanation is that it is proof of irrational hatred and misogyny by venture capitalists. And if you doubt this, you obviously must hate women.

So, to decide between these two explanations, let us look at company acquisitions. When venture capitalists fund a company, they intend it that if it succeeds it will be acquired by a big company. If a company is not acquired, the venture capitalists have pissed away their money. Most times they lose, sometimes they win big.

So, that eleven percent of companies with all male founders were acquired represents the venture capitalists winning one time in nine.

With all female founders, they won one time in two hundred and seventy. With all female founders they had only one thirtieth the chance as with all male founders.

One might suppose that this indicates that women are one thirtieth as likely to be able to operate a company as a man, but obviously this conclusion is absurd. The companies must have been acquired for political brownie points, not because they were being operated successfully. It is as plain as the nose on your face that women are absolutely disastrous when given this kind of authority, but official sources will deny what is spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls, so how do we check this? Are they insane, or am I insane?

Answer: Look at companies with both male and female founders. If the reason is misogyny, then the female founder will have no effect, because the purchasers will assume she is only there for decoration and to warm the bed of the real founders.

So, if misogyny, companies with mixed founders should be purchased at roughly the same rate as companies with all male founders.

If the problem is that women are just naturally incompetent as CEOs, then companies with mixed founders should be purchased at a somewhat lower rate, as the male founders carry the female founders on their backs while the purported female founders paint their nails, powder their faces, and discuss their most recent booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

If, however, the problem is that women in power just invariably and uniformly act like feral animals, as if they had been raised by apes in the jungle, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that the female founders need to be placed in cages and put on leashes, but the male founders are not allowed to do so, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that these days women are no longer subject to the restraints of civilization, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased.

Well, guess what.

If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good CEO. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

Females can no more do large group socialization than they can chop wood with an axe, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete. Females in or near positions of power have a disastrous effect on the social cohesion of the group to which they belong, on the propensity of group members to cooperate with each other, on the asabiyyah of the group, on the group’s capability to pursue goals in common.

It is a standard psychiatric finding that women are supposedly more agreeable than men, and in very important ways they are.

If tell a woman I have mislaid my keys, she will find them. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I tell a woman to get me coffee, she will get me coffee. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I slap a woman on the backside, she will yelp and jump, but then smile and laugh. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

It is always a woman. Yes, she interrupts in a supposedly friendly, supportive, and agreeable manner, but interrupting is in reality unfriendly, undermines him, and is in fact disagreeable.

Women are catty. Two women are friends, three women are a contest to see which two will become friends. Women are disruptive. They never stop shit testing their bosses. If a woman interrupts her boss, talks over her boss, even though her interruption is supposedly friendly, supportive, and all that, as it always supposedly is, she is disrupting and damaging the organization.

Women take advantage of and abuse restrictions on physical violence, and other rules commanding prosocial behavior, which abuse undermines prosocial behavior and impairs large group cooperation between males. Women are bad for and disruptive of any large group that attempts to cooperate to get something done. They undermine asabiyya, throwing sand in the wheels just for the hell of it. They are always throwing down shit tests to find which male is alpha enough to subdue their bad behavior, always disrupting, always looking for a well deserved spanking.

The psychiatric category of “agreeableness” is cooked to support the doctrine that women are wonderful. It conflates going along with bad behavior, with going along with good behavior. It declares resisting bad behavior to be disagreeable, while ruthlessly and cynically imposing on good behavior is supposedly not disagreeable.

Yes, women really are wonderful in their proper sphere. In power, they are only tolerable to the extent that strong males keep them in line.

A more accurate analysis of female behavior is that females are bad at, and bad for, large group social dynamics. Female or substantially female businesses fail, often fail very badly. Women are better at one on one dynamics than men – all women, all the time. Worse at large group dynamics than men. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

It is obvious to me that women are having a devastating effect on male efforts to create wealth, and I have long been puzzled at other people’s inability to see what is not merely right in front of their faces, but repeatedly spitting in their face and then slapping them.

A business appoints a female boss because progress. She acts in an angry hostile manner, infuriating customers and vital employees, disruptively knocking the business off track instead of keeping it on track, as if the business was a beta husband, and she wanted a divorce with the house, the children, and alimony. Business goes down the tubes. No one notices. Supposedly the business ran into mysterious head winds that have absolutely no connection to the new boss whatsoever.

When males aggress, they get in each other’s faces, they shout, there is always a hint of the possibility it might turn physical, a suggestion of physical menace. Women aggress and disrupt in a more passive manner, and these days we are not allowed to react to female aggression by shouting at them and getting in their faces, by menacing them. It used to be, within living memory, within my memory, that female misbehavior was met with a male response that hinted at the possibility that she might get spanked, put in a metaphorical cage, or put in metaphorical or literal irons, just as an aggressively misbehaving male got then and gets today a response that hints at the possibility of a punch in the face or imprisonment. Women today therefore routinely aggress and disrupt in a manner I find shocking, crazy, disgraceful, bizarre, and extreme, and do so with shocking and disgraceful impunity, as if within my lifetime women came to be possessed by demons, and everyone is walking around like zombies pretending to not notice. Recall in the infamous interview, Jordan Peterson looks away from Kathy before calling out her bad behavior, because if he looked her in the face while calling out her bad behavior it would have been socially unacceptable, because women are supposedly wonderful.

A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door. They have the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over possession of a female goat.

A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain gets close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to drop what he is doing and pay attention. Again we see the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over a female goat.

A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification that she supposedly has for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities. Supposedly she is helping him in a friendly pleasant nice way, though her “help” is hostile, nasty, angry, disruptive and entirely unwanted, and she ignores his forceful denials that he needs any such “help”.

We need a society where women feel that if they act like Cathy Newman did in that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson, they might get slapped in the face, or sent to the kitchen and the bedroom and restricted from getting out except on a short leash. But if Jordan had responded to her bad behavior by getting in her face as if she was a man, they would probably have called security and tossed him out. Notice that whenever Jordan calls out Cathy Newman’s bad behavior he looks away and gives a little laugh. If he called out her bad behavior while looking at her, it would have been socially unacceptable. What needs to be socially acceptable is that her husband should have given her a slap in the face for publicly disgracing his family with her bad behavior. The same government policies that helicoptering women into powerful positions are allowing them to act badly and destructively in those positions.

As affirmative action makes the differences between men and women starkly and dramatically visible to everyone, at the same time it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences.

A woman in power is like a woman who finds herself the breadwinner, and her husband is a kitchen bitch, like a dog who finds himself the alpha male of the household, like a woman who intrudes into a males space and proceeds to feminize it and make it hostile to males. She behaves badly in an unconscious effort to smoke the alpha male out of hiding by provoking him to give her a beating.

Supposedly the reason there are so few female CEOs is because of evil sexism, not because boards keep appointing female CEOs and those CEOs keep driving their companies into the ditch. From time to time some big important Harvard expert informs us that female headed or female founded companies do better than male companies, but they will not show us their data, which data conspicuously flies in the face of common sense, anecdote, and casual observation. And if you ask to see their data, you are a racist sexist islamophobic misogynist, and the only reason you could be asking such an obviously hateful question is because you just hate women and are trying to harm them by asking hate questions about hate facts. Also, you are anti science and a global warming denier. We ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence that women can do a man’s job are just like those ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence for global warming. We are anti science, because the science is settled.

Well, fortunately, a surprisingly truthful feminist chick went looking for the data.

Her graphics were truthful, but somewhat misleading, as she de-emphasized and partially hid the most important and dramatic datum, so I edited her graphics for clarity. The graphic at the start of this post is mine, but based on her data and graphics.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

If Trump has a military parade with snappy parade uniforms, we may well win. Trouble is that our elite has been busy making soldiers dress androgynously, because they hate and fear the military. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. If soldiers continue to dress like Elon Musk’s rocket scientists, soldiers, like nerds, will remain low status, and priestly rule will continue.

They probably will not make the marines wear high heeled shoes, but they will make them wear baggy clothes that are interchangeable with the similarly baggy clothes worn by female “soldiers”.

If they parade wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

People in large masses toting guns and moving in unison is impressive, and big rockets are impressive, but to translate that impressiveness into power, need to dress the part. Clothes make the man. Consider Musk’s show with the heavy rocket.

Musk is a showman and Trump is showman, but Musk’s show sucked because everyone was dressed in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually casual. Needed to dress them in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually Silicon Valley Cool.

You look at a bunch of very smart rocket scientists acting and looking like World of Warcraft players who have just cleared a dungeon, and you think “low status”

I want warriors in power, and I want people who make cool toys for warriors in power, and they will need to dress the part.

If the soldiers in Trump’s parade come out wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

Let us imagine how Musk’s heavy rocket launch would have gone if he draped a bikini model over the sportscar that he launched to Mars, if his rocket scientists were better dressed, and if he himself posed with the bikini model and the sportscar wearing nice clothes with a touch of mad scientist. Similarly, however cool a military parade is, (and a military parade, like a rocket launch, is very cool indeed) you are not going to visualize those parading in power unless they dress the part.

Obviously the parade will raise Trump’s approval rating significantly. The problem is, however, at some point he is going to have to demonstrate that an airforce commando outranks a supreme court justice, so we need to raise the approval rating of air force commandos.

My assessment of the fall of Kings that began in the nineteenth century is that kings did not fail because of gunpowder, did not fail because industry rather than land became the source of wealth. Kings failed because George the fourth was fat, lazy, had a fat mistress, a bad tailor, and slept with other men’s wives, but most of all, Kings failed because Beau Brummel made the Puritan aesthetic cool. If King George the Fourth had had better fashion sense and hotter mistresses than Beau Brummel, and if his mistresses had, like Beau Brummel’s mistresses, only been sleeping with him, instead of sleeping with him and their husbands, we would have been fine. Also, if he had gotten off his fat ass and did some kinging, we would have been fine. He failed in the job of being the fount of all honors, mortal and divine (which is to say the job of regulating status competition into prosocial positive sum displays, rather than antisocial negative sum displays). The successors of the puritans took that job, ran with it, and have never let go of it.

So far, however, our attempts to produce reactionary fashion have all been miserable failures, and perhaps we will always fail until we have victorious soldiers exercising power, for all the cool reactionary fashions of the past are based on the uniforms worn by soldiers in victory parades.

But I am now coming around to the view that fashion should feature physically fit men wearing tight clothes that have been personally tailored to them. Standard stretch pants that fit without requiring a belt, and on the top a shirt, perhaps a T shirt, that has been tailored to fit, and tailored to end just below the point on your pants where a belt would be if they needed a belt, which your pants should not. The shirt goes outside the pants, but is almost, but not quite, tight around the pants.

Well fitting clothes are automatically high status. It is the last sumptuary display. An off the rack business suit is not high status. A custom fitted T shirt is high status. Baggy pants are low status. Men wear baggy pants because gangsters who claimed high status on the basis of violence were countersignaling by wearing baggy pants, but baggy pants do not work unless you can also plausibly signal real capability and will to commit violence. Such plausible signals are apt to get you killed, so make sure your pants fit. If you countersignal by poorly fitting pants, have to signal by violence, which can get costly.

Secondly, the costume should contain some element of peacocking, ideally a unique and idiosyncratic element. I now wear a fighting cock feather in my hat, the tail feather of a fighting cock that died in battle. Unfortunately, such feathers do not last a whole lot longer than the cock that donated them. It is tricky to get the right feather attached in the right place. Each fighting cock feather is unique and different (fighting cocks themselves peacock, with longer, floppier, and more diverse feathers than regular cocks). Most fighting cock feathers will do something bad like flopping in your eyes. Need a feather that flops around, but stays out of your eyes and your field of view, while flopping around in the other guys’s field of view.

Big hats are good, and better with something decorating them.

image

Gold chains also good, though male gold chains need to be big. Fine gold chains are girly. Not sure if multiple peacocking elements are a good idea. The Regency Aesthetic failed through excess, which excess justified the Puritan Aesthetic. A gold chain needs to be accompanied by bros or a bodyguard. If no wingman, then no gold chain. if a weak geek neck, cannot support a fighting cock feather.

You cannot peacock unless the alpha male of the group is also peacocking, or unless it is plausible that you are, by at least some metric, the alpha male of the group. Your boss is not going to be peacocking, and if your subordinate is peacocking while you are not peacocking, you will need to do something about it.

Any item of peacocking that draws attention to your head needs a suitably large neck to support its metaphorical weight, as if it had actual physical weight. I have therefore added neck exercises to my exercise regimen. I attach a looped belt to a resistance cord, and pull with my head in different directions, in order for my neck to be strong enough to support the mighty weight of the fighting cock feather in my hat. If you have a geek neck, don’t try to wear a big hat.

Obviously you cannot wear something to job interview or similar occasion that is more dramatic or unusual than your interviewer will be wearing. No peacocking allowed at work or in job interviews, but you can wear better fitting clothes than your interviewer. If Silicon Valley Casual is socially required, you can wear Silicon Valley Casual that just happens to fit you perfectly, as Steve Jobs invariably did. Also, matching colors combined with dramatic clash of colors, so that the clash is clearly intentional, rather than the result of whatever passed the sniff test that morning. If you are going to have a dramatic clash of colors, superhero style, make sure that one major part of your costume matches another part.

Well, this is the latest in a long string of attempts to conjure reactionary meanswear into existence, and all previous attempts have failed embarassingly. Let us see how this one goes. We still need a victory parade with cool manly military parade dress uniforms to really make reactionary fashion stick.

But, lacking a victory parade, physical fitness is something. Reactionary males tend to be markedly stronger and slimmer than progressive males, due to fasting, diet, and lifting iron. Reactionary fashion will succeed, if associated with reactionaty phenotypes.

In the age of feral woman and family breakdown, when fatherhood is illegal, when everyone is a bastard, menswear that is associated with being able to beat people up is likely to succeed. The difference between today and past ages was that in successful civilizations, top fashions were associated with being a member of a group that was able to beat up other groups in organized collective disciplined physical violence, hence the connection to victory parades, while in an age of social collapse and family breakdown, in a civilization in decline, in a time when a dark age looms, when fatherhood has been criminalized, successful fashion tends to be more associated with the capability to perform individual thuggery, hence the perverse and ugly baggy pants fashion. When fatherhood is illegal, only criminals can be fathers. The underlying problem with menswear fashion is that the state is violently, coercively, brutally, and forcefully imposing black mating patterns and white gay mating patterns on white heterosexual males, which mating pattern in turn causes unattractive clothing to be fashionable, and attractive clothing to be unfashionable, the baggy pants fashion being an example of this problem.

If reactionaries are having troubles restoring reactionary fashion, it is because we are having troubles restoring reactionary families, and reactionary families require reactionary male social groups that collectively enforce reactionary socialization on potentially feral women. But, on the principle of fake it till you make it, reactionary fashion can cause the social conditions that will in turn cause reactionary fashion.

Dress like a patriarch, dress like an aristocrat, and have your women dress as if under patriarchal authority. Good fit is patriarchal, and peacocking and physical fitness is aristocratic. You cannot peacock at work if your boss is not peacocking, but you can be physically fit and wear well fitted clothes.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

A little while ago I saw cited yet another Harvard study supposedly proving that women CEOs are just as good as men, except better, not withstanding the fact that anyone can see that women in charge are profoundly disruptive and destructive, that women can no more run a large group than they can chop wood with an axe, pilot a plane, do science, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete, that putting a woman in charge is pissing away shareholder’s assets, as divorced women piss away their husband’s and their children’s assets, so I thought I would remind you of this golden oldie:

image

Click on the graph to see it in its full glory.

Is not science wonderful? I have been finding a pile of similar science data not just in global warmering, and in studies of demonic males viciously oppressing saintly women, but also dietary science, medical science, biology, and even string theory and materials science. These days, the way to get ahead in any area of science is to discover that your field has some political relevance that is unlikely to occur to any sane person, and then produce data that supposedly comforts the oppressed and saves the earth from cruel exploitation by white males. For an added bonus, you can destroy the careers of your colleagues as oppressors of the weak and vulnerable, because back in the bad old days they upheld the old evil theory (now refuted by your new data) for no reason other than hatred of some saintly victims and desire to cause harm to those saintly and long suffering victims.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

It is perfectly obvious that few if any rape accusations against white heterosexual males are true, and the “rape on campus” case confirmed what was obvious to everyone who was not keeping his eyes tight shut. There were thirty six rape accusations that year on Virginia University Campus, none of which led to disciplinary action, and if any of them had been the slightest bit believable, Rolling Stone would have run with them instead of Jackey Coakley’s story.

It is equally obvious that almost no convictions of white males for heterosexual rape are true. If you look at the details of the case, they always sound suspiciously like “domestic abuse” cases, and anyone who knows women knows that few domestic abuse charges are true, probably none of them are true. If a woman actually suffers domestic abuse that she does not want and does not aggressively seek out, not hard for her to wander off to another lover who will treat her like a princess. But these women have the strange habit of wandering off from one “abuser” to the next. And if they don’t get “abused” they will attack their lover with a kitchen knife till he is forced to defend himself. “Domestic violence” is merely a shit test that gets physical. Watch female cats shit test tomcats. Human female sexuality resembles feline female sexuality more than it resembles ape female sexuality, perhaps because we are primarily carnivores, while apes are primarily vegetarians.

But a progressive will tell you that they all true, because women never lie, and it is absolutely a miscarriage of justice that so few complaints to the police result in rape convictions, and that what seems glaringly obvious to me, is the exact opposite of what seems glaringly obvious to him.

One in nine rape complaints investigated by Scotland Yard resulted in conviction. So, of those few convicted, how many were actually guilty? Well, from what I know of women, I would say none of them, or none of them in the sense that a half drunk woman wandering in a dark alley with her boobs about to pop out of her dress who then gets into a car with a total stranger is not exactly a rape victim, but other people disagree with my assessment of women, so how will we empirically test this question?

Well, two Scotland Yard rape trials have recently collapsed, when it was discovered that the police had been concealing convincing evidence of innocence. In both cases the accused was savagely defamed in the newspapers, his life was destroyed, and he had been kept in jail for a long time without trial as “a danger to the public”, on the whimsical and changeable word of some drunken sow, whose identity was protected, and who continues to be protected, despite evidently being guilty of malice and perjury.

So, with police cutting corners to get rape convictions, and imprisoning men without trial, they still only manage to get one in nine convictions, and their two most recent rape cases were revealed to be abuse of police power and miscarriages of justice.

If the most recent two, likely all of them. The UK is now re-examining all currently active rape cases, which will no doubt mean the release of a great many males locked up without trial as “a danger to the public”. How about re-examining all recent rape convictions? But evidently the government does not want to go there, which itself tells me what they would likely find.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Women are attracted to arrogant violent men. They are attracted to IQ<80 criminals because criminals are allowed to be violent, while high status males are not, with the result that the status hierarchy as perceived by women winds up upside down from the status hierarchy as perceived by men. AWALT. All women are like that. When people say that not all women are like that, NAWALT, it is like aging fat feminists saying that different men have different types so you can't say one type of beauty overrules the others. Not so: Men want to fuck young, beautiful and fertile women. Women want to fuck arrogant, violent, criminal men. That is all there is to it. We may nuance after accepting that, but only after accepting that. Brad Pitt got horribly burned. Einstein wound up with a KGB girl friend who cared more about Stalin than Einstein. Feynman needed to learn game, put on an asshole persona, did pretty much what I am doing. If not all women were like that, these famous men would have done better. Feynman scored, I scored, but if General Butt Naked had shown up, wearing a necklace of human eyeballs, an AK47, and nothing else, we would have been shit out of luck. All women react to the same stimuli in the same way. It is just a matter of which stimuli they get exposed to. If Feynman cannot score merely being brilliant, famous, and admired, Brad Pitt gets burned despite being rich, famous, and handsome, Einstein winds up having sex with the KGB and serving as a communist loudspeaker, then all women are like that. The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him killing her kittens. To align the crude, cruel, simplistic, vicious, and brutal female perception of the male status hierarchy with the subtle, complex, multidimensional, and nuanced reality of the male status hierarchy as actually organized by males, we need to legalize and socially support domestic discipline by taxpaying husbands and fathers, also husbands and fathers that are members of the military, the police, rentacops, and mercenaries. (McLintock), and back that discipline with conspicuously public state violence. We also need to make it legal to use violence on men who come sniffing round your women, as the law was under King Solomon. Then hypergamy will be eugenic, rather than dysgenic. Right now, hypergamy is massively dysgenic. Hence the character I play when interacting with fertile age women.

Women have a primitive concept of power. And we men are all dancing monkeys. So, the thing we are forced to do is to become powerful as women understand power.

Which unfortunately is anti civilizational and counter civilizational. Hence the need to modify civilization so that high status males get to perform more private violence. It is easier to have more private policing, to make male status hierarchies more convincing to women, than it is to make women have sex with the men that they should, and refrain from having sex with the men that they should not.

When affluent respectable middle class white males beat misbehaving daughters and wives, and receive any necessary public assistance in so doing from police and authorities, while low lives do not receive similar assistance, then IQ<80 criminals will stop being so strangely attractive to women, and the guy in the corner office will find himself receiving hot letters from women he has never met. But that said, women are quite agreeable to being made to have sex. They prefer it that way. Resistance is a shit test, and they are turned on by being overpowered. So we need to make it the law that the man that they should have sex with, their husband, the father of their children, gets to overpower them.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The trouble with Rotherham is not that white girls were raped and beaten, but that Muslims get exemption to be manly as women understand manliness, and whites and Hindus do not.

The Rotherham girls were raped, threatened, and beaten all right, but they were also complicit in the violence.

For the most part, the pimp, rather than aggressively forcing his women into prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, is aggressively, but unsuccessfully, attempting to restrain them from prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, and to the extent that he goes along with their prostitution, is just being the dancing monkey, pretending to be in charge so as to retain some tattered shreds of manliness despite being massively cuckolded.

Human female sexuality is closer to feline female sexuality than to chimpanzee female sexuality. Apes are primarily vegetarians, but we are descended from killer apes. Even when sex involves quite dangerous violence against women plus infanticide and plenty of it, as it rather often does, human females are massively complicit in that violence and infanticide. The women that pimps go through the motions of oppressing are topping from the bottom, and pimps are more accurately understood as the cucked and oppressed victims of lustful bawdy women.

Prostitution is frequently in substantial part an alarmingly enthusiastic and endlessly continuing search for a male who is alpha as women understand alpha – which manliness and alpha character is in substantial part is demonstrated by criminal violence against women and children and being able to get away with violence against women and children.

Even when sex involves a lot of violence against women and children, as it often does, it is the pimps that are the real victims, being brutally cucked by their lustful women.

If a girl is being sexually trafficked, there is absolutely no way the pimp can stop her from wandering off with one of her customers, and whores do this with great regularity. The client is trying to “rescue” the girl from prostitution and her brutal pimp and human trafficker, but she then tries to turn him into a pimp and cuckold. Hence the saying:

“You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

Reality is that all the power is in the hands of the whores, not the pimps, which deeply frustrates the women, who are endlessly searching for manly power and authority in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Everyone gets hurt, no one gets their desires fulfilled.

The Democrats prefer to import Jihadis, criminals, and whores. Jihadis and criminals because they can be relied upon to vote Democratic, whores because they will become cat ladies who can be relied upon to vote Democratic. As a rationalization for importing whores, they implemented the “blue campaign”, which defined illegal immigrant whores to be victims of human trafficing, which the government proceeded to “rescue”.

The purported “victim-centered approach” – as opposed to criminal-focused prosecutions – was mostly a fraud-enabling way in the spirit of asylum/refugee fraud to give a bunch of illegal alien women yet another zero-scrutiny way to claim a victim status that was a free and quick golden ticket to a green card. Cf: U Visas). “Some evil man trafficked my humanness here and took all my documents which are totally from a country that is both unable and unwilling to cooperate with your investigators.”)

Men who come here to kill us and take our stuff will reliably vote Democratic, and women who are whores will remain single, and thus reliably vote Democratic.

Hence the striking and conspicuous preference for importing criminals, Jihadis, and whores.

Two incidents with a woman:

I protected her.

We were walking along a little used path in a semi rural area when a dog charged us barking furiously. She would have run, in which case the dog would have done a large circle around me and attacked her (a barking dog always wants to attack from behind) so I tightened my grip on her, and turned to face the dog while sweeping her behind me like a sack of potatoes and prepared to strike at the dog with my free hand and with one foot. The dog, seeing my focused immobility, the steady predator gaze of the tiger in ambush, abruptly spun around, tucked its tail between its legs, and fled.

Heh, I thought. Massive display of protective manliness. She is going to remember this fondly.

Wrong!

Wrong again!

She totally and completely forgets it.
I endangered her:
“Why”, I ask, “are we at the kiddy pool?”
“I cannot swim”, she replies.

I pick her up.

“Hey, put me down”, she screams. She then realizes that I carrying her off to the adult pool. Her screaming redoubles.

She then realizes that I am carrying her off to the deep end of the adult pool, and realizes I am going to throw her into it. She screams and struggles.

I am doing this in front of her family, in front of several male members of her family. The trip from the kiddy pool to the deep end of the adult pool requires me to walk past the security guy, who is responsible for order and safety.

I am old and at that time was rather fat. She is young and slim. I am walking very briskly, so, obvious sexual predator forcibly abducting screaming young girl, or at least a guy being disorderly and endangering safety. To avoid triggering his white knight impulses, I totally ignore him, and keep my gaze steady on my destination, so I don’t know how he reacted. As usual, when I act with confidence and determination, as I have learned to do in the presence of fertile age women, no one gets in my way.

I toss her in, shortly thereafter get laid like a rug.

I really do not like violence against women all that much. The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies. Truth is, I had been warned there was a dangerous and aggressive dog in that area. I had no way of knowing for sure that I would be able to intimidate it or defeat it, but was confident I could. I have plenty of experience with dangerous and aggressive dogs. Dogs, like humans, can tell if you are seriously considering killing them and think you might be able to accomplish it. It was totally a setup to give effect to my sexual fantasies. But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is. Women do not particularly want protection, and are disinclined to cooperate with males who protect them. The early James Bond movies reflect male fantasies. Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers, and men have no alternative but to play along. I must dance, and women call the tune.

The Rotherham problem was not Muslims out of control, but women out of control. The cure is not to restrain Muslims, but to restrain women.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

It also makes total sense if you take the story of the fall seriously. It is the curse of Eve. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It also makes sense of female voting behavior. Single women have no country. They want us to be conquered, they want their male kin to be castrated, so they can finally get into the possession of someone strong enough to own them.

Whenever someone talks about rape in the sense of the female not consenting, implying it is perfectly fine and completely normal if she has sex without her father consenting, or engages in serial monogamy, he is normalizing a morally degenerate male fantasy that fails to correspond to observed female revealed preference.

Women perceive protective manliness as something as natural as the sun rising in the east, and aggressive male dominance as an extraordinary gift from heavens to be adored and worshiped.

Which makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, since aggressive male dominance is likely to result in being auctioned off naked and in chains, followed by seven children and twenty grandchildren, while protective manliness is likely to result in becoming a cat lady.

Female sexual autonomy results in defect/defect equilibrium, the equilibrium of whores and pimps. Nobody gets what they want. Queen Gwenevere cheats on King Arthur with Lancelot, King Arthur finds out, Camelot falls because of internal disunity, and everyone gets killed.

Protective manliness that protects the sexual autonomy of women, protective manliness that protects Queen Gwenevere’s sexual autonomy, is not only unappreciated by women, but is white knighting, is wicked, evil, and morally degenerate. The curse of Eve is that women should not have sexual autonomy, and endlessly look for a man strong enough to take it away from them.

Be that man.

In order to reproduce successfully, women need to be conquered and subdued. Her owner can then safely invest in her. With female sexual autonomy he cannot, so he does not. Her bearing children for her owner, means her holding hostages against him, thus cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers. Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite. You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised. Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat. And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently. If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine. The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace: If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal. If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react …

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did. She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps. While you and she were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps. And while you and she were fucking she said

“Stop!”

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness. And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter. If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out. Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you. They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men. We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly. So we take power away from men and give it to women. “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men. The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better? Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies. We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs. A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person. I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet. I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people. To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

To the immense disappointment of his base, and indeed the immense disappoint of the vast majority of American voters left and right, Trump, breaking his election promises, decided to continue war in Afghanistan, while making the war slightly less infested by lawyers, transexuals, and women’s rights activists.

Well, delawyering the war will certainly help, but lawyers are not the core of the problem.

To put the Afghan war in perspective: In 1983 Reagan invaded Grenada, won the war in about the same time as our initial victory in Afghanistan, purged the permanent government very thoroughly, including numerous “non governmental aid organizations”, installed a new government at bayonet point, and left one month after invading. The new right wing government promptly held an election, which produced a very similar right wing government, and since then there has been no trouble in Grenada, and all elections since then have produced similarly Reaganite results, even though all elections before the invasion produced radical left wing results.

Reagan put his foot down for one month, and the place remains quietly Reaganite forever, without an American soldier in sight.

The Afghan war, on the other hand, has been running for sixteen years, and the Afghan government, despite being supposedly democratically elected, is so corrupt and bitterly unpopular that it would collapse overnight without constant violent American support. And this simply shows no sign of changing. Even if we fight a lot more effectively, thanks to delawyering the war, there is still a power vacuum in Afghanistan waiting for the Taliban.

The problem in Afghanistan is not winning the war. We won the war overnight immediately after invading. The problem is, what do you do with victory?

The problem is not that the US army in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making marines wear high heeled shoes. The problem is that the government in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making schoolgirls put a condom on a banana, who are trying in an ineffectual limp wristed fashion to impose the American state religion in an environment where a hostile and armed opposing religion has deep roots. Further, every Afghan who matters can see that victory for the State Department religion would mean that he probably will not get his dick wet. Communism in Grenada had no roots except the permanent government and the quasi statal NGOs. Purge the permanent government and the NGOs, problem solved. Mohammedanism in Afghanistan has considerably deeper roots.

You need to bring a gun to a gun fight, and a religion to a holy war. The State Department has brought a religion to a holy war, but the problem is that their religion stinks.

How do you win in Afghanistan?

You install a King whose religious practices and official state religion are acceptable to the vast majority of his subjects, which is to say, totally unacceptable to the State Department. You install a conservative Mohammedan King, one who does not think that Mohammedanism, rightly understood, is progressivism. You install a King with a striking resemblance to Dost Mohammad Khan.

The cause of these wars is that the State Department is violating the peace of Westphalia, by imposing our state religion on the entire world.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

This is not going to turn into a game blog. Other men are much better at game than I am. I know, because I have seen them in action. On the other hand, I am not just an average f#@#!g chump. I clearly score more than the average f#@#!g chump, and fat and in my sixties I still score more than the average f#@#!g chump, though back when I was very fat, not so much.

I know a man half my age who was a male model and is a lot richer than I am. Girls stop and turn their heads when he walks through the mall. If he stands still, cute girls appear from nowhere and start conversations with him. But then nothing happens. Money and looks gets your foot in the door, but it does not get you laid. His problem is that he is far too nice.

Now a lot of readers of this blog seem to believe that nice, upper class girls, the girls that come from intact families, go to good universities and have supportive upper class fathers are not like that. Being a nice guy will, they think, get you a nice girl.

Bullshit.

The girl who started fucking at nine years old, jumped aboard more cocks than merry go round rides, mostly the cocks of criminals, and is still unmarried at thirty five because she is incapable of bonding with any man, is the girl who whose doting intact family spent a shitload of money getting her a good law degree from a good university. And this is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. It is precisely the girl with the good family and a loving father who is disinclined to have sex with the nice guy. Nice guys have a way better shot with girls whose fathers have died or abandoned them. I have tried nice, and I have tried being an asshole, and nice gets mostly gold diggers and a few fatherless girls.

If you want a nice girl, be the bad man. The only society where nice guys get the girl is the society where the patriarch does not allow any non related males near his daughter except the man he has already decided will marry her. (And in such a society she will agree to marry him, because she wants to climb aboard the first plausibly high status cock that she meets, and her Dad treats him as high status and forces her to treat him as high status.) Ballroom dancing is pretty much a ritual to make the males look high status to the girls, so back in the day the system was a girl had a dance card filled out by her father, and was compelled to dance with everyone on the dance card, and be polite and respectful to him, and forbidden to dance with anyone not on the dance card.

But in a society where you can meet chicks without asking their dad to put you on their ballroom dance card, you need to treat chicks like dirt. And you especially need to treat them like trash if you want chicks from intact families who don’t have a number larger than your own.

One of my commenters told me that if I was dating much younger women, I was dating gold diggers. Yes, I have dated gold diggers, lots of gold diggers. But the trouble with gold diggers is that they want the gold, they don’t want to lay me. If I want to lay women, I get far better luck not giving them any gold, at least not until they have been having sex with me for a while without any indication of fidelity or financial support. I would be happy to date gold diggers if I got laid that way, but I don’t get laid that way – OK, I did get laid by one gold digger, but it was part of a plot to commit paternity fraud. Beta provider game just does not work. I know, because I have tried it extensively. You need a little bit of beta provider game, but it has to be part of asshole game, and you don’t turn on the beta provider game until after asshole game has succeeded. The chick needs to think that by laying you, serving you, and obeying you, then she reveals the soft nice guy inside your harsh exterior. Early niceness will lose the chick. Similarly, when you catch a fish, got to give it a hard jerk to set the hook. You let it run only after it is well and truly hooked. There comes a time in the relationship when you need to give her some beta provider game, or else you will lose her. But if you give her beta provider game too soon, too easily, or too much, you will also lose her, to someone who is a much bigger asshole than you are.

If you want a society where men act well, you need a society where men that act well get laid. Thus for civilization, must have patriarchy, and that patriarchy will be very forcefully resisted by women howling for their demon lover, and has to be very forcefully imposed on those women.

How forcefully? Well, England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians. We need to copy eighteenth century England, eighteenth century Virginia, and early nineteenth century Australia. The Old Testament gave women a legal status similar to that of modern day pets, and eighteenth century England was only marginally more progressive than Old Testament Israel. And to the extent that it was marginally more progressive than old Testament Israel, I would argue that this was a big mistake that led to the disaster we now suffer.

Giving women legal status similar to that of pets would have two effects: It would reward civilized behavior, and it would raise fertility to Timor Leste levels. Now some of my commenters are worried about white fertility. If whites were reproducing at Timor Leste levels, pretty soon we would need to conquer inferior races, take their land, and restrain them from reproducing. Oh the horror. Which reasoning seems scarcely different from the proposition that Europeans should restrain their reproduction so that we can benevolently rescue four billion African refugees over the next forty years.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

I play a wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole in front of women. A confrontational bully. It works. What else can one do if one wants to get laid?

But the character I play is not the man that that builds or maintains civilizations. It is the man that is high status in a world of female dominance, where women are more equal than men. It is not the man who should be high status, not the man that a civilization needs to make high status in order for that civilization to succeed.

Unguided, unsupervised, and unrestrained female choice rewards male bad behavior.

But recognizing that this is the man that women want is a good corrective to what progs teach men to be. That man is a lot closer to the man that builds civilization than the emasculated man.

As civilization falls apart, likely we can only attain Pauline masculinity by going through Viking masculinity and out the other side. A world of female sexual choice is a world that is likely to be conquered by men practicing Viking masculinity, for its cuckolded males will not defend it, neither will its playboy males watching the decline from the poolside defend it, hence the female preference for that kind of masculinity.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

When whites are driven out of affluent middle class areas which then become terrifying run down burned out urban jungles, it is not Jews that they are fleeing.

The inner city used to be where the affluent, the rich, and the upwardly mobile lived. It is not Jews that destroyed the inner city, Detroit, Ferguson, and are now destroying Chicago.

Female bad behavior comes from desire to fuck taciturn narcissistic assholes, starting at age eight or nine. If it was Jewish influence, they would want to fuck neurotic talkative dweebs resembling Woody Allen. Margaret Mead fucked people of both sexes and numerous races, but did not fuck Franz Boas.

Blaming Jews is yet another good news religion, because it is easy to gas the Jews, but considerably more difficult, and more disturbing, to keep women under loc parentis supervision from eight to menopause. So the program of restoring civilization sounds a lot easier if all you have to do to get things back on track is gas the Jews.

If we blame the Enlightenment, in particular and especially the extravagantly absurd claim that all men are created equal, if we blame blacks, single women, and the holiness spiral, then it looks like a harder problem, that requires us to do things that are inherently unpopular and unholy, whereas exterminating a market dominant minority is always popular, and you can very easily get away with representing it as holy. Jews are a market dominant minority, and we whites are about to become a market dominant minority.

People who hope to win an election with a universal franchise have to blame the Jews, or else blame whites in general. You cannot shut down a holiness spiral in a democracy except with another holiness spiral.

Muslims in Europe and America are very close to successfully representing gassing the Jews as holy, and shortly thereafter will go to work on similar representation of whites.

Notice eager Jewish collaboration in Muslim efforts to represent gassing the Jews as holy. This falsifies the doctrine that Jewish misbehavior is collectively rational behavior that advances the interests of “the Jews”.

I have often said that going after the Jews is goring the matador’s cape, rather than goring the matador. You have to shut down the holiness spiral itself, rather than a category of people that contains a disturbingly large proportion of exceptionally enthusiastic demon worshipers.

Shutting down the holiness spiral requires something like an inquisition. We don’t need to burn people at the stake, though Charles the second did need to burn a few people at the stake, in particular one alarmingly and excessively holy female heretic, whose holiness was inconveniently and irritatingly genuine, and whose Unitarian Christian derived belief system was alarmingly twenty first century. But mostly what Charles the second did was fire everyone in state and quasi state jobs, and invite them to re-apply for their old jobs. In the job interview, the applicant was asked whether he would “conform” – conform to the new standard of moderate holiness, which prohibited excessive holiness in general, and the old form of holiness in particular. If one declined to say he would conform, he did not get burned at the stake – but neither did he get his old job back. Many who declined to conform departed under their own power to New England. A few said they would conform, got their old jobs back, but then engaged in apostacy, and those ones Charles came down on pretty hard, but usually they got ridiculed and their careers got ruined, rather than burned at the stake. Looks to me that only one genuinely sincere and genuinely holy heretic got burned at the stake by Charles the Second, and all the others that were burned were two faced slimy lying hypocrites, and that most of the apostates just got laughed at and their careers stalled, rather than burned at the stake, or even fired. But you really do need to sometimes take firm measures against stubborn and excessively ostentatious holiness.

The problem with Jews is that they are a market dominant minority with a strong identity. Being a market dominant minority with a strong identity they are particularly subject to potential persecution, plus, in even in the absence of actual persecution, they still have an extremely strong persecution mythos, which makes them paranoid and hostile. Since one is going to get treated as a persecutor no matter what, one feels inclined to actually persecute them.

Jews are are inclined to attack the fabric of the host society, because when it’s strong it attacks them, and when it’s weak it lays off. The fabric of society is essentially everything “fascist”, so they are naturally anti-fascist insofar as they identify as jewish. Obviously this pattern has been reinforced. The reform jews most so because they are actually trying to integrate, which they can’t if everyone is Nordic Catholic “Fascists”.

When they engage in a holiness spiral, they don’t have any personal attachment to the things that their utopian schemes will destroy, or any concern about the reasons it won’t work. Whereas a white man would say “what about my job, family, community, ancestors, people, church, business”, your typical academic jew would say “Certain elements of the bourgeois will feel the move to equality as oppression (and I never liked those dumb goyim anyways)”.

Their talents make them useful to short-sighted elites, which puts them in the position of High, but with more mobility, more of a mobile bandit; they can always go elsewhere and feel just as at home. In addition to the insecurity they feel as a persecuted minority, they are naturally aligned with High which has in our recent history been engaged in destructive anti-fascism.

Their talents further mean that they are quite good at the subversion, which, lacking attachment to their host society, they naturally get into.

But the problem is not Jewish participation in subversion, it is that subversion is profitable, respected, and rewarded. Make it unprofitable, despised, and dangerous, and there will not be a Jew in sight.

Civilization is the art of people living together in large numbers: The basic problems of civilization are shutting down violence, ensuring that men and women agree to stick together for richer or poorer, or better or worse, and are forced to stick by that agreement, and securing property rights. Leftism is an attack on all of these, leftism is siding with the forces of entropy for political advantage, and Nazism is just leftism that has been left behind by a hundred years of movement even further left. “Fascism” is freedom, freedom is made possible by law, law is made possible by first establishing order, order is made possible by peace, peace first require victory, and victory requires war. Leftism reverses this chain of causation and moves us back towards the war of all against all. Leftism weaponizes covetousness and envy to attack property rights and female sexual lust to attack marriage. Single women, rather than Jews, vote for the mass import of rapeugees, because unconsciously they hope to be sold naked in chains on the auction block.

Observe what is happening with the Rohingya. The Rohingya correctly believe that a good Muslim should live under Muslim rule, and that a Muslim should establish Muslim rule wherever he lives. They attempted to establish a Muslim state in Burma, the Burmese were not having any, and are now expelling them. The expelled Rohingya don’t want to go to the USA. They want to go to a Muslim state, but Islamic states fear that if they accept the Rohingya, the Rohingya will decide that their hosts are insufficiently Islamic, or the wrong kind of Islamic. The US government wants them, wants to dump the on marginal electorates in flyover country, and you really cannot blame the Jews for this. You cannot blame the Rohingya for this. They don’t want to go to an infidel state. It is single female lust for men manly enough to subjugate them. If a bunch of east europeans were fleeing some place, I bet the PUAs would be keen on bringing them here.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Too many Americans have died in order that Afghan girls can be taught how to put a condom on a banana.

Trump has reversed course on Afghanistan. Perhaps he needed to do that to keep the officers on side, but this war needs to be won or lost. Keeping it going forever is costing far too much blood and treasure.

How do you win an Afghan war?

It is not hard: You need a genuinely Islamic strong monarch who can accomplish the difficult job of keeping order, and let him know that if trouble comes out of Afghanistan and reaches you, he is going to die.

The problem with our existing war is that it is a holy war, fought to emancipate women in Afghanistan, and to destroy conservative Islam, not to create order under the control of someone who can be held responsible for any trouble coming out of Afghanistan. If you are going to fight a holy war against a live religion, need to kill huge numbers of people and level their cities, which we are reluctant to do – although if they were white Christians, I am sure there would be no hesitation.

If we are reluctant to slaughter and burn on the require scale, then we need to let Afghans be Afghans. It is time to shut down those prog schools in Afghanistan.

Too many Americans have died in order that Afghan girls can be taught how to put a condom on a banana.

We forbid our soldiers to piss one hundred yards upwind of Koran, we forbid them to carry bibles, while we attempt to destroy the values taught in that Koran.

I would totally support holy war against the Afghans, fought with the methods necessary to win a holy war. I am not so keen on unholy war. We are fighting to destroy what is right with Islam, rather than what is wrong, fighting to corrupt Islam as Christianity was corrupted, and the Taliban rightly sees this as wickedness.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

In the ancestral environment, if you were a reproductively unsuccessful male, you formed a tribe of young men, who went off and stole some land and enslaved some women. Holiness signalling about racial purity is tribe formation.

What their genes really want them to do is confiscate the Ivy League endowments, kill the males at Harvard, occupy the Ivy League buildings, and enslave the Ivy League women. Given that the alternative is near certain genetic extinction, this is not a stupid ambition, though purity spiraling, which generates the solidarity needed to accomplish this program, also distracts from this program.

Getting overly obsessed about Jews creates the cohesion necessary to address this problem – but also results in not conquering and enslaving women, which is actually the whole point of the program, just as females shit testing results in those females not having children and not forming relationships, even though from the point of the genes the whole point of shit testing is family formation – girls are behaving provocatively to find a male powerful enough to subdue them, but girls think they are behaving provocatively because they actually want power, freedom, and independence, with the result that they attain neither power nor family, and achieve freedom and independence as cat ladies.

Your genes don’t actually want you to gas the Jews. That is just a flag to rally around, and a club with which to attack your enemies. (Hence the tendency of Nazis to denounce everyone they don’t like as Jewish.) Your genes want you to gas the enemy males, take their land, revenue sources, and buildings, and enslave their women. Krystalnacht was assets being smashed, rather than transferred to individuals competent to use them. If you gas the Jews without winding up supported by the revenue from the campus endowment, in a nice home with a couple of ivy league slave girls serving you in what used to be an ivy league campus, it has all gone horribly wrong, like a thirty year old woman issuing an inappropriately brutal shit test to a beta provider male.

It is a “masculine failure mode” only if you don’t get the land, the house, and the slave girls. Recollect that in the American Revolution, the Whigs dispossesed the Tories, drove them out of America, and took their stuff. The alt right are today’s Tories, and their genes want a re-run.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Although science has been stagnating since Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, technology that makes money continues to advance. We have a problem with new blue sky technologies. No one in the west is developing new technologies any more, just polishing up existing profitable technologies. We are not getting any replacement for chip patterning usin one hundred and ninety three nanometer excimer laser lithography, just ever more minute improvements in excimer laser lithography, with the result that Moore’s law has run out of puff. People keep talking about ten nanometer, but it is just not going anywhere. They keep saying they will use both one ninety and ten. If ten was working, would not use one ninety. If they were talking ninety nanometer, rather than ten, then I would be impressed. If someone could make money out of supersonic jets, we would get better and better supersonics, but instead, planes are slowing down, not speeding up. But people could make money out of drilling and stimulating oil fields, so drilling and oilfield stimulation got better and better, and continues to improve.

Physical resources are effectively infinite, in that physical limits to growth are unlikely to be a significant problem in the reasonably foreseeable future. The problem is social decay.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

I am not disowning my fellow alt rightists who happen to be nazis. I am inviting them to become better friends and allies than they already are by discarding their blue pill illusions about women – by becoming even more evil than they already are.

Progs tell me that Andrew Anglin is the leading force for Nazism in the America, and have forced him to flee to Nigeria, where the locals do not see anything odd, evil, surprising, or unusual, about a white advocating for the interests of whites, or the interests of those whites ethnically similar to himself. Doesn’t everyone do that? Nigerians are too busy hating Nigerians who are a different breed of black to themselves to worry about whites.

My problem with Andrew Angelin is that if he is the leading force, progs don’t have much to worry about. This a man who thinks that twelve year old girls would be pure and chaste if it was not for evil males preying upon them.

He tells us that the problems we have with women are due to evil Jewish mind rays. If it was not for those damned Jews, women would never give us such tough shit tests. This is the sort of thinking that led to Hitler having only moderate success in raising the German birthrate.

The trouble with Nazis is that they leftists stuck in the 1930s, while the rest of the left has moved even further left. And the left was mighty bluepilled back in the 1930s.

His truly impressive loli collection suggests to me a man who does not score a whole lot of real life women, though I would guess he does considerably better than Scott Alexander.

There is a man in urgent need of the red pill.

The trouble with blaming everything on Jews is not that it is unkind to Jews. Unkind to Jews is not my problem. I will let Jews worry about that. The problem with blaming everything on Jews is that it leads to the conclusion that 1930s leftism, leftism before we let the Jews into the left wing club, was just fine. And Andrew Anglin’s truly impressive loli collection is where that thinking gets you.

In fact, things started going bad early in the nineteenth century, when frothing at the mouth biting mad feminism gave us a marriage contract that was enforced on men, but not on women, resulting in the collapse of the family.

And, shortly after that, white man’s burden, with the corresponding attacks on unit cohesion and military discipline, with the result that inferior races started to defeat whites in 1841, and have been defeating us militarily worse and worse ever since.

That is when things went to hell – when marriage was successfully attacked by those holier than thou, when our military was successfully attacked by those holier than thou. Rolling things back to the 1930s is not going to help. We need to roll things back to the 1730s.

Yes, Jews have always been subversive, and they were subversive back in the 1730s also. But I am pretty sure it was not Jews that caused everything except science to turn to shit in the nineteenth century, and it was not Jews that caused science to turn to shit in the twentieth. What happened to science after World War II was plainly the result of Harvard strong arming the Royal Society. Andrew is blaming the flies for the condition of a corpse that has a bullet hole in the head. It is not that I support flies, it is that I oppose being shot in the head.

There is a correlation between flies and corpses, but Nazis have the causation backwards.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Doubtless you have heard of the recent Idaho gang rape.

This was Islamic Rape Jihad, not just Muslim rapists, because the girl was five, because the boys put it on video, because the boys expected the support of their community, and because the boys received the support of their community.
You
Feminist response to this rape shows what feminists really want. Everyone reacting to this in an indignant manner is a male who is in favor of patriarchy to a greater or lesser extent, and many of them want to completely reverse female emancipation.

In the ancestral environment, and indeed today’s environment, if a woman was property the way a cow is property, she was likely to have substantially greater reproductive success than a free woman. If a man was property the way a cow is property, likely to have zero reproductive success.

In the ancestral environment, as today, male slaves don’t reproduce. Female slaves generally outreproduce free women. Thus the optimal strategy for a woman is to provoke until provocation results in enslavement.

The evolutionary optimal strategy for a female, in the ancestral environment, and in our present day environment, is to act in ways that gets the west conquered by Islamic State. If free, likely to have 1.5 children, and similarly her grandchildren, rapidly resulting in the total disappearance of her genes. If her menfolk are conquered and she is sold naked in chains on the auction block by Islamic state, likely to have six or seven children.

Optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to be captured by a man who owns her much as he owns a cow and can do anything to her he could do to a cow. The optimal reproductive strategy for her owner is to treat her considerably better than he treats his cows, but the less he has power to do bad things to her, the more it is in his interests to do bad things to her. For a free woman, the stable strategy is defect/defect, for the woman to defect by serial monogamy, for the woman to spend her hottest and most fertile years continually trying to trade up to a higher status male or better place on some other male’s booty call list, and for a male to defect by keeping as many women as possible on his booty call list, to spin as many plates as possible, without investing in any of them. For a slave, because the slave cannot defect, because the slave is guaranteed to play cooperate, cooperate is also a good move for the male owner of a female slave, because he has a biological interest in the welfare of her children. He is free to impose cooperate/defect on her, but that is not actually all that much in his biological interest, which biological interest manifests in the tendency of men to love and care for women that they regularly have sex with, provided that they believe those women are not having sex with other men.

Feminist demands for emancipation ever escalate, no matter how extraordinary the privilege women are granted, because they are pushing for someone strong enough to master them. In the ancestral environment, free women were unsuccessful at reproducing, because prisoner’s dilemma. That she can defect on a man guarantees defect/defect, guarantees that he will try to defect before she does – giving her no care, protection, or support, keeping as many plates spinning as he can, so they look for someone powerful enough to stop them from defecting. Slave women will generally outreproduce free women, because he who owns a woman absolutely has incentive to invest in her and her children. Similarly, cows are numerous, their wild ancestors are generally extinct. If animal liberationists liberate chickens and cows, there are not going to be very many chickens or cows. If the People’s Popular Committee for Food Abundance tells the farmer he does not own his land and his crops, there is going to be crop failure.

And feminists, in supporting Rape Jihad, are unconsciously pursuing their optimal evolutionary reproductive strategy, which is to be sold by Islamic state naked in chains on the auction block. We are descended from free men and unfree women. Peoples, nations religions, cultures and groups with strong, proud, free, and independent women died out. They always die out.

Female emancipation is a shit test that we failed. Feminists support Rape Jihad because they are unconsciously looking for men who will pass their shit test.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives us the official version of the enlightenment:

“Reason is man’s central capacity.”
“Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.”
“All men (including, on the view of many, women) are equal in respect of their rationality, and should thus be granted equality before the law and individual liberty.”
“Man is by nature good. (Kant endorsed the Christian view of a “radical evil” in human nature, but held that it is possible to overcome it.)”
“Both an individual and humanity as a whole can progress to perfection.”
“Tolerance is to be extended to other creeds, and ways of life.”
“The Enlightenment devalues local “prejudices’ and customs, which owe their development to historical peculiarities rather than to the exercise of reason. What matters to the Enlightenment is not whether one is French or German, but that one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.”

The first two propositions superficially sound like a commitment to the scientific method – but somehow they have left out evidence, experiment, and observation. After dismissing religion, the Enlightenment demands adherence to three blatantly false religious beliefs, which beliefs contradict reason, experiment and observation far more blatantly than young earth creationism does.

All men are not equal, nor women equal to men, nor groups and categories of men equal to each other.
Nor is man by nature good. In the cold and morally neutral terminology of the dark enlightenment, the natural outcome is defect-defect, and avoiding this outcome, getting to cooperate-cooperate, becomes more and more difficult as the number of people that you have to deal with increases. It takes social institutions, and to deal with these ever larger scales, these institutions have to be ever more finely honed and precisely made, and are ever more vulnerable to entropy and error.
The “progress to perfection.” line is that our nature is entirely the result of environment. Just raise the self esteem of women and blacks, and everything will be lovely. This has been tried, and the outcome is far from lovely, but they just keep trying harder. The grotesquely inflated self esteem of blacks leads to blacks committing acts of violence against whites, and the grotesquely inflated self esteem of women leads to disastrous choices. They divorce the father of their children expecting to marry a six foot six athletic billionaire, or they marry late, or they do not marry at all.

The extension of tolerance is notoriously selective, and necessarily selective, for if tolerance is mandatory, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech is forbidden, which is not very tolerant at all. Tolerance is not extended to the “intolerant” meaning not extended to those who prefer to cooperate with people who are cooperative, and who prefer to refrain from cooperating with those who defect. Hence the financial crisis. Official minorities and single women, and in particular minority single women, and in particular blacks, and in particular black single women, generally do not repay mortgages. Any criterion that leads to banks extending loans to people that are inclined to repay, leads to banks discriminating against minorities, single women, and especially blacks. Which is forbidden. And so the 2007-2008 financial crisis. So the enlightened tolerate Muslims blowing people up and raping infidel women, but do not tolerate whites hanging out with people who are inclined to pay their debts. That is one creed and one way of life that they are not inclined to extend tolerance to. Forbidding an ever increasing range of speech and association is necessarily intolerant. We should stick to suppressing dangerous lies and heresies that aggressively pursue political power (such as The Enlightenment). Any suppression of freedom of speech, association, and assembly that goes beyond this is excessive and damaging. Official tolerance is inherently and necessarily dangerously intolerant.

Civilization is the advance of technical and scientific knowledge, and most importantly, social organization. Most of all it is the capability to maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships in very large groups. You will notice that the enlightenment is a root and branch attack on civilization, and Rousseau explicitly framed it as an attack on civilization and intent to destroy civilization.

The devaluation of local prejudices and customs is the dismantling of Chesterton’s fence, the abandonment of the slowly and painfully accumulated habits, customs, laws and institutions that make civilization possible, the devaluation and abandonment of the roots of Western Civilization. Our Cathedrals are empty and abandoned.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

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

If, however, a white male member of a college fraternity hits on a drunken slut, then they will continue to throw the book at him. Nothing divisive about that [there was a sarcasm tag but it caused a submission error].

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

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

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

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

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

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

image

Eighteenth century view was that women were sex crazy and needed to be kept under tight control or else in their feverish sexual lust they would destroy the family, and because state, society, and the church rested on the family, if you let women loose, everything would fall apart.

Nineteenth century view was that women were wonderful, and the marital contract only needed to be enforced against men, never against women, because naturally a woman would never break it unless a man forced her to do so.

And everything did fall apart.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Still has to pass the Senate, but already the Democrats are terrified.

The essential and important feature of Trumpcare is that it “denies insurance to millions of Americans”. In other words, when you seek medical care, when those who pay for and operate our system of medical care seek medical care, they will not find one hundred drug addicts looking for free drugs and one hundred bums looking for free food, a free bed, and human contact in front of them. Those people, drug addicts, criminals, and suchlike, are still going to get subsidy, but they will go literally or metaphorically through a different door to the people who are paying.

Now even if Trumpcare passes the Senate, we still have to pass it to find out what is in it. The details are going to be filled in by regulators – regulators who are theoretically under Trump’s supervision, but are in fact far more answerable to the permanent government. So we still could be screwed nine ways from Sunday.

But like Trump himself, Trumpcare offers remote possibility of success, as compared to the absolute certainty of failure.

A possible outcome of this vote, a successful outcome of this vote, is that the marginal voter, the swinging voter, gets reasonable healthcare, or at least healthcare that is less outrageously terrible, and the Democrat voter core (vagrants, drug addicts, whores, single mums, and criminals) loses out – which of course is going to mean a major swing to Trump and Republicans, and a major swing away from Democrats. Hence the widespread abject pants-wetting terror among democrat politicians.

Trumpcare protects people with pre-existing conditions, without however giving them the same insurance you get. Which may in practice mean that people who don’t pay go in through the same door you do, or may not mean that. If it means that people who don’t pay go in through the same door, then that means that people who pay get treated like criminals, vagrants and drug addicts, in short like Democratic party core voters, that being the vast majority of non paying people showing up at hospital. People say that the very old are costing us a bundle, that the very sick are costing us a bundle. No, it is Democratic Party core constituencies that are costing us a bundle.

Not needing to pay for healthcare and having plenty of time on your hands makes a vastly greater difference to how much healthcare you consume than being old and sick does. In short, being a Democratic core constituency is the major variable determining how much healthcare a person is going to consume.

Any system that guarantees that some morbidly obese alcoholic on the street is going to get the same standard of healthcare as an affluent middle class person is going to guarantee that that affluent middle class person is going to get very little healthcare. If Trumpcare is going to provide a reasonable standard of healthcare for the median voter, it has to deny a reasonable standard of healthcare for the modal Democratic party voter. Whether it will do so is far from clear, but it is absolutely certain that Obamacare will not provide a reasonable standard of healthcare for the median voter.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The rule on hitting girls should be, “don’t hit someone else’s girl”. If a girl is misbehaving, you should call for the man who is in charge of her, ask him to take care of the problem, and if he does not, you should punch him out, not his girl.

Moldilocks went to the free speech rally in Berkeley declaring she was going to collect one hundred fascist scalps. She was wearing brass knuckle gloves, having watched too many Hollywood movies where action girl takes out five mooks while doing a backflip. She threw glass bottles at people.

A gentleman should never under any circumstances strike a lady, but Moldilocks was no lady.

If an unowned, unsupervised women, gets beaten by some male, your default presupposition, your prejudgment of the situation absent other evidence, should be that males are generally well behaved, unsupervised and uncontrolled women are frequently badly behaved, therefore chances are that she probably needed a beating.

Women are, of course, the precious sex, and men are the expendable sex. It is right that men should die for their women. Men have a duty to love and cherish their women, and women do not have a duty to love and cherish their men, but a duty to honor and obey. But not all women are precious. Unowned women frequently behave in ways that make them less valuable, and more expendable, than men. Observe that Moldilocks was beautiful, became a porngirl (her ranking is too low to qualify as pornstar) became unattractive with astonishing speed, her inner ugliness becoming externally manifest. Her inner ugliness made manifest revealed that this woman was worthless trash.

Some women are precious, not all women are precious. It is entirely OK to punch porngirls, especially unattractive porngirls. No punching cute porngirls in the face, but measures less likely to mar them are fine.

Women are precious because they can create life, whereas all a man can do is merely kill someone. A woman can make you immortal, whereas all a man can do is merely kill you. But porngirl Moldilocks is not going to make you immortal, so no great loss spoiling her face even further.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Trump’s CIA director, Pompeo, tells us that Julian Assange, the leader of wikileaks is “on the wrong side of history.”

That is commie language, commie thinking. To say that history has a side in earthly political struggles is history reified and personified as the Jewish God.

Probably he is a cultural Marxist rather than an old style Marxist, since old style Marxists are mighty thin on the ground these days.

Personifying “History” is characteristic of Jewish descended leftism via Marx. Puritan descended leftism via Harvard immanentizes salvation, rather the immanentizing the deity.

This ideology puts one on a course that necessarily results in the murder of very large number of people. Pompeo is ticked with Julian Assange for exposing, and thus disrupting, various color revolutions, but the biggest color revolution that is cooking right now is in America itself, which revolution, if it goes through, will likely result in the deaths of Trump and all his family, and probably most republicans in office. If you favor color revolutions, you favor antifa, you favor killing Trump, his family, and Trump supporters.

The Marxist does not think of himself as intending to murder the peasants, and the cultural Marxist does not think of himself as planning to send all hetero males to the Gulag. Rather he thinks that if it was not for “bullying” all nine year old boys would be gay and they would all be fucking in the classroom a great big pile. When a great big pile fails to ensue in the classroom, escalates the war on “bullying”, until it eventually starts to look remarkably like sending all cisgender males to the Gulag.

The original Marxists were going to emancipate the peasants from the landlords, and utopia and abundance would ensue. Utopia and abundance failed to ensue. Obviously invisible intangible landlord oppression. Therefore, war on kulaks, which liberation of the peasants looked curiously similar to war on the peasants. And thus, today, instead of war on kulaks, war on cis hetero patriarchal oppressors. They are liberating us from being “bullied”. They are indignant at our lack of gratitude. And the war on bullying inevitably escalates.

“ohh mai gosh, people like you, cishet white privileged DUDEBROS, are the reason women and POCs are oppressed, wow just wow, the white race must be abolished (don’t worry, only as a social construct, I have nothing sinister in mind *rubs hands*), so listen now, fratboyrapist microaggressor douchenozzle, we’re sending you and your associates to the gulag – k bye!”

The Czar failed to support Pyotr Stolypin, and appointed a bunch of lefties to the council of ministers, who, when the Czar was away at the front, refrained from any serious effort to restrain revolutionaries who intended to kill the Czar and his family, and who when trouble broke out, resigned in favor of the revolutionaries. Giving Pompeo power and taking power away from Bannon is a similar error. Politics is war by other means, and for the past couple of decades has been drifting closer to war by the usual means.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Whosover wants to overthrow Assad of Syria, wants to murder all Alawites and murder or expel all Christians. There used to be a moderate opposition, composed entirely of do-gooder employees of “NGOs”, which is to say, employees of the State Department, but they all got out when things went bad, and are now employed on various do-gooder international grants all over the world, such as settling Somali refugees on middle American marginal electorates in flyover country. The opposition to Assad is now 100% head chopper Muslim. The Cathedral delusively imagines it can regain control once they have finished chopping off heads.

Whosoever wants to overthrow Assad of Syria, wants to ally with people unlike me, to murder people who are like me, to murder them for what they have in common with me. Murdering some people who are like me, murdering them because they are like me is a step towards murdering everyone like me.

It is striking that the advocates of reason, rationality, niceness, and maximizing everyone’s utility always wind up with pyramids of skulls. The French revolution was in large part a creation of the cult of reason, and I see the same evil and madness in today’s rationalist community, for example the Bay Area rationalist community, whose rationality is strikingly and conspicuously limited by their refusal to engage in thoughtcrime and their demented demonization of thought criminals.

Recall the Populares of Rome. “Populares” is latin for “Democrats”, or “People’s Party”. In the end they allied with the Samnites. I suppose the Populares wanted to give the Samnites citizenship and fairer treatment, because that is the kind of moldy bananas the Populares stood for, being nice to people, especially the oppressed, remedying justice and inequality, rationality, reason, and reasonableness, all that filthy disgusting garbage. The Samnites, however, wanted to overthrow the walls of Rome, kill every Roman male, and rape every fertile age Roman woman. The Populare/Samnite alliance strikingly resembles today’s progressive/Muslim alliance.

The fans of kindness, niceness, pleasantness, reason, and rationality tend to wind up quite unreasonably and unpleasantly torturing and murdering very large numbers of people. Hostility to near is a key foundational principle of leftism, goes down all the way to friends, family, and political allies.

War with Syria is war on the side of Jews against the side of Christians, since Assad is keeping Syrian Christians alive, and Israel is backing the side that wants Assad (and Christians) dead. I don’t think this is a matter of the Zionist Occupation Government ruling the world. Rather it is that the Cathedral, though it hates Israel, or rather hates Israel being Jewish, wants a non Jewish Israel, hates Christians even more. The Cathedral is allied with Israel the state, but there is a point of contention, since they cannot stand Israel being Jewish or India being Hindu, any more than they can stand America being Christian. Israel the state wants Syria the state in chaos, and the Cathedral wants to rule Syria and imagines it can rule through the head choppers. Were they to actually succeed in ruling through head choppers, Israel the state would find itself under a lot heavier pressure to become less Jewish, but the Israelis doubt that this outcome is very likely.

Trump’s attack on Syria was both real and fake – real enough to threaten Assad and Putin, real enough to get his judge through the senate, real enough to keep the Pentagon on his side, fake enough to avoid war with Assad and Putin. What is clear is that the left wants to overthrow Assad. If we continue to take substantial measures to overthrow Assad, then Trump will have cucked out to the left as the Czar did, which I think will likely be the death of Trump and his family, as it was the death of the Czar and his family. Any concessions to the left are just blood in the water. They are more likely to kill you if you play nice with them than if you piss on them.

When Obama took power, we were involved in two pointless unwinnable wars in the middle east, where we supporting the side that could perhaps be argued to be the good guys, though it was far from clear who the good guys were.

When Obama had governed for eight years, he had gotten us into five more pointless unwinnable wars in the middle east, where we are for the most part supporting sides that are appallingly evil and indiscriminately murderous.

When I say unwinnable, it is not that we lack the capacity to defeat a bunch of backward goat herders. It is that we lack the capacity to defeat a bunch of backward goat herders when our troops are required to behave like heavily armed nursemaids, and when I say pointless, I mean that the victory condition is defined as our enemies liking us, rather than our enemies being dead or enslaved. If you forbid our troops to kill civilians that are intermixed with our enemies, our enemies will grasp civilians to their chests. If you applied the the old laws of war, which allowed you to flatten enemy cities and such like, civilians would separate themselves from combatants, and combatants would have no reason to prevent them from doing so.

And now Trump is under extreme pressure to bring us into war with Syria, North Korea, Russia, and China, and may well be cucking out under that pressure, bringing us from seven low level wars in five of which we are allied to the bad guys, to eleven wars, in three of which we will be the bad guys, and two of them likely to go thermonuclear.

Why is it that the fans of niceness and rationality tend to be unpleasant and irrational, from the Bay Area Rationalist community to the Khmer Rouge?

It is because caring for your children, your spouse, your lover, your sisters, your brothers, and your friends is likely to be expensive and inconvenient. Caring for far away people located in places you cannot find on the map tends to be a whole lot cheaper and much more convenient.

And thus it is no surprise that Badwhites look after their children, their spouses, their kin, their lovers, and their friends, while Goodwhites do not look after their children, their spouses, and their kin, and routinely stab lovers and friends in the back. Often stab kin in the back also – observe what happens when the old man dies, and fights over the inheritance break out. Leftists lie, betray, and sometimes murder, in order to rob their brothers and sisters, sometimes even their parents and their children.

Can you imagine one of ours suckerpunching an Obama supporter to the enthusiastic cheers of everyone who voted against Obama? Reflect on the Yellow Hat incident – the video shows yellow hat being sucker punched, presumably because he formerly wore a Trump hat. There is just no way that could happen on our side. Nasty goings on when inheritance is being distributed always involve lefties behaving ruthlessly to close kin. Normal people generally cooperate with close kin. The rubbish and destruction left after left wing protests, as compared to the neatness and order of right wing protests. It is not like a ten percent greater likelihood of littering and vandalism, it is a thousand fold greater likelihood of littering and vandalism.

Lord Howe arranged for his men to die. The Victorian anti slaver movement committed perjury in court. Who kills commies? Commies kill commies. It is totally and completely one sided. Nazis, right wing dictators, right wing death squads kill hardly any commies by comparison. It is not like there is a ten percent greater tendency to murder their own, it is more like a thousand fold greater tendency to murder their own.

Would our people have produced something like the “10:10 no pressure” video?

The moral difference between lefties and normies is as clear as the trail of rubbish that they leave in their path.

Hostility to near is a key foundational principle of leftism, goes down all the way to friends, family, and political allies. Hence Lord Howe. If your commanding officer is a leftist and he orders you into danger, desert.

Leftism as an individual propensity is a propensity to game the systems for status, affiliation, alliance formation, and virtue signaling. Leftism as a movement is large scale organized gaming of the status, affiliation, and virtue signaling systems, and thus tends to work to the disadvantage of individual leftists. No friends to the right, no enemies to the left, means all your friends are your enemies and all your enemies are your friends, hence the greatest danger to leftists as members of a leftist movement is being murdered by their own movement.

If you are genuinely decent and conscientious, you are substantially less interested in cheap signals of decency and conscientiousness. Decent conscientious people are not attracted to whatever opinions are high status. People who want cheap ways of signaling decency and conscientiousness are attracted towards whatever opinions are high status.

Thus, observe …

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

You want Roissy ran out of town on a rail. There is a good chance he “raped” your girlfriend, and if he did not, he had her before you, or will have her after you.

But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.

So if you want a society where Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, or better, shot like a dog, you need a society where husbands and fathers have legitimate, socially recognized, legally recognized, and legally enforced property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services, where a husband or a father can legally and morally legitimately shoot Roissy for sniffing around where he should not, as he can shoot a burglar for sniffing around where he should not.

And if you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy (“oh the poor things”) you are abandoning male property rights in women.

The system that Victorians liked to pretend that they had, where unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women were presumed to be chaste and of comparable value to owned, controlled, and protected women, is not incentive compatible. No one has strong motivation to protect the society that you piously pretend that you have. You are not upvaluing unprotected women. You are downvaluing wives and daughters.

You cannot have the supposed Victorian and the supposed Puritan system, for the same reason as the Victorians and the Puritans could not have it either. The Victorian system resulted in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, resulting in the welfare state, resulting in far too many women marrying Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And here we are.

If you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy you are not going to succeed, because unowned women are uncontrolled women. And your entire intended system goes down the drain.

You cannot “protect” unowned women from seduction and “rape“, because women are notoriously uncooperative with anyone trying to “protect” them.

Whereupon, surprise surprise, no one runs Roissy out of town no matter how much the preacher vainly rants about chastity.

If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth. Roissy screwing unowned women cannot be allowed to matter, because unowned women cannot be allowed to matter.

High estimates of the number of whores in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century where not based on the modern usage of “whore” to mean a woman rents her pussy for cash by the hour, but rather, were estimates of the number of unowned, and thus presumed to be unchaste, women. Similarly “sluts”.

You cannot keep women permanently chained to the wall. You are going to have to let them loose every now and then to take care of the baby, pick up the socks, and cook the meals. So you need to have a system that is incentive compatible with what women want. If women get entirely their way, civilization collapses, because most men will not have posterity, so will not plant trees for their grandchildren to enjoy the shade. So you need to have a system where male ownership of women is incentive compatible with what women want, where women have reason to cooperate in a system that restrains their worst excesses. So you have to downvalue unowned women and upvalue owned women. And if you downvalue unowned women, you cannot allow yourself to care about what Roissy gets up to. (Unless of course, he starts sniffing around your wife or daughter, in which case you shoot him like a dog, and the cops shrug their shoulders and say “needed killing”.)

The problem is not that women want to bang multiple high value alpha males. They want to bang only one high value alpha male, and that high value alpha male also wants them to bang only that one high value alpha male. The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value. The solution is to associate this tactic with being low value. And if allow ourselves to care about what Roissy gets up to, we are upvaluing women who employ this tactic. No one should care about what unowned women get up to, or about what happens to them, thus motivating unowned women to come in from the cold, and owned women to stay where it is warm.

It does not matter if the archbishop proclaims that all fertile age women are the property of their father or husband. He can, and should proclaim that all fertile age women should be the property of their father or husband, but short of keeping them all permanently chained to the dungeon wall, not all of them are going to actually be the property of their father or husband. Hence Roissy.

If we could stop unowned women from seducing Mohammed, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But we cannot.

Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.

Show post
Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the second mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The first mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guineverein in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

One of my commenters asks “Why not just become Muslim?”

I presume he means conservative Muslim, since a whole lot of Muslims are pozzed, are not breeding and not getting any pussy.

That is the Mormon solution (control women’s socialization) plus the orthodox Jewish solution (make female status artificially low), plus the ever popular individual male solution (illegal violence or the quiet potential for it) plus you turn off the Cathedral’s ever vigilant immune system plus you have a pre-existing community. (Just grow a wildman beard, attend mosque, and you are in like Flynn.) If you want to marry those eighteen year old socially conservative virgins, you need high socioeconomic status (they are in high demand), which leads to a problem with the wildman beard (tricky to have high socioeconomic status with the wildman beard), but that one is easier to navigate than political correctness, plus if you are Muslim you get a pass for all political incorrectness relating to gays and women. No one is going to ask a Halal bakery to bake a gay wedding cake. I see a lot of engineers putting on a dress and declaring that they are trans women in order to get ahead. Declaring yourself to be a Muslim almost makes you trans brown. Should be almost as good for your career as declaring yourself a trans woman, a whole lot better for your sex life than declaring yourself a trans woman, and the wildman beard is not nearly as bad as the dress. You also get a free pass to be manly, which helps with the ridiculous beard. If you lift iron and do a little bit of high intensity training, the beard will not look quite as bad.

Plus this is the solution we are going to get if we don’t do anything dramatic, if we continue to drift along our present course, if the passengers don’t attack the cockpit and kill whoever is flying the plane to its doom. Wherever we get data on Muslim births in Western countries the data shows that Muslims are massively outbreeding the natives. I assume this is conservative Muslims, since anecdote suggests that pozzed Muslims have the same dreadfully low reproductive rate as pozzed Jews. Islam is quietly becoming the official religion, in that sacrilege against Islam effectively carries the death penalty (in most western countries if you drop bacon on the pavement outside a mosque the judge will give you a jail term comparable to that which he gives for raping and murdering small children, and while you are in jail some Muslims will kill you while the prison authorities turn a blind eye, like the blind eye Berkeley police turn to black bloc beating up pro-trump protestors) while sacrilege against Christianity is almost mandatory: (Gay wedding cake, Church required to pay for abortions, Pope kisses the feet of aids infested homosexual transvestite prostitutes, government funded sacrilegious “art”, free pass for gays and feminists to physically attack Christians and disrupt religious services.)

...

What we need to do is import the good parts of Islam into Christianity: Patriarchy, repression of women, execution of homosexuals, holy war, intolerance of sacrilege, intolerance of heresy, and intolerance of apostacy. Retain the good bits of Christianity, the trinity, the attitude to logic, reason and law, the Orthodox communion of the saints, where the final authority on faith, doctrine, interpretation of the bible, and morals, is ancient Christians. Keep the Episcopalian married clergy, plus Episcopalian subordination to earthly authority. Decorate the result with a few Episcopalian symbols and call the result Episcopalianism, and make it the official state religion of the US empire in place of progressivism, with all other religions subordinated to it, second class, and unequally backed by the state. In school, kids get taught that official Episcopalianism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions are stupid, much as today they are taught that official progressivism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions (except possibly Islam) are stupid and evil.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

If Milo was purged for being a Jewish coal burning gay, that would be one thing, but being purged having sex with an older man at the age of fourteen is a different thing. Gay sex is disgusting and self destructive regardless of age, and thirty year old women are no more competent to make unsupervised sexual choices than twelve year old girls.

Purging Milo for “pedo” concedes the left position that consent is all that matters, that anything is fine if it is consenting adults that do it.

We should view sex with properly owned women as rape if her guardian does not consent to it (which is what “rape” meant a couple of hundred years ago) and sex with feral women as a form of regrettable but unavoidable predation regardless of whether they consent or not, which predation is best remedied by shotgun marriage or similar, remedied by ensuring that a feral woman comes into the possession of a man who can plausibly be expected to have good intentions towards her and treat her with kindness – if necessary without regard for her undoubtedly foolish opinions on the matter.

And, of course, if a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We should not purge Milo for being a Jewish coal burning gay, for there are far worse on the left, and only after they get helicoptered or thrown from high buildings should we ask Milo to clean up his act. And if we did not purge him for being a Jewish coal burning gay, then we certainly should not purge him for underage sex.

If two people agree to exchange corn for iron, obviously the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not have agreed to it. So state and society should not interfere in such agreements, and if everyone is free to engage in commercial trade, then state and society is better off. If two people agree to have sex, this is a very poor indicator that having sex makes both of them better off, because sexual impulses are volcanically powerful and deeply irrational. The converse can also apply. A woman’s decision to cease having sex with the father of her children usually has appallingly bad consequences for everyone, especially her children. A fertile age woman who ceases to have sex with her husband is always motivated by having received semen from a male more alpha than her husband, or excessively realistic fantasies of receiving such semen.

There are lots of good reasons why we should purge Milo. But this is a very bad reason. We are purging him for insufficient progressivism.

Show post
Donald Bagdasarian #fundie blog.jim.com

In an ideal society, most people would be steered roward a hands-on productive career long before the age of ten, and there would be apprenticeship systems in place to ensure that people had the skills necessary to work productively.

There will always be a need for a certain number of dedicated “thinkers.” But we honestly have far too many, and they are allowed far too much leeway. Once again, in an ideal society, there would be constraints placed on their work and research–if it was deemed appropriate to the good of society, it would be allowed to continue, if it defied natural social order and established precedent, it would be be stopped and that researcher prohibited from further work. A dedicated council should exist that would perform periodic audits and regularly review the work of researchers to determine if it constitutes a net public “good” or if it should be stopped–or even allowed to begin in the first place. The threat of censure would provide strong incentive to researchers and inventors to confine their work to practical, useful matters instead of airy-fairy, feel-good “progress” that wastes resources, time and money and endangers the stability of civilization while providing no tangible benefits. Progress for its own sake, technological or otherwise, benefits no one.

Show post
peppermint #fundie blog.jim.com

The disgusting slander of the dark ages is that the level of scholarship is the way to determine how good a society is. In reality an explosion of scholarship is a sign of decadence and theough the mechanism of undermining traditional values precedes the collapse of a society.

There is no reason to have universities. They were founded to provide legal services to visiting scholars. Scholars are scum and deserve to be beaten at the slightest provocation.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The discussion on the Jewish question raised several interesting and important issues, which tended to be drowned out by obsessive and repetitious discussion of the kill-them-all-and-take-their-stuff option. (If you think too much about outgroups, it is bad for your mental health.)

One of which is that Latin America browned out and went down the shithole because brownish people in the countryside reproduced and whitish people in the cities did not, and were replaced by brownish people from the countryside. Failure of elite reproduction.

But failure of elite reproduction is going to make us stupid even if the city imports fresh elites from a white countryside. Pretty soon we will need Jews to rule us (descended from rapidly reproducing orthodox urban Jews) just to keep the electricity and water going, just as Nigerians need whites and Chinese to keep the electricity and water going.

Mormons manage to reproduce in the cities. Right wing Jews manage to reproduce in the cities.

Men and women want to form families, but fail because of prisoner’s dilemma. There is an obvious state level solution to this: Empower husbands, disempower women. Authorize more violence by husbands, both in that they should be allowed to physically discipline wives and children, and in that they should be allowed to kill adulterers. Also death penalty for sleeping with another man’s wife, regardless of who carries the death penalty out. Enforce chastity on women, with “Homes for Wayward Girls”, similar to the female factory in late eighteenth century Australia. Lower the legal and social status of women. Prohibit women from exercising authority over men, other than their sons. Generally encourage manliness. Legalize dueling. Give property owners broader police authority. Videos should depict feminine women, manly men, patriarchal families, and obedient and respectful children.

Orthodox Jews and Amish are successful in reproducing in substantial part because they keep their kids out of an education system hostile to males, manliness, and household formation. Reversing credential inflation is important. Girls should finish formal education at puberty, and men not long thereafter. Engineers educate themselves informally all their lives. Everyone should do the same. It is easy now in the age of the internet. Unfortunately businesses are legally compelled to rely on educational credentials.

Trump’s family successfully reproduced in a society hostile to males and family formation, possibly because the Trump dynasty is uncomplicatedly and straightforwardly patriarchal. A large part of this is sheer force of personality, which men can and should cultivate. Be like Trump. Trump Trump Trump.

But force of personality will not do you much good if there are no marriageable women, and there are no marriageable women in Silicon Valley. Look at Zuckerberg’s wife and Bill Gates’ wife. In Silicon valley, the pump and dump lifestyle is simply the only viable strategy, because we have a social order dedicated to making women unmarriageable.

Fathers need to protect daughters from this social order, but it is hard for them to do so. If you are a silicon valley engineer, and you want to get married, need to take a year off and go for a trip around the world.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Trump has explained the free market part of his healthcare plan in detail. It is heavily influenced by the free market part of Singapore’s tremendously successful free market healthcare system. I have no doubt that if implemented as described, it is going to work and work well.

Trumps plan for the free market healthcare system is great.

But what about Singapore’s socialist healthcare system for the poor and unfortunate?

Trump gets vague. Hospitals, he tells us, are going to get paid to take care of people “who really cannot take care of themselves”.

The trouble with this is that as I said earlier if bums, vagrants, and drug addicts go through the same intake, queue in the same line, and get the same treatment as you and me, there are going to be so many drug addicts looking for free drugs, and so many vagrants looking for free room and board, in line ahead of you and me that you and I are not going to get treated.

The way Obamacare deals with this problem is that you and I cannot afford to get treated because we are paying so much to look after drug addicts and vagrants.

Obamacare has provided insurance for everyone, by making everyone equally uninsured, provided equal access to everyone by equally denying everyone access. Obamacare has, predictably, collapsed. Ann Coulter cannot get insurance that covers broken bones and cancer. If you cannot get insurance that covers broken bones and cancer, not much point in having insurance at all. (Ah, but she is guaranteed free abortions, which get priority above broken legs.) If she suffers anything expensive, she will wind up with the same treatment options as the homeless bum who heads to hospital for free room and board. Which is to say, really crappy room and board, which is what you got in place of treatment in Cuban hospitals. Universal healthcare for the poor has become universal lack of healthcare for the well off.

The healthcare system has, predictably, collapsed, because it is being swarmed by bums, vagrants, and drug addicts.

When you fly, there is business class and cattle class. For Trump’s plan to work, hospitals are going to have to have separate intakes for those who are insured and paying deductible, and those who are getting free handouts. And those who are getting free handouts have to be made to really wish they were getting the kind of treatment that those who are insured and paying deductible get.

The big, big, problem, the problem he is being very quiet about, is preventing his plan for “Insurance for everyone” from devouring free market insurance the way Obamacare did. To prevent it from devouring the free market, you have to be mighty harsh on people who are getting medical care free.

You cannot adequately take care of bums, because bums will always demand more care than can be supplied. Thus a genuine universal scheme always winds up not providing care for anyone. If Ann Coulter breaks a leg or gets cancer, probably will wind up flying to Singapore, Thailand, or India.

For Trump’s scheme for “those who cannot take care of themselves” to work without destroying healthcare for paying customers, hospitals are going to have to have a separate door for “those who cannot take care of themselves”. And behind that door there needs to be someone with a taser, a stun gun, and a baton, plus doctors with a very simple and effective treatment for drug addition and obesity. They give the druggie no drugs till he completes withdrawal, and the obese person with no food at all till he is slim. Doctors have a hundred too clever by half rationales for not giving unpopular treatments. For non paying customers, however, need to give the most unpopular effective treatment possible.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

It is mighty embarrassing if a sick person is turned away from hospital to die in the street because he has no money. So the kindly government insists that sick poor people be treated for free.

But if the hospital is going to treat poor people for free, then the hospital is going to besieged by people with carefully memorized symptoms for vague and difficult to treat diseases who show up looking for a bed, some food, and some human contact.

So, the next thing the government should do is empower to the hospital to turn away unwanted patients with a jab from a stun gun. But they don’t, because that looks kind of bad. But they do kind of sort of give the hospital some kind of monopoly power, and some power to hurry up patients who are taking too damned long to die. And then to the government’s surprise they find the hospital is mistreating and murdering affluent middle class patients. The government also finds that it still running up gigantic medical bills on bums, who are supposedly getting all sorts of extremely expensive medical treatment, though in fact they are getting this super expensive treatment only in the most superficial manner or not at all.

The hospital is rushing middle class patients out the door or into the morgue, while every corridor is piled high with incredibly expensive (and profitable) bums piled three to a urine soaked bed. (Yes, Canada, I am looking at you.)

When the government empowered the hospital to be quietly and furtively brutal and murderous, the intent was that the hospital only be brutal and murderous to the horde of bums besieging it – but they could not actually say that out loud, and if they had said it out loud would still find it difficult to get compliance.

So now the hospital is massively over treating bums, massively undertreating people who are genuinely ill with genuine diseases, and murdering any of its customers who are too sick and weak to protest. And medical costs are soaring.

So what should the government do?

Firstly, needs to hit who everyone lays down his head on a hospital bed with a high enough deductible that anyone who is not all that sick and who has to pay the deductible will not go near the hospital bed. It does not have to be all that high, does not need to be nearly as high as the Obamacare deductibles. Five hundred should do it. First thing that should happen on intake is a wallet inspection.

But suppose the patient does not have five hundred in his pocket, nor an acceptable credit card, and seems unlikely to pay. Then the nice friendly hospital for nice respectable middle class people sends him to the hospital for poor bums staffed by big ugly lesbian nurses with thick mustaches, where the first thing he meets is the death penal, with a big male guard holding stun gun, a baton, a taser, and a twelve gauge shotgun standing uncomfortably close beside him, and the death panel decides whether his treatment is likely to be cost effective.

Now at the nice friendly middle class hospital for nice middle class people we try to organize things so that the doctor and the hospital has to please the customer, if they are going to make some money, and the patient bears enough of the cost to scream bloody murder if overbilled or billed for nonexistent or barely provided services. Deductibles need to be high enough to hurt a bit, but not so high that they are, like Obamacare deductibles, frequently unpayable.

And at the hospital for poor bums, we provide all the wonders of socialist medicine so beloved by Bernie Sanders, modeled on the wonderful success of Cuban healthcare. [Fake Sarcasm tag removed because server error]

If the hospital is in the business of handing out free beds and food, it is going to need to be able to whack undeserving customers with a baton, jab them with a stungun, and throw them into the street hard enough to bounce several times. On the other hand, you would probably prefer to send your elderly grandma to hospital that does not do that sort of thing. So we need to keep a good separation between the hospital that hands out freebies, and the hospital that does not hand out freebies.

Or, equivalently you need to have very different rules in place for treating the people who are getting free food and free beds, from treating the people who want to get out of hospital as soon as they can. You have to treat one lot pretty much the opposite of the other lot.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Obviously you are not going to read this, because even though you keep patting yourself on the back about how open minded you are and how you refrain from cutting off contact with those who disagree with you, how you love all of humanity and want to maximize utility, you are in fact isolated in a self imposed bubble and blinded by hatred, self imposed ignorance, crimestop, and ignorant prejudice, which hatred and ignorance will quite likely get both of us killed, you more likely to be killed than me, because I lie low, have more than one passport, and more than one identity, while you hang out with totalitarians even more murderous, cruel, hateful, and intolerant than yourself. You know this, and at the same time you refuse to know it. You say it, and you deny it.

You are a very very smart guy – except that crimestop makes you very stupid. You think yourself a very good person, but have sold your soul to evil that is likely to devour you and all of western civilization.

And here is a good example of self imposed ignorance, willful stupidity, and self imposed isolation from outside thought.

" The emancipation of slaves, the end of dueling and blasphemy laws and the divine right of kings, women’s suffrage and participation in the workforce, gay marriage—all these strike me as crystal-clear examples of moral progress, as advances that will still be considered progress a thousand years from now, if there’s anyone around then to discuss such things. "

Obviously I disagree strongly with all of those things. I hope that Trump will make himself King to be succeeded by his sons, and so does pretty much everyone who uses the phrase “God Emperor Trump”. Which is a lot of people, many of them very smart people. You may think you are right, but if you think they are crystal clear, you are just suffering from ignorance and self imposed stupidity. You will not listen, and will not understand, why some people argue we need a King, that we are suffering from chronic Kinglessness.

If gay marriage is crystal clear and will be recognized as crystal clear in a thousand years, why was it not crystal clear eight years ago? Answer me!

Take my favorite topic: Female emancipation. Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

And, in case you have not noticed, we still have blasphemy laws – except that these days you cannot blaspheme against magic Negroes. For reasons I have explained at length, all societies need blasphemy laws, and prohibiting people from blaspheming against something like holy oil or the flag, causes considerably less harm and suffering than prohibiting people from blaspheming against John Lewis. All your objections to Trump are objections to blasphemy. What is supposedly crystal clear to you is in fact something you do not believe in the slightest. Elsewhere I argue that we should venerate holy oil from Mount Athos because of all the things we might venerate, that is likely to cause the least collateral damage.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

[Reminder that the subtitle in the blog header is "Liberty in an unfree world"]

Liberty allows and encourages the highest human flourishing. But when your enemies seek your destruction, it is time for liberty to go.

The time approaches for the warrior ethic, wherein the highest good is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

It takes two to keep the peace, only one to start war. Every time that Muslims drive a truck into a bunch of Christians, or Black Lives Matter ethnically cleanses the neighborhood of whites and burns down a shopping center, people start panicking “Oh, the terrible white backlash is forcing Muslims and blacks to become radicals.”, though no one has seen any white backlash yet.

The way to respond to war, is with war. History shows us that only war works.

Let us try massacring some peaceful Muslim men and enslaving their women, and see what the effect is on Muslim radicalism. Let us try reenslaving those blacks that are causing the most problems. That would be backlash.

For liberty to exist, there must first be law. For law to exist, there must first be order. For order to exist, there must first be peace. For peace to exist, there must first be victory. And victory usually requires the most horrifying means.

Submitting to your enemy’s war making is not liberty, nor order, nor is it peace.

It is been too long since the last war, people have forgotten how terrible war is, and our enemies have become too used to easy victories, where they make war unopposed, and this war making is answered by generous concessions, which necessarily leads to more extreme war making by our enemies. The only way to real peace, is now through real war.

Show post
jim #racist blog.jim.com

If a white helps a black, the black reasonably and realistically believes this is tribute extorted by fear and violent supremacy, hence grounds for further attacks on that white. Similarly, if a non Muslim helps a Muslim.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Demon Worship

The Clinton circle ritually and collectively perform degenerate acts as a sacrament (Podesta’s Spirit Cooking). There are increasing grounds to suspect that they engaged in child sacrifice.

I don’t suppose they would think of it as demon worship, rather they think they are worshiping themselves and their own magical powers, but the connections to child traffickers reveal that it is demon worship. Hillary famously said “It takes a village”, and she has taken a few, or at least she applied State Department power to protect child traffickers that stole a few.

Meanwhile, the State Department some time ago installed Ms. Park Gyun-Hye as the President of South Korea, and was and is confident of her servile obedience, and continues to feel that were she replaced, it would be a bad thing for “the international community”.

But it was recently revealed that Ms. Park Gyun-Hye was the servile and mistreated puppet of a circle of people who claim magical powers and perform magic rituals.

So if she is the puppet of a religious leader, then the religious leader must be the puppet of the State Department, or, more likely, since cohesion usually comes from shared religion and ritual practice, the State Department is controlled by practitioners of the same religion, who meet together to do disgusting stuff like drinking the blood of children, which bonds them together.

The Cathedral is not so much a single conspiracy, as the net entropic consequence of a huge number of conspiracies. It cannot be accurately modeled as a single conscious being. Apple under Jobs was an extension of the will of Jobs, and its actions were explicable as the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of excellence. The American government cannot be modeled as the will of Obama, or the will of a small group capable of meeting around a coffee table and its actions cannot be modeled as the pursuit of anything coherent or sane. But the largest and most cohesive conspiracy will exercise the most power and gain the most privilege, and the largest and most cohesive conspiracy is apt to be the beneficiary of shared religious worship and belief.

Since the Clinton circle is clearly the most powerful conspiracy, we would expect it to be the largest and most cohesive, hence we would expect it to be held together by the glue of shared religious worship and belief – religion and belief that supplies plentiful amounts of blackmail material. It is inherent in the nature of the Cathedral that one is likely to find something like a cult of demon worshipers exercising the most power. You have inner circles, inner circles within inner circles, and natural selection for the meme system most capable of gaining and holding power.

You will notice that the pope and almost every christian authority has backed Hilton to the hilt, knowing that she engages in degenerate acts conducted as a sacrament.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Normally I recommend and practice non participation in democratic politics. It is a spectacle and a delusion. But this is the Flight 93 election. Vote early, vote often, and should opportunity permit it to be done safely, physically attack likely Hillary voters near polling booths.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor shit tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If fucking does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

If ten year old girls were not restrained, most of them would be banging thirty and forty year old men. While ten year old boys are completely uninterested in sex and regard it as disgusting, girls start taking an interest in males well before puberty. Preteen girls are primarily interested in older males, and, just as male homosexuals don’t much like male homosexuals, preferring manly men or twelve year old boys, preteen girls don’t much like adult males that like preteen girls. Preteen girls are especially interested in older males that have recently had an adult sexual relationship with an adult female, are especially interested in divorced men, separated men, and widowers.

We don’t let preteen girls follow their desires because it is likely to be bad for them and bad for society. Seems to me that letting adult women follow their desires is worse for them and worse for society. All women are immature until menopause.

In the ancestral environment women seldom got to make their own sexual choices, and have not evolved to be very good at it.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

We observe high fertility in those nations and cultures where patriarchy is legally and socially enforced, in particular Muslim Afghanistan and Christian Timor Leste. Affordability of family formation has little effect. Clearly males in patriarchal societies are highly motivated to have children. They will do whatever it takes so that they can afford a family.

Thus, if pro social behavior in a patriarchal society is rewarded by a wife and the ability to support a family, you get highly motivated workers and soldiers.

...

I was the boss of my family and I found being a patriarch and having children hugely rewarding. But then I am a grade A asshole, and I am not afraid to commit illegal acts, though I tend to consult lawyers on ways to weasel out or buy my way out if caught, before I commit them. It is hard to be a patriarch if you are a nice guy, or if you have respect for law and social pressure, because marriages on the Pauline model are illegal, being marital rape and psychological abuse. Marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years is illegal and criminal, so of course the population is collapsing. Workable families are similarly illegal. Indeed, these days any sexual interaction with women is illegal with the notable exception of hiring whores and escorts – whores, escorts, and porn stars being the only women who are likely to give you explicit verbal consent moment to moment.

Extrapolating my subjective experience, and the subjective experience depicted by Henry Dampier, fully explains observed fertility patterns, for example the very spectacular collapse of Japanese fertility.

People don’t want children as assets. Never have, never will. If you think we can modify fertility with the tax system read Luke 15:11-32 and 2 Samuel 15:2 – 19:6 to gain an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

The problem is that children can be taken away from a man and used as hostages against him. That is why men do not want children.

Marriage and family is outlawed, thus only outlaws have wives and families.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

By and large, I tend to focus on power at the bottom – that women interrupt their boss tells me that they are hired for reasons other than their contribution to profit, that businesses are forced or morally pressured to hire women, and then stuff them into parts of the business where they cannot do too much immediate damage. Blacks walk down the street like aristocrats, taking up lots of space, while white males walk like serfs.

I also write a lot about female sexual preferences. Sexual selection, female choice, results in a positive feedback cycle, hence the peacock’s tail. I expect my readers, unlike Harvard alumni and Word Bank economists, to know the difference between positive feedback and negative feedback, to, unlike the typical Harvard alumunus, understand why the peacock’s tail is a really bad thing for peacocks, and to know that positive feedback is apt to have extremely bad consequences, and almost always needs to be broken and disconnected in the most direct way possible.

But this post is about power at the top. It is, however, also about my favorite topic: Positive feedback loops. And if you did not get that the peacocks tail is a manifestation of a positive feedback loop and that the peacock’s tail shows that women should never have been emancipated, do some homework before commenting. Seems that these days all they teach in university is how to hate white males, even if your degree is nominally in computer science. If your degree is in computer science, you damn well should know what a positive feedback loop is and why it is a bad thing.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

I was watching “Troy”. And for the first hour it was totally great. The mother of Achilles, who has the power of prophesy, and is believed to be a goddess or something similar, prophesies that if he goes to war with Troy, he will die in that war, but his name will live for a thousand years.

This is actually conservative, for Achilles was part of the collapse of Bronze age civilization, three thousand years ago, and his name still lives.

And Achilles, being warlord, a king, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, and incredibly brave and manly, naturally decides to go to Troy.

He goes to Troy, and after the first battle, orders his men to loot the temple of Apollo. So his men dump a kingly share of the temple loot in his tent, part of that loot being a dazzlingly beautiful girl, a virgin dedicated to Apollo tied up in his tent.

And then he just … he … he just totally fails to act like a man. In addition to being famous, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, he is also unbelievably handsome. But I swear, that there is no way that girl would voluntarily bed him in real life, if he acts like that.

Now I am old, and fat, and no one terribly important, and I look like Jabba the Hut, but if I had had a few hours with that girl in my tent, she and I would have been going at it like weasels in heat. (Voltaire said all he needed was ten minutes, but I think he was lying, and in any case, I am not as good as Voltaire.)

Everything Achilles does prior to going into that tent is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. Everything he does in the first hour of the movie is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. And then he goes into that tent and he is just …

You know why boys are no damn good with girls these days. Because they watch movies like that. They are taught to respect women. But women do not really want to be respected. And what is this girl that Achilles should respect her? We see him disrespect King Agamemnon. Until this scene we only see him respecting mighty warriors who have earned it by their courage and their prowess, or King Odysseus, whom he respects for his cunning. What has this chick done to earn respect?

After that scene, I just could not watch the film any more, because I just could not see Achilles as a man. Just some kind of cuck. Real men just don’t treat women like that. It is not just that it will not get you laid. It is unmanly. It is wrong. It is gay. It is effeminate.

OK. In the workplace I have to treat women like that or be fired, but it burns. OK, I bend to power and grit my teeth and suffer the humiliation, but the whole Achilles story is that he does not bend to power. Show him acting like a cuck, then there is no story any more.

Achilles does not respect King Agamemnon. He does not respect the King of Thessaly. He does not respect the champion of Thessaly. He does not respect the troops of Thessaly. He does not respect the ambassadors of King Odysseus. Why is he so damn respectful to some speaking temple loot?

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

If the votes are honestly counted, Duerte Harry will be the next president of the Philippines.

He was previously mayor of Davao, where he solved a crime problem, in substantial part a problem of Muslim criminals predating on Christians, by killing criminals. A lot of criminals. Of all religions.

When I was in Davao, some people threatened him with lawfare, and he responded in his newspaper that if they sued him, he would kill them, their wives, and their children.

Motorized tricycles are the major form of public transportation in some parts of Davao and most places near Davao. My tricycle driver stopped to buy fuel, and told me how a street kid had snatched a fuel payment, equivalent to six US dollars, and subsequently been killed by one of Duerte Harry’s death squads.

I wonder how many other payments that kid snatched before they nailed him. Also, how big was this “kid”? Had to be strong enough to snatch, and fast enough to get away.

The people who were allegedly death squads were wonderfully disciplined, always perfectly polite and courteous, their uniforms extremely neat, their guns and decorations shiny. I felt very safe with them, whereas I don’t feel safe with western police, who are conspicuously undisciplined and discourteous. I always get the feeling that western police may capriciously decide I have done something illegal (after all, there are so many things that are illegal) just to show me who is boss. I have always been able to talk my way out of trouble with police even when caught red handed, except for traffic offenses, or else my lawyer was able to talk me out of trouble, but why the hell should I need to talk my way out of trouble? I am an honest decent guy. Anarcho tyranny is that they enforce all sorts of laws against people like me, and not against the kid who snatches six dollars.

When car-burning riots raged in Sweden, police had a policy of deliberately doing nothing about the rioters while cracking down decisively on so-called “vigilantes” who tried to stop immigrant rioters burning cars and neighborhoods. To add insult to injury, authorities issued parking tickets on burned cars.

In America, a four year old boy was groped in a bathroom. His father slugged the groper. Father arrested, groper not arrested.

See Will’s anarcho tyranny blog for a long long list of what police do while allowing criminals to run amuck. He tends to focus on tyranny. Here is some anarchy. And more anarchy.

Duerte Harry’s death squads don’t do anything like that, any more than they would let the brass on their uniforms get dull, or drink while on duty, or wear uniforms that were less than perfectly neat and pressed. Their scrupulous neatness and rigid discipline is a symbol that they do not engage in such self indulgent bullying. Their perfect courtesy and crisply pressed uniforms are a promise that they do not threaten people like me. They threaten people who would snatch six dollars out of my hand.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Ghomeshi is a huge success, having fresh pussy continually. Nice guys are huge failures. The things that brought Ghomeshi huge success are likely to continue to bring him success.

Monogamy is incompatible with female emancipation, with treating women as equals, because women, if you let them, will usually have sex with Jeremy Meeks.

If women are allowed free sexual choice, they usually make profoundly unwise choices.

Monogamy is a deal between men for reducing male on male conflict by fair sharing of pussy, in which deal women were never consulted, and which deal has to be coercively imposed on women against their wills.

Women rather like being coerced sexually. Submitting turns them on. Being owned gives them comfort and security. They want strong men to deny them dangerous choices. Their resistance is just a test, to measure to strength that masters them.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

He is most certainly meant to polygynous. We are descended from far more women than men, indicating that among our ancestors most men failed to reproduce, and a few men reproduced massively.

Civilization requires patriarchy and monogamy, but any argument for monogamy presupposes patriarchy, that women are owned by their fathers, who transfer ownership to husbands. If fertile age women are allowed to wander round fucking who they please, they all fuck Jeremy Meeks – and if Jeremy Meeks is too busy to fuck them, they fuck Jian Ghomeshi. If you emancipate women, Jeremy Meeks gets most of the pussy, and nice guys get used up burned out thirty year olds.

For monogamy to exist, it has to be forcefully and coercively imposed on women. Women have submit.

Monogamy should be understood as a system of rationing to deal with the shortages that result from price controlling pussy.

Monogamy is a part of a deal between fighting men, where each man who is willing to work and fight gets at least one women, men disinclined to work or fight get kicked out, and women are not consulted about the deal.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

But a woman will only commit to a man that is above her.

Female perceptions of male status are crude and primitive, resembling that of a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters. Which is to say, a woman will only have sex with a man if a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters would perceive him as high status, and higher status than herself. Even if her conscious mind can learn to read male status correctly, her pussy overrules her conscious mind and causes her to go with more ancient indicators of status, indicators no longer appropriate in our civilized society.

Thus, in our modern and civilized environment, to make hypergamy eugenic, we have to support male status with signals a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters is capable of reading. Our middle and upper class needs to be more violent, or seemingly more violent.

To this end, to accommodate the primitive female mind too easily impressed by rule breaking and violence, we should bring back dueling, and grant high status males policing powers, and impose on them a duty to police order. Then we get more women screwing executives in the executive bathroom, and less women screwing thugs in a dark alley, which though still pretty bad, is a major improvement on what we have now.

Ghomeshi was able to have a fresh woman every night because he had actual high status, and, to a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters, his caveman behavior towards women was congruent with his actual status – his status as a mildly famous radio personality was, to a cannibal headhunter, congruent with his interpersonal behavior towards women.

He was a high status male in our society (being a moderately famous radio personality) and also behaved like a high status male in the ancestral environment, the environment of evolutionary adaptation, would have behaved – arrogant, violent, cruel, and demanding.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

I disagree. The current official relationship between men and women is so artificial and unnatural, so contrary to nature, so perverse and obscene, that if we were to revert to the eighteenth century system (strip women of the vote, place women firmly under the control of fathers or husbands, and treat any fertile age women without fathers or husbands as a problem to be solved like lost children) the inconceivably shocking would suddenly become the entirely normal, just as Trump casually opened up the Overton window.

When Trump said the unsayable, it suddenly became sayable. If the government were to do the undoable, it would suddenly become doable.

You know how when you pass a harsh shit test the drama instantly goes away, and then after a bit, everything comes up roses. Emancipation is a shit test. Pass it, there will be no drama, and, after a short interval as women realize men are not kidding, everything will come up roses.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

[The post is called "Against Sexual Consent"]

When we came down from the trees, children and females were dependent on males for protection from predators, and males were dependent on each other. Contrary to Locke’s original state of nature, we were not distant and equal, but instead close and unequal.

Chimps and men are unusual among apes in that we hunt, and unusual among mammals in that we make war. Lions and hyenas are instinctively and permanently at war, but conflicts between lions are normally one on one, and at most one pair of brothers against another pair of brothers. Chimps, on the other hand, while mostly at peace with neighboring tribes of chimps, are frequently at war, and these wars often total and genocidal. Since chimps and men are omnivorous killer apes, it is a good bet that the common ancestor of chimps and men were omnivorous killer apes.

When our ancestors first came down from the trees and out of the forest onto the plains, they could not walk or run very fast or far, and to this day, we are lousy sprinters compared to almost any predator. So, our ancestors avoided being eaten by being the meanest sons of bitches on the plains, with a team of killer apes using their superior ability to cooperate and coordinate against a team of lions.

Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex. It is also unlikely that females were shared, as this would undermine group cohesion. Yes, the male penis is shaped to scoop out competing sperm, but the male hands are designed for a more permanent and final solution to sperm competition. In the trees, females could screw around because they did not need male protection, and because meat was less important in the trees. On the plains it would likely be a really bad idea for a female to wander out of sight of her owner. Human and chimp males are both shaped for violence, but human males arguably more shaped for violence than chimp males. Humans are more sexually dimorphic than chimps, and the dimorphisms all bear a fairly obvious relationship to the capability for violence. Almost every human male can easily subdue almost any human female. This is not true among chimps.

The ancestors of men, the omnivorous killer apes that came down to the plains, survived because they loved their comrades and cooperated well. And the main thing that they cooperated to do was to slay their enemies. Humans are more specialized for cooperation than chimps, for example the whites of our eyes that make it easy to accurately tell what direction a human is looking. Our ancestors were, compared to most other creatures, and compared to chimpanzees, loyal, good, and kind – good to and kind to their comrades – brutal and deadly to everything else.

Consent does not make sex right. Nor does lack of consent make sex wrong. Lots of societies have arranged marriages, and some societies have marriage by abduction. Women seem to like such marriages just fine.

In the early settlement of Australia, the authorities regularly applied shotgun marriage on a large scale, and often assigned a woman to a man without bothering with the formality of marriage or any pretense at female consent, and it does not seem to have led to any difficulties. Whereas porn stars give carefully recorded consent to everything, and usually wind up badly disturbed by all the disgusting things they consented to.

Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved. And women are not much better at making the decision at thirty than at ten.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

I am opposed to anyone voting, except perhaps married men of property and wealth who are raising or have raised their biological children with their wives, but the worst voters are single women.

Sweden is now the rape capital of the west, due to importation of masses of North Africans to maintain the vote for failed welfare statism. When Swedish men say “Hands off our women”, Swedish women say “We are not your women”, and vote for more mass nonwhite immigration and ridiculously light slap-on-the-wrist penalties for rape.

Women do not really want the kind of society where sex happens by consent. (Check the xhamster porn videos preferred by women) Thus single women subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, want our society to be conquered, the men killed, and they themselves sexually enslaved.

In the ancestral environment, if you were a man and your in group was conquered, you were likely to be killed or enslaved, and thus be no ones ancestor. If you were a woman and your in group was conquered, you were indeed likely to be enslaved – to a successful man in the victorious group who would have children by you, and, knowing his children were his own, raise them well.

So we are in large part descended from men who conquered, and who resisted conquest with absolute determination, and descended from women who took to conquest, abduction, and slavery like a duck to water.

The strong independent woman, the woman living the lifestyle that feminism and school teaches her she should have, has few or no children, for children take two, and the commitment to stick it out when things go bad. In the ancestral environment, if you were a strong independent woman you were surrounded by weak contemptible men, in which case abduction, rape, and slavery was a good way to meet manly men.

Suppose the Taliban was to somehow do a Boko Haram and abduct a bunch of baristas with post graduate degrees in victim studies and a hundred thousand dollars of student debt. They would probably wind up having six children and umpteen grandchildren each, so we would expect women to have evolved to rather like this sort of thing.

Or, alternatively, you can believe that women was created to be a helpmeet to man, and in the fall was condemned to desire this sort of thing.

Lots of existing societies have arranged marriages or marriage by abduction. It seems to work just fine. When parents, society, or respectable authority tell women to fuck someone, they fuck him, and are happy to do so.

Large numbers of well educated and wealthy English gentlewomen in eighteenth century England married whom they were damned well told to, and I don’t see any memoirs or books from any of them complaining about it.

We hear a lot about women being involuntarily trafficked to brothels, and sometimes it happens, though less than advertised, but when white nights go forth to rescue these poor oppressed and victimized damsels in distress, they are invariably disappointed.

Commanding a woman to clean some man’s floor and cook his meals is like commanding children to eat their broccoli, whereas commanding a woman to warm some man’s bed is like commanding children to eat their icecream.

In eighteenth century Australia there was a fair bit of lighthearted and unserious female resistance to shotgun marriages, they were far from entirely compliant, but looking at these incidents, those resisting shotgun marriage do not seem like poor pitiful victims of male sexual desire, but lustful bawds who were worried that the party was going to end.

Since Victorian times, historians have sought to depict eighteenth century Australian women as sexually exploited and sexually hyper oppressed, but they just cannot seem to find any examples of women seriously resenting, complaining about or resisting this supposedly horrid extreme sexual oppression. We see lots of disciplinary issues where women were punished for talking back to the husband that they were assigned to, or punished for failing to work as directed by their husband, or being absent without leave for short periods. We just don’t see any disciplinary issues, zero, despite vigorous and alarmingly imaginative search by historians, that seem plausibly related to disinclination to go to bed with the man to whom she was assigned.

Consent is useful and valuable to the extent that a women voluntarily swears to honor and obey her husband, and to stick it out till parted by death, and eighteenth century Australian authorities were pretty keen on obtaining more or less voluntary consent for that purpose. If she is not credibly swearing that before God and man, consent serves no useful purpose to husband, family and society, women don’t really like it all that much, and the eighteenth century British and Australian authorities were untroubled by the lack of it.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

In 1985, when cutting first appeared, girls cutting themselves was something astonishing, something no one had heard of, that psychiatric interns had never heard of.

Now a significant minority of women cut themselves. Hard to say how many, but probably a few percent. Not a substantial minority, but not a tiny minority either. Hot fertile age women. Women with strong sexual needs and completely screwed up sex lives, usually sex lives screwed up by their own self destructive bad choices. “Strong independent women” who are not in the least strong, and greatly fear independence. White women. Women totally raised in feminism.

As the epidemic grows, only now is the psychiatric industry coming up with a diagnostic category “Non suicidal self harm” We did not have a word for cutting until recently, and psychiatrists are only now coming up with a word for it, and not a very apt word yet, for the category self harm is deliberately over inclusive, in order to avoid being exclusively female, including a great deal of what would be more aptly called “stupidity”, so that some males can be put in the same category. (The obvious difference being that after doing something very stupid once or twice, males usually stop doing that particular stupid thing.) It is politically disturbing to have a psychiatric category that is near one hundred percent female, so calling it what everyone calls it, “cutting”, is politically incorrect. Yes. Males sometimes, rarely, cut themselves. Discover it hurts like the blazes, then do not do it again.

If you google for “self harm”, the PC term, you don’t get information on cutting, but deceptive and malicious misinformation on cutting, misinformation intended to cause harm and suffering, and if you google “cutting” any page that comes up with words “self harm” in it is overwhelmingly likely to be malicious misinformation.

[Picture of a woman will many self-inflicted cut marks]

As it says in the Book of Genesis, women are psychologically maladapted to equality.

Think how much more comfortable she would be, how much more at peace she would be, how much saner she would be, how much happier she would be, if those were her owner’s whip marks.

Reading between the lines of girls making videos and posts about cutting themselves, they are saying to the numerous boys that pumped them and dumped them “Punish me, don’t ignore me.”

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Some time ago, I and a bunch of other reactionaries had a debate on whether women commonly fuck dogs.

I have no evidence that women of commonly fuck dogs, but I have lots of personal evidence that women very commonly do lots of horrifying stuff that many of my commenters find very hard to believe. These personal observations are perhaps statistically insignificant and may be from an unrepresentative sample of females, but is consistent with the rather small subset of women who watch porn, who generally watch disturbingly deviant stuff, while most males watch fairly vanilla stuff.

Most women read romance, rather than watch porn. Romance male leads are generally demon lovers, rather than the nice boy next door – one notable exception being when the female lead is sold, enslaved, kidnapped, abducted, or subject to an arranged marriage without her consent at a very young age by the otherwise nice boy next door. In the very common genre of supernatural romance, the male lead is often a literal demon. How is a real life male going to compete?

Male and female sexual impulses are the product of natural selection. In the ancestral environment there is biological and evolutionary conflict of interest between dads and daughters, in that daughters prefer cad type demon lovers, and dads prefer dad type sons in law. Daughter prefers the best sperm, but dad does not want to be stuck with support. Similarly a conflict between husbands and wives, in that wives prefer demon lovers, and husbands are seldom demon lovers – the best semen is unlikely to belong to the best protection and support.

For civilization to exist, fathers and husbands have to be able to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women.

For it to be politically possible for fathers and husbands to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women, we have to have it generally accepted that women are the dangerously lustful sex, whose dangerously powerful sexual impulses have to be overruled for their own good, for the good of their children, and the good of society – that women’s dangerously powerful lusts and self destructive lusts are the big problem that has to be solved, not immoral males.

Whether or not women commonly fuck dogs, for civilization to survive, men need to be inclined to suspect that they might. For civilization to survive, men need to control women’s sexual choices. For men to control women’s sexual choices, it needs to be politically incorrect to have excessive confidence in the purity and chastity of women. That women are dangerously and self destructively lustful needs to be taught by authority, presented in the media, and the sort of thing you need to believe if you want to get on with the important people you need to get on with if you hope to get ahead.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

If you believe that you are entitled, that women should obey, submit, serve, that unless you are buying sex by the hour, women should be sacrificing their own good to serve you, then red pill behavior comes naturally.

If, on the other hand, you believe that women are equals, then it seems obvious that you should treat them “fairly” – which is to say, as if buying sex by the hour. Even if you know the red pill intellectually, it seems horribly unfair that women should respond to you doing good to them by doing bad to you, and equally unfair that the more you demand from women, the more you get.

If you don’t know the red pill, but believe that women should submit and obey, you will naturally act red pill. If you do know the red pill, but believe women are equals, then doing what gets you laid will seem artificial, unnatural, repugnant, and immoral, and women will seem bad when such behavior works.

If you think of woman as equals, you cannot judge yourself to be a good man when you do what gets you laid, and you cannot judge a woman to be a good woman when you do what gets you laid, and then she obeys you, has sex with you, and serves you.

But such a woman is a good woman. Women are content to serve, and should be content. Only whores are equals, and equal women are whores.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

tl;dr: Legalize rape. Ban fornication. Old Testament got it right.

It is often said, and it is largely true, that women cannot get pregnant by rape. Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.

To get a woman pregnant, the sperm has to swim from the vagina to the womb, which is a mighty marathon race for something the size of a sperm. And between the vagina and the womb, there is the cervix, which is a pair of lips.

What are lips for?

Lips are for opening and closing entrance to an orifice. They are to keep out some things, and allow entrance to other things.

So that sperm is not going anywhere unless those lips open.

If you touch a woman’s cervix and it is not her fertile period, the lips feel hard closed, like the lips of a woman’s mouth when you go for the kiss too soon, and do not permit her to turn her head away, so she purses her lips against the kiss.

If you touch a woman’s cervix in her fertile period, it is like touching the lips of a woman’s mouth when she is ready to be kissed. They feel like they are about to open, and if you keep on diddling her pussy, they do indeed open.

It seems likely that if a nice guy were to touch those lips, he would feel them hard, as if the girl was not in her fertile period, but being an asshole, I have not been able to do that experiment.

So from the point of view of natural selection rape is not a problem for women. Women have control of who can impregnate them. She has lips where it counts.

Rape is however a huge problem for husbands, who get cucked, and moderate problem for fathers, who find that they, rather than their son in law, is supporting their grandchild.

Observing female behavior, many of them do not seem to be trying very hard to avoid rape. One does not see businessmen wandering in dark and sketchy places with two bulging wallets half falling out of their top pockets.

If you see a woman in a laundromat late at night, and there is no one around, it is always a single woman. A husband will usually put his foot down and forbid the risky behavior that women so easily engage in.

Emancipating women means treating female consent as more meaningful than it actually is. Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want. Their sexual choices are erratic, incompetent, inconsistent, incoherent, and frequently self harming. They lack agency.

“Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women. It is harmful to husbands as a particular case of cuckoldry. We are very severe against rape because we wish we could be severe against cuckoldry, but forbidding cuckoldry is a thought crime, so we displace our rage against cuckoldry to rage against rape.

Similarly, college girls get chewed up and spat out by the cock carousel, so we fetishize ever higher standards of consent for college, when the problem is not lack of consent, but a superabundance of foolish and self destructive consent. The problem is not lecherous college males, but lecherous college females.

Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.

However, safe forms of corporal punishment, such as whipping a woman on the buttocks or the upper back, should not be considered harm when done by proper authority, such as husband or father, for proper reason.

Nor should sex without the consent of the woman be considered harm of the woman in itself, since female consent is erratic and mysterious even to the woman herself, but rather, sex with a married or betrothed women should be considered harm against the husband or fiance, and sex without the permission of the father should be considered harm against the father – illicit sex should be a crime against the man who has proper authority over the woman.

And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Nazis are commies and commies are progressives.

If you are a Nazi, you think that the rot set in around 1930-1950. If you are a progressive, you think the rot has not set in yet.

So if you are a Nazi, you pretty much want the New Deal, or the New Deal on steroids. Nazis are leftists who have been left behind by the movement ever leftwards.

If you are a Nazi, you think leftism is fine except for Freudian Theory, second wave Feminism, race denialism, and the Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism, all of which can be plausibly blamed on Jews.

But when the Supremes hypocritically endorsed “separate but equal”, that was race denialism, with a touch of hypocrisy to make it actually workable.

The Jewish problem is that Jewish conversos to progressivism failed to pick up on the hypocrisy, and started demanding that people actually live according the moral standards that everyone piously endorsed around 1820 or so.

The rot did not set in with cultural Marxism. The rot set in with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. There is your race denialism right there.

As for feminism and the destruction of marriage, the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline in 1820 established the moral principle that women are so naturally pure and virtuous, that it is mere cruelty to enforce the marriage contract on women, it should only be enforced on the naturally wicked and despicable sex, men.

If you want to get out of the trap, say after me: “All men were not created equal, some should command some should obey, some should not merely obey, but are naturally slaves, and should not be allowed to make their own decisions. If found wandering loose causing problems, should be placed under the control of an owner. Women’s sexual choices are apt to be dangerous to society and to themselves, thus fertile age women should always be controlled by husbands or fathers. A women not subject to a man is suffering misfortune, as for example an orphan or widow, or is wicked and needs punishment, as for example a harlot.”

As soon as you denounce the declaration of independence and the emancipation of women the logical case the Jews are a big problem collapses. And the emotional case for hating Jews is the same as that of any market dominant minority, envy and covetousness, which is also at the root of declaration of independence and the emancipation of women.

Getting rid of the Jews will not help you. The problem is inside your head. They are not emitting evil mind control rays at you. You have been emitting evil mind control rays at them. Umpteenth wave feminism is the logical consequence of the failure to divorce Queen Caroline.

Show post
Jim #racist blog.jim.com

There is a rule that people like Jorge Ramos are entitled to act like like the subhuman savages that they are, and white males must respectfully suck it up.

Trump broke that rule.

People like Jorge Ramos should not be allowed out in public without a leash. All men are not created equal, and forcing people to act as if they were unavoidably and necessarily oppresses the superior.

This post categorized in culture rather than politics, because election campaigns are merely theater. Trump bouncing Jorge Ramos is more important than anything a president can do.

Show post
Jim #racist blog.jim.com

[On black migrants in Europe]

These guys were sleeping in mud and thatch huts before they came, if they were not sleeping in the long grass. Now they get a house some white man built. And when they turn that house into a burned out ruin, after the fashion of Detroit, built by whites, burned by blacks, they will complain of racism and systematic discrimination because whites still have nicer stuff than they do, so they need to take more white stuff and wreck it also.

Blacks are like locusts. They take the stuff that white people built, for example the American inner city, destroy it, and then move on to take something else. They cannot be stopped because the state apparatus forbids white collective self defense, while encouraging black collective rioting, encouraging collective attacks on random isolated whites motivated by black hatred of whites and black sense of collective identity. This raises the cost of housing for white people to unaffordable levels, preventing family formation.

Whites move out from their houses because of state sponsored collective black violence, as is happening now in Baltimore and Ferguson, and blacks move in to houses white people built.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Women want to be owned. They want to be owned by someone that loves them, but not someone that needs them. If you don’t think women are entitled to make decisions, nor good at determining their best interest and acting on it, you will not be acting needy. If you simply believe that decisions are yours to make, that her decisions are made by your permission and are ultimately subject to your approval, if you don’t believe that women have agency, in the sense that they are not morally entitled to agency and are not good at exercising it, you will express that belief non verbally and she will gladly accept that belief – provided of course that that belief comes out of love.

If you want to reproduce, you should believe that women should be property, should be pets, are happier that way, and that a society that allows them agency is corrupt, ridiculous, immoral, and absurd.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

As predicted, moving left faster and faster. All my life, we have been moving left, and the rate of movement left has been accelerating.

Harvard University was founded in 1637 by radical leftists plotting to conquer the world, though it was at the time a very minor part of the left wing conspiracy. The main action took place in England. When Cromwell halted the left singularity in England in 1648, Harvard became the primary center of the conspiracy.

And they have been getting crazier and more powerful ever since.

The latest developments:

1. Baltimore, Ferguson, and the supreme court case on disparate impact in housing amount to a resumption of the 1950s Warren Court program of ethnically cleansing whites out of what they have built. Difference is that due to the mass importation of illegal immigrants to live on crime, welfare, affirmative action jobs and government jobs, they now have the votes to sustain that policy all the way to its logical conclusion. Baltimore was our Kristallnacht.

2. Finishing off marriage, not that there was enough left to be worth preserving.

3. Obamacare case sets the important precedent that the bureaucracy can budget and legislate, rendering the house of representatives and the senate obsolete ritual survivals, like Buckingham palace.

4. Lowering the Confederate battleflag, and raising the butthole sex flag. Not only is what is left of marriage to be destroyed, but all must enthusiastically applaud its destruction, and you don’t want to be the first one to stop applauding. So that I am not going to be first to stop applauding, will be leaving this flag on my blog permanently.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The female equivalent of the male executive groping his secretary’s ass is the female executive shit testing the CEO. And observe. Female executives shit test their superiors all the time, paying very little attention to the menial drudgery of merely running the business. In this sense, women at work are seriously sex obsessed.

In this sense, it is sex all the time, work very little of the time. The company is boyfriend and family.

For girls, shit testing men is like men looking at girls boobs. Women want to go into engineering to shit test men. Men want to go into engineering because as little boys they loved toy trucks and video games. Girls go sex crazy at ten and stay sex crazy till menopause.

...

Feminism is driven by sex. They are always talking about rape and sexual harassment because they are always thinking about sex. They are not thinking about careers in engineering because they like the C language, but because the boys in engineering have a status hierarchy in which girls are at the bottom, so they want to shit test those boys by demanding equal, indeed superior, status.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

We need sufficient pious hypocrisy that the established religion cannot be used to attack the establishment, nor used to cast out some large part of the population as insufficiently holy.

Spandrel argues that a semi hereditary priesthood, or an official priesthood, a state manufactured religio, is likely to be insufficiently sincere, and will therefore be defeated by dangerously sincere outsiders.

It is only going to be defeated by dangerously sincere outsiders if you give the competition a fair go and a level playing field. Don’t do that! Bribe the indolence of the clergy with ample privilege over the competition.

...

Japanese religio is today progressive and feminist, because MacArthur commanded it to be. Should international political conditions change, it could rather rapidly cease to be progressive and feminist.

Japan is sinking into crisis because of population collapse. It currently attempts to fix the problem with ever more extreme applications of Keynesianism. To really fix it, need to restore the pre MacArthur status of women. Japan’s strong and cohesive religio is a tool that could do such a thing, though the will to apply this entirely functional and dangerously potent tool is absent, being discredited by the things the tool was applied for in the events leading up to World War II. I don’t think Japan has the will to save itself, but it has the tools to do so, and these tools could be copied.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

You are I suspect getting your analysis from Steve Sailer: He is a Nazi, therefore right on race, wrong on economics, and wrong on Jews. He thinks the trouble with the elite is that its full of Jews, and we should have instead the authentic, genuinely superior elite making collective decisions. He mistakes the Cathedral for the Jews, and the Jews for the Cathedral. It is true that the Cathedral is full of Jews, but the leadership of the opposition to the Cathedral was also full of Jews. Moldbugs analysis of Cathedral Jewry is more accurate. Cathedral Jews are converts away from Judaism, having converted into the post protestant religions of global warming and transnational progressivism, which conversion manifests as their hatred of Israel.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

In the recent violence six police were injured, and nineteen people arrested, eight of who were triad members.

About half of those injured were police – therefore the police are acting to protect the protestors and or coming down like the wrath of God on the counterprotestors – much like the “antifascist” riots in Europe, where the antifascists assemble to beat up “fascists”, beat them up, and then the police beat up “fascists” for provoking other people to beat them up.

The protestors complain the police are not doing enough to protect them, and perhaps they are not – but they are doing a lot more to protect the protestors than they are to clear the streets.

When the “triads” attempt to exercise their right to use the streets, the police stop them, backing the protestor symbolic blockade with actual police violence, without which it could never succeed.

Over and over again, Leung Chun-ying orders police to clear the streets, and over and over again, police obey in a deliberately ineffectual manner.

At the very least, the police in Hong Kong are showing far more enthusiasm for acting effectively to protect the protestors blocking the roads than they are for acting effectively to clear the roads.

If Peking does not want Hong Kong turned into a Cathedral beachhead against China, it is going to have to thoroughly purge Hong Kong government employees – fire everyone who believes in democracy, equality, and social justice.

Because of the two systems agreement, it would be inappropriate to have the same archbishop and grand inquisitor for Hong Kong and the Mainland. Peking should appoint an inquisition and grand inquisitor with credible Hong Kong system credentials, and charge them with thoroughly removing Cathedral agents from Hong Kong government employment and the Hong Kong education system.

Democracy, equality, and social justice have never been part of what traditionally makes Hong Kong Hong Kong. They are a threat to what Hong Kong has always been.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Obviously the Chinese government has the mandate of heaven. Those who have power are entitled to keep it if they don’t screw up too badly, nor make unsuccessful radical change in the society that gave them power originally.

Obviously, by law, custom, and the two systems agreement, Hong Kongers are entitled to the rights they had before Hong Kong came under Chinese authority, including the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Blocking the streets is not peaceable assembly, nor have Hong Kongers ever had such a right, and the government is entitled to deal with it according to Chinese customs – it should roll over them with tanks.

Hong Kongers have never had the right to vote. If Hong Kongers were allowed to vote, they would vote against the capitalism that made them wealthy, and which is essential for such a dense crowd of people to survive on a tiny little island with no resources. Give them democracy, and pretty soon the economy would collapse, refugees would be fleeing Hong Kong as they flee Venezuela – and the Chinese government would be blamed for insufficiently large bailouts.

I urge the Chinese government to drive tanks over the protestors while maintaining the utmost respect for Hong Kong’s traditions and the two systems agreement.

The two systems agreement looks, in practice, rather like Hong Kong taking over China, even though theoretically it is China taking over Hong Kong. Hong Kong democracy would be the Cathedral taking over Hong Kong as a step to taking over China. If the voters controlled Hong Kong, the Cathedral would control the voters. Voters are easy to manipulate, since no individual voter has an individual incentive to be well informed or to vote in his own best interest. He is apt to vote for what makes him holiest, and the Cathedral is very good at weaponizing superior holiness.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Calvinism in New England was scorned by the heresy of Unitarianism, which deemed itself holier, but Unitarianism only lasted about a generation before it collapsed into Emersonian subjectivist Transcendentalism, which then swiftly (in less than a generation) collapsed into politics (abolition, feminism etc).

If we look at the New Testament position on slavery it is of course passivist and pacifist. Christians are encouraged, but not required, to free their slaves. Slaves are discouraged from rebelling and running away. Masters are required to be benevolent.

What happened when many Christian Churches adopted an activist position on slavery, a clearly heretical position on slavery?

An activist position on slavery requires war. War requires dreadful means, requires lies, terror, murder, and artificial famine – all in an undeniably good cause, of course.

Lo and behold, those churches that adopted an activist position against slavery ceased to be Christian. So that heresy, quite predictably, turned deadly.

But, once anti slavery became the law of the land, then a good Christian should of course support that law, so anti slavery did not destroy Christianity.

But now, however pretty much all Churches, have adopted the modern marriage vows, implying a clearly heretical position on marriage, which vows undermine and disrupt marriage, which in turn results in preaching that is fundamentally hostile to marriage as a binding contract.

Equality requires fences, that is to say, requires the dissolution of marriage. An actually functioning marriage is always patriarchal. Show me a man who picks up fifty percent of the socks, and I will show you a man who sleeps on the couch, while once a week or so his wife’s lover drops in to rough her up and take her money.

A genuinely Christian Church can no more support modern marriage, than it could support holy war on slavery. In so doing, is necessarily holier than Jesus, and so, runs through unitarianism to vagueness to leftism, and the Church building is remodeled to become a left wing bookstore.

The modern position on wedding vows is leading to pretty much the same consequences as the activist position on slavery did.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Just as the cure for Chinese poverty was to import the economic laws and customs of Hong Kong into Shanghai, the cure for Singaporean infertility is to import the marital laws and customs of Timor Leste, where women cannot own property, because they are wards of their parents until they become wards of their husbands.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

If they don’t get that class at age 12, because they went to a Muslim school, or because they did not go to school, their expected number of children is six or seven, even if they went to a high class ladies Muslim school. If they got western education at age twelve, then they have western fertility levels, far below replacement.

There is something taught to twelve year old girls in Nepal in Western schools, but not in Muslim schools, that drops fertility from six or seven children per female to less than 1.5 children per female.

This is what Boko Haram is complaining about. They view it, reasonably enough, as genocidal.

...

Here is my theory explaining this observation:

If women are emancipated, fertility collapses. But merely legal emancipation has limited effect, because females are extremely vulnerable to social pressure and conformity, so that peer pressure, social pressure and parental pressure, can and routinely does prevent emancipation from being effective, and thus prevents fertility from collapsing.

So the Cathedral has to reach into society through propaganda in school and television, and remake society to emancipate women, then fertility collapses because the girls spend their hottest and most fertile years fucking bad boys.

If women are low status relative to males, all males look attractive to them.

If women are restrained from screwing outside of marriage, if they cannot get their hands on males and males cannot get their hands on them (except in parentally supervised dancing with parentally selected partners) they want to get married. If all males look attractive to them, they can get married, and will love their husbands.

If women get married young, love their husbands, and submit to their husband’s authority, they will have a reasonable number of children – around six or seven, if the husband can afford it.

If, on the other hand they perceive themselves as equal to males, they will look around for males that are somehow higher status – typically convicted felons and such, for example Jeremy Meeks. They spend their fertile years fucking those guys, and only when the booty calls stop, only then do they condescend to reluctantly notice someone who is inclined to support and father children. And many of them, particularly the most intelligent, the most highly educated, the most wealthy and successful, for example the infamous lawyer pussy, when they are too old to get booty calls from Jeremy Meeks any more, will find all males that might return their interest beneath their notice, and wind up as cat ladies.

...

To have eugenic population growth: Abolish welfare and put female sexuality and reproduction under parental control, until they get married whereupon their sexuality and reproduction comes under their husband’s control.

Parents will delay their daughters reproduction until their daughters get married. Parents will only allow males able and willing to support a wife and children to court their daughters, and only allow them to court their daughters for marriage, not sex.

Wealthy people will marry young, poor people will marry late.

In order to reproduce successfully, reproduce biologically and culturally, men and women have to behave in different and complementary ways.

For the family unit to function, it has to have a single head, and that head has to be the man, because women will not endure sex if they are the head. And it has to be legally and socially binding.

If, on the other hand, women are free, their natural inclination is to engage their hypergamy with a minority of males outside the family unit, which natural inclination is reinforced as the normal life course, normal behavior, by school and television, which results in non reproductive sex. Successful societies repress this, frequently employing alarmingly drastic means, but the ordinary pressures of social conformity and adverse economic and life outcomes suffice to reduce it to quite manageable levels. Adulteresses in Timor Leste are punished only by social stigma and divorce without property, rights to children, or alimony. Stoning is not required to reduce the problem to acceptable levels.

Show post
Jim #racist blog.jim.com

Let us compare the best of slavery with the worst of abolitionism.

In the West Indies, free blacks were apt to be re-enslaved: If found with no visible means of support, would be sent to the workhouse, on the assumption that otherwise they would be stealing or starving or very likely both.

The workhouse would then attempt to find owners for them, but often these were blacks with problems. The workhouse would find if they had a former owner, and twist his arm to take them back. If no one suitable wanted them, the workhouse would support them indefinitely on public and private charity.

So the workhouses in the West Indies, or at least some of them, were operating like a no kill pet shelter. Obviously the people operating these believed they were doing good, and had plausible reason to believe they were doing good. The benefactors could see their beneficiaries and look them in the eye. They might well wind up owning a couple of their beneficiaries, as someone operating a no kill pet shelter often winds up with more than his fair share of problem pets.

Let us compare with the holier than thou abolitionists who caused a civil war that killed a large part of the white male population, burned cities to the ground, and created artificial famine.

After the slaves were freed, a significant proportion died, being generally incompetent to look after themselves. The abolitionists, having denied that blacks needed a paternalistic welfare state, were disinclined to provide one, even as the death rate among their supposed beneficiaries rose to quite alarming levels.

After the civil war and abolition, black productivity as freemen was markedly lower than black productivity as slaves, leading to markedly lower material living standards. In part this must have been because of “slave driving” – that slaves were forced to work considerably harder than they would have otherwise been inclined to work, but in part it was because the employer could not trust a black employee to behave well, whereas he could make sure a slave behaved well.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The problem is not that they are abducting women and selling them as wives, but that they are abducting Christian girls and selling them to Muslim men. This is not bad for Christian girls. It is bad for Christian men.

The Cathedral, oddly, seems far more frightened of Christian Holy War than Muslim Jihad (observe their disturbing response to ethnic cleansing by Christians in the Central Africa Republic), so is reluctant to mention who is being abducted.

When group A abducts girls from group B, if it makes the girls available for general public use by group A members, this is extremely bad for the girls, since no one man has an incentive to take care of them. But if it assigns them to particular individual men of group A, then not only does that individual have an incentive to take care of the girl and her children, but the apparatus of violence and coercion that made the transfer likely means that he has greater paternal security, and greater reason to expect the girl to stick around, and thus greater incentive to care for the girl and her children than occurs in the Cathedral approved free love/leking outcome. Boko Haram believes that western education for girls is bad, because it indoctrinates them with immoral and self destructive ideas, and that girls should be married off at an early age. Seems to me that they are obviously right about this. The success in Christian societies of the Cathedral program of undermining marriage means that Christian men lack incentive to defend their women from Muslim men, as we see not only in Africa, but in Sweden and England.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

However for many tasks, tasks suitable to stupid people, tasks for bad people, tasks where you want people to reliably do as they are told rather than make good decisions, the sort of tasks that most black people are suitable for, slavery was markedly more productive and efficient than free labor, with the slave producing more value for himself and his owner with less labor, than he did when freed.

...

If masters and slaves were better off than employers and employees, an economist would ask, why could they not just cut a deal to do what they previously did, only without chains and beatings, do the same tasks in the same way, only as employees?

The answer is that question is: that the former slaves, once freed, could not credibly commit to stick to such a deal, and generally did not stick to such a deal, thus economically worse off. Stupid people, prone to violence, with short time horizons, needed masters.

Show post
Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Heartiste and Steve Sailer provide compelling evidence that females should not be allowed to make their own sexual and reproductive choices. Their hormones make them stupid. Thus we have a bunch of baby murderers running around who will doubtless repeat their parent’s choices. And here is another video of raging hormones on parade. Most females, upon meeting a seemingly high status male, will jump his bones given a few minutes of opportunity, which is why societies where virginity was important and illegitimacy disastrous kept fertile age women on a very tight leash.

My personal highly unscientific observation is that the lower a woman’s self esteem, the better her behavior, and vise versa, since the lower her self esteem, the more vulnerable she is to social pressure and male authority. It is the girl with high self esteem that follows her pussy.