Also, it seems to me that provision of institutional zones for weirdo-containment, e.g. monasteries, would make being mean pointless.
After writing about this arrogant koanic weirdo, I read some of the comments on reaction.la/jim.com. These guys are just as awful, they lack good breeding and are proud of it. Their behaviour and foul language is prole, what Paul Fussell coined prole drift.
One imbecile called Friendly Fred wrote:
Also, it seems to me that provision of institutional zones for weirdo-containment, e.g. monasteries, would make being mean pointless.
Monasteries are not “zones for weirdo-containment”. As if no weirdos existed outside of monasteries, if they exist there at all. After all, they copied Plato and Aristotle—the oldest manuscripts of Plato’s works go back to a monastery—, they were places of learning and contemplation. Further, you do not get to decide who a weirdo is.
Most may even be rather intelligent, certainly trying to live according to the Bible and therefore morally superior to you sex-obsessed adulterers.
Geniuses were rather strange fellows, though they would have run circles around us intellectually. Think of Pascal, Leopardi, Kierkegaard, Kant, Newton and so on, who lived alone, never married.
Another idiot who thinks himself to be so wise and smart, so tough and manly forces his trash worldview onto us, writing a wall of text Vox Day would call gamma (I do not care about this hierarchy dung):
For Friendly Fred, and re: why I believe the bullies are the good guys:
Bullies prey on the weak. In my experience, the weak roughly fall into one of two categories:
1. The coddled, naive, emotionally immature. Think “spoiled rich kid with overprotective parents”. Having never been tested, they are weak out of circumstance. They can become strong.
2. The effeminate, feral, emotionally damaged. Think “gamma” if you’re a Vox Day fan, or “little bitch” or “fag” if not. Often victims of bad genes, single moms, or parental abandonment. They can’t be fixed, at least not at our current level of technological/medical progress.
Now, ideally, as a man, you have bros – true friends with integrity who value you enough to tell you the truth about your self-inflicted problems. But category 1 weaklings are, by definition, not receiving that kind of support; they’re surrounded by people who are indifferent, cowardly, or smothering. Bullies are therefore their only source of honest critical feedback, and while the bully’s style may be crude and primitive, his message is clear enough: you are weak, get stronger or your life will suck.
Anyone who lifts will instinctively understand that you need resistance in order to get physically stronger – and sometimes the solution to bullying really is to get physically stronger, but this applies to other characteristics like intellect and emotional stability as well (see: cognitive-behavioral therapy). Bullies help the category 1 weaklings.
[…]
Some bullying is probably flat-out harmful, like for example if the bullies are literally killing or maiming people who haven’t aggressed against the group, but IMO most or all of those outlying scenarios are covered by existing social technologies – like, say, the Ten Commandments.
First off, this is just more boilerplate thinking one already has gotten used to in those circles. Puffing oneself up as some wise, insightful thinker, by creating arbitrary categories no one takes seriously.
Bullies obviously are damaged people, they feel insecure and are not at all living according to the Ten Commandments. (Calling them social technologies is ridiculous.) Where is this behaviour Christian? Do they not have anything better to do?
The Psalsm are full of lamentations about godless bullies, there is even a whole book about it with Jeremiah’s Lamentations.
Your life will suck: yes, because of having been bullied. People commit suicide because of bullying, like Grognor. With whom I certainly would not have agreed much, though his case is rather tragic.
It may also suck because of other factors out of one’s control, like growing up in a broken family. Genetics are out of your own control, no need to put people down because of hereditary diseases.
You do not get to decide who has “bad genes” and who doesn’t. If someone says this about himself, like I do, that is to be accepted. What this guy wrote is arrogant dung I already responded to.
Let us not forget that looks alone have not much to do with “good” genes, whatever that even means. Regarding Alexander Grothendieck:
Perhaps surprisingly, Alexander Grothendieck fathered five children. As Schnep (2020) later described, he was a “physically attractive man with a powerful, overwhelming personality” and so women often found him appealing, before feeling “deeply disabused and disappointed” shortly thereafter.
[…]
According to biographer Winfried Scharlau (2020), like their father, neither of his children were able to “integrate successfully into mainstream society in what concerns education, profession, family or social circles”, writing “They are all “breakaways”.
So Grothendieck was more or less a pervert and a creep – a Grothencreep. His children are “losers”; however, he was a horrible father, obviously, leaving his wife because of his sex obsession. Did he have “good” genes? Hard to tell, given that he was mentally ill. Either way, what he did was neither commendable nor a great feat.
On the other hand, Grothendieck’s father Alexander Tanaroff was just as bad, saying to Alf Raddatz, husband of Alexander Grothendieck’s mother Johanna: “I will steal your wife”.
Disgusting.
Further, such people were born too, they had parents who copulated. As if my father or any man is automatically worth more because of having had children.
This is a contradiction anyway; we do not need medical or technological advancement, which will only wreak more havoc. Forbid sexual promisuity again and implement eugenics in a benign manner, this should spare people like myself existence. Christ is able to transform your life. Living in a morally healthier society would also help.
Further, in the end, only God and your soul’s destiny matters. Also, there are other areas in life where they are able to shine, some at least. You are jealous of intelligent people, not to mention geniuses. Which is what Schopenhauer writes in his Parerga, too: that nothing arouses so much envy than mental/intellectual superiority.
Christopher Langan sees it this way too; at 195-210, he has a higher IQ than all of you guys. He was lonely most of his life, married rather late, when he was almost fifty years old. I have linked to Nils M. Holm before, who wrote about this, i.e. intelligent people not fitting in, keeping mostly to themselves.
You ignore class, education, temperament, character completley, all women are the same … because you are sex-obsessed. It is rather queasy anyway, because even the incels you hate so much for whatever reason have mothers who at least once had … and so on.
You need to accept that you cannot have your cake and it eat it too: since intelligent people are in the minority, they will have a harder life in general. They will not be going to parties and clubs, at least not if they are also highly sensitive. You cannot change somebody’s temperament and character much anyway, and you have no basis for putting that of others down.
eternal anglo writes:
Thank you for this, it’s a valuable addition to the canon.
When I was at school it was “Zero Tolerance” faggofeminized, and I’m tall and keep to myself, so I never got bullied. But now I find myself at a loss when the social situation calls for retaliation, let alone aggression, and I wish I had been shoved around and forced to grow some balls.
Yes, Not Tom’s writing is high quality, superior to the Classics which you did not want to read either, you only wanted to lift weights. This is what educated and intelligent men do: lifting weights, talking about sex. “Nerds” and “gammas” read books and learn Latin and Greek, not us alpha high-IQ “chads” …
What would such arrogant and self-aggrandizing imbeciles do without the internet and the so-called blogosphere? They need to puff themselves up, want to get heard. I do not get any feedback writing about you nutters here, and I do not care. I would rather read books anyway.
You are nothing more than a horde of average Americans, vulgar beer-drinking, wife-beating, beretta-firing imbeciles. Dutch idiots like alf are simply Americanized without even noticing.
It is not masculine at all to be occupied with having sex, that is not just juvenile but kind of mentally ill behaviour I would expect from homosexuals.
The user shaman wrote this shallow nonsense, showing that they really are unable to think of anything else than sex-sex-sex:
Kookanic:
“The same reasoning that can be used to reject the existence of Vox’s hierarchy can be used to reject the existence of Roissy’s.”
Nonsense. Roissy’s tripartite hierarchy (alpha-beta-omega) maps to real individuals in the real world. Respectively: charismatic men who are naturally successful with the ladies; men who — due to their supplicatory nature — don’t do very well with women, but still periodically get some; autistic and/or otherwise misfitted and/or very ugly men who are permanent virgins.
How often do I have to write this on these pages? You do not get to decide what to value in life. Looking down on virginity is what proles do, primitive men brag about their sexual life, even Fichte writes this. Chastity, let alone celibacy are valued by God. The only other alternative is marriage: as a virgin, of course. Promiscuous sex is to be rejected, such people should be killed, at least locked away so that they do not wreak our societies. J. D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture showed that sexual promiscuity is the downfall of society.
get some: sexual promiscuity is sign of a society going downhill, it was never possible in the past to live such a lifestyle as it is now. Nothing to put on a pedestal. You cannot simply ignore the reality of assortative mating because of your deranged sexuality.
the ladies: yes, they are all the same, as good as any other. No differences of intelligence, manners, upbringing, class, education and so on. Even the so-called losers marry and have women, you would not stop putting men down if they had a wife or “girlfriend”, or rather a concubine, as girlfriends did not exist in civilized societies. You would then start to denigrate something you could criticize: the wife’s looks, IQ, voice, anything!
My father is a loser, too, and had several women. Yet he is a hunchback, mentally ill, with small testicles. I wish he were incel, then I would have been spared this awful life in this horrid world running on man’s sex obsession. Schopenhauer already wrote that no one would exist if we had children via an act of pure reason alone; exactly. We need to be led by the nose, our brains need to get shut down, rationality has to get suspended. This is what lust does; our origin is irrational.
Why would anyone care what you guys think? I think you are nuts, vulgar people, proles. This is locker room talk, I would expect to hear such deranged and repulsive views uttered in a bar, a honky-tonk or barrelhouse.
This jim guy is prole himself, therefore it is no wonder he attracts such people. Like attracts like. You would not find such dung on a site by, say, Alexander Arguelles, because most of them would be interested in the same topic Arguelles is: learning languages to read high literature in their original tongue.
He would lose his reputation anyway if he started to make videos or lectures on how to game women, have a lot of sexual intercourse. It would not look professional, just sleazy. Yet, I remember seeing a video of him sitting on a bench in a park, talking to two young women from the Netherlands who simply sat down and started to chat with him in Dutch, which he is fluent in as well: Alexander Arguelles Rainforest Interview.
In the same post, the high-minded genius shaman writes:
A rapid switch from Gangsta Rap (black masculinity) to Heavy Metal (white masculinity) is possible and likely, particularly among teenagers. A switch from Katy Perry to any form of masculinity is next to impossible.
As Joel Davis once said, pop music should be banned. aarvoll (Eric Orwoll), who is smarter and at least not as arrogant, said something similar a while back in an interesting YouTube video titled: Music Makes or Breaks Civilizations.
Classical music, then, is not masculine at all; I guess shaman would make fun of people listening to Mozart, Bach, Wagner, Vivaldi, Beethoven like an 8th-grader.
He doesn’t stop there, however, shaman doubles down, like a good sex-obsessed SJW:
There’s no need to revive the Peppermintocalypse, but a man who insinuates that post-pubescent underage girls are unattractive to normal heterosexual men is either a liar or an abject idiot; and VD has denounced a number of men for that issue, i.e., “pedophilia” that has nothing to do with actual pedophilia.
Reminder that even Kookanic, whose writing I’ve recently investigated, once said:
“Next we come to a more controversial figure, Jimmy Savile. Sort of the male equivalent of sleeping with celebrities, he banged hordes of underage (post pubescent, as far as I can tell) girls. In other words, the hottest around. Keep in mind, this was in Britain, where they get shaggy quick.
Unlike Tex, I am not quite prepared to condemn Savile as a monster for his proclivities. For Cro Mags at least, I think puberty was the time girls start banging. I have few illusions about 15 year old girls, for example. I haven’t paid enough attention to know whether he crossed a line I’d be uncomfortable with, but I’d wager the vast majority of his bangs were legal but not actual pedophilia, putting his sexual proclivities solidly in line with the vast majority of men’s cocks, if not their lying words.
In other words, he lived the dream, and did so by exerting a massive Melon social reality distortion field throughout his lifetime, that only vanished after his death, revealing the massive extent of his sexual conquests.”
Well, in absolute contrast to this surprisingly sane and non-gelded position, VD regularly denounces men for being into fertile teenagers with boobs, and VD also denounced Jimmy Savile specifically. I’m bringing this up because it just adds another reason to dislike VD and whatever he stands for; this issue appears to be yet another litmus test separating those whose thought-crimes are unbearable from the Cathedral’s perspective (see: Roissy) and who therefore must be censored, apart from the Controlled Opposition.
{snipping what they would call a wall of text here; shaman seems to get paid writing comments judging from the sheer amount he forces down our throats.}
surprisingly sane and non-gelded position: no. This just shows how sick you are. Just like koanic/Leo Littlebook, who even calls this sicko Savile having lived the dream. Bruce Charlton condemned him as well, for good reason.
You guys are deranged. You cannot even think of the fact that they could have been your mothers, daughters, sisters …? I do not care about living such a life, I would not want this if I got paid for it.
This also shows that you yourself reject marriage and children, so why see our sexual decadence as a problem? Just live the dream! A dream come true! Paradise! Better than Garden Eden!
Above, I linked to Nils M. Holm, a member of the Triple Nine Society, he wrote about people with three+ sigma IQs who are suffering in life, are isolated. Your easy answer would be that they are losers (or “gamma”), but Langan was lonely most his life, too. And Christopher Langan certainly is not what Vox Day calls gamma.
After all, why would I want anything to do with a woman with whom I have nothing in common? Sounds like torture, no matter how beautiful she may be. I do not want this. Geniuses did not live like this either, which you ignore, because then you would have to accept that your conquests are worthless, unlike the intellectual conquests of real giants. They last, whereas yours do not. They will perish too, yet in the eyes of God it matters how we lived sexually on earth. For guys like you, who are lusting and living sexually decadent lives, eternal damnation awaits if you do not repent and change course.
You are sitting in front of your computers writing blogposts and comments, which does not come across as manly; rather nerdy. Clearly, you are not James Bond, not even Gunter Sachs … whom I both reject.
Don Colacho was repulsed as well knew:
It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.
Without dignity, without sobriety, without refined manners, there is no prose that fully satisfies.
Good breeding seems like a fragrance from the 18th century that evaporated.
There are moments when the worst failing, the worst offense, the worst sin, seems to be bad manners.
More nonsense from shaman, and again it is about … women and sex. Nothing else is on his mind:
So, my point is, priestly men do very much respond to psyops, and indeed, are even more behaviorally responsive to psyops than women, who — while clearly degraded nowadays, having been successfully cognitively disturbed — are still the feral non-introspective entities that they’ve always been. Scott Aaronson is a sexless cuck who respects women, and he is a sexless cuck who respects women primarily due to Puritan mind control rays and not because of the Puritan concrete incentive structure.
Cathedral priests are much more influenced by metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply, than by literal estrogen (though no doubt physical endocrinal feminization has taken it toll – just look at the neotenous facial features and mannerisms of soy-addled shitlib NPC bugmen: they are essentially grown babies!). Memes determine their thoughts and deeds, which is why Jim has summoned the meme warriors. Scott Alexander’s and Scott Aaronson’s inability to get rid of the policeman inside is why they will die childless.
With warriors, priests and so on he means some childish theory that another imbecile was also going on about all the time. As if this is a kind of truth we all have to accept. They do not even cite a serious scholar or sociologist, Gehlen, for example, or Schelsky. Or Veblen. One may reject them also, though at least you can take their works seriously, which is not the case for this childish hierarchy dung they create for all areas of life. Which seems pretty “nerdy” as well, to use one of their favorite insults.
Puritanism would certainly be called for in our age, seems vastly preferable to today’s society. He also contradicts himself when he writes that Scott Aaronson, whoever this is, is “a sexless cuck who respects women”, then ends his comment writing that women, while degraded nowadays, still all are less responsive to psyops.
To quote Don Colacho:
In a century where the media publish endless stupidities, the cultured man is defined not by what he knows but what he does not know.
Though he knows he cannot win, the reactionary has no desire to lie.
A culture dies when nobody knows in what it consists, or when everybody thinks he knows.
That men remain childless is your fault. It is your kind who is living sexually promiscuous lives. As I wrote a million times on these pages, my father is genetic dreck, no need to pass this on. I am glad when I am dead, never worked a single day in my life, dropped out of school at age 15.
Further, having children is not the meaning of life in-itself. Neither the Bible nor any other religious text simply teaches have children, this is life’s sole meaning. Depression will not necessarily go away only because of having children. Walter M. Miller, Jr., author of A Canticle for Leibowitz shot himself after his wife died. He was over seventy years old and had four children.
I doubt you would say this into anyone’s face; even if you are a kind of Hulk, a loser could still draw a gun and shoot you. No amount of muscle mass or martial arts training will help you against someone who hates you with a passion and is out to kill you.
It is laughable to claim to be so smart and yet have nothing else to do than to talk about your sex obsessions online; such comment sections look like self-help groups for men, only that you boast and boast and boast about how tough and manly you are, having sex all day and nothing else going on in your life and mind.
One would expect that you are occupied with intellectual matters, maybe are married with children. Yet, you sound as if you are forty years or older and still hitting on girls; underage ones, of course, because they are the prettiest. If one does not agree with the latter, he is deranged, not you … Ridiculous!
Quoting brilliant reactionary Nicolás Gómez Dávila yet again:
Superficial, like the sociological explanation of any behavior.
Sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, are experts in generalities.
When confrontedy by the bull’s horns of a concrete case, they all look like Anglo-Saxon bullfighters.The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.
By believing that the wax figures fabricated by psychology are alive, man has been gradually losing his knowledge of man.
Puritanism is the attitude that befits the decent man in the world today.
To quote Bruce Charlton from his book Addicted to Distration:
[…]
Thus, I regard as a major national event the un-masking of the late Sir Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) as a chronic, serial, wholesale, aggressively-predatory sexual aggressor, abuser and rapist of boys and girls, men and women (including mentally handicapped, disabled, ill and hospitalized juveniles) over a timescale of more than half a century, and in reported numbers running into many hundreds (with actual numbers in all likelihood being in thousands, since many victims were incapable of understanding and reporting incidents). The Savile affair constitutes, in my opinion, in its totality; one of the most horrifying – and horrifically-revealing – events in the history of England. And as a nation, the English have hardly yet begun to digest the implications – that is, assuming we are capable of doing-so, in such a nihilistic, shallow and distractible society as we have become.
[…]
The only people whom I know who had actually met Savile disliked him intensely; one knew him from their schooldays as being a nasty teenager; a woman friend reported that on meeting Savile he made an immediate, crude and sexually aggressive approach (i.e. groping) – as if it was his habit and right to do so.
[…]
The once exemplary British Broadcasting Corporation in London had, from about the mid-1960s, seemingly become a moral cesspool, and at times a criminal environment; involving not just the most obviously strange and sinister Savile, but also other media personalities who were more generally popular, and seemed to me and many others as if they were decent characters.
[…]
Does not matter to perverts like shaman and koanic/Leo Littlebook, Savile was a great guy who was living the dream! A rapist’s dream come true! I almost got tears in my eyes … from having to live in such a wicked, cursed world.
I don’t see why this jim guy is so important, why kookanic—as they call him—wanted to impress him. Of course, because of his frail ego, though what are this guy’s accomplishments? He is a boomer even, talks about women as well all the time and how great he is with them, as if anybody of taste and intelligence cares. As a sex-obsessed boomer, his views are skewed anyway.
I am not aware of great thinkers occupying themselves with getting women to have sex with them all the time. How many papers did Leibniz or Newton wrote about that? Zero? Casanova may or may not have been gifted, however, he was not a genius anyway.
Apart from Schopenhauer, who, in his Metaphysics of Sexual Love, provides us with some of the deepest reflections a philosopher ever wrote on such matters. I quoted this elsewhere already, will do it again. From the second volume of The World as Will and Representation:
If now optimism were right, if our existence were to be thankfully recognised as the gift of the highest goodness guided by wisdom, and accordingly in itself praiseworthy, commendable, and agreeable, then certainly the act which perpetuates it would necessarily have borne quite another physiognomy.
You would not expect such vile sentiments from people or ages where good breeding still existed. Prussians, a Bismarck or Moltke, would never have talked about women and sexuality in such a vulgar, cheesy way. Most of our grandparents hopefully did not either. Hopefully they were of better morals and character, had more going on upstairs than you guys. With your wicked and sick sex obsession that you paint as the ultimate goal of life.
Most people do not like each other anyway, they may even talk negatively about you and me behind our backs. To quote Pascal:
If all men knew what each said of the other, there would not be four friends in the world.
German Rightist Günter Maschke was a lot more interesting, he even fled to Cuba in the 1960s, Fidel Castro threw him out again. Despite lacking the necessary school leaving examination, he attended lectures by Ernst Bloch and Ralf Dahrendorf. Was known for translating Donoso-Cortés, Nicolás Gómez Dávila. Arguably the greatest Carl Schmitt scholar. The list goes on. Great guy. Way more interesting. Did not use a computer until his death in February 2023.
Enough of this, this is a waste of time.
His whole obsession with getting women, being good with them is just creepy, especially at that age. As if it does not matter what kind of women. Class, education, temperament and intelligence matter, of course. As Nils M. Holm wrote, too.
Similar to those who claim to teach how to make money, i.e. scammers. As if it does not matter how you earn money; a drug dealer will certainly earn quite a lot, I am sure.
He also wrote:
I am a fan of the Gnu development environment, ./configure && make && make install, and a subscriber to the Free Software Foundation.
So he is a fan of what many call auto*hell; here, even the arrogant suckless guys are correct. Also notice how sloppy boomer jim is, cannot even get the acronym GNU right (GNU’s Not Unix). Further, this is basically the definition of a loser, too: to waste time tinkering with software. So is he an IT guy? Would make sense, given how prole he comes across. Vulgar Half-Sigma thought so, too: IT guys are prole, and usually come from prole backgrounds.
This reaction.la domain seems new, I remember reading some laughably horny nonsense on his blog.jim.com domain. He is some old, sex-obsessed fart in his sixties who has a twenty-five year old girlfriend whom he hits occasionally. Which is not biblical, not something Joseph did; yet, he cites the Bible! A heretic, a false prophet like this Leo Littlebook / Koanic nutter.
How is it biblical to have a girlfriend? The need to hit a woman seems rather sick. Is he mentally ill? Proud to be a wife-beater. Wow. His horniness clouded his thinking, therefore he has sex with women who have rather loose morals, I would guess.
He also admits to getting drunk. His knowledge of the Bible is erratic, not someone who has read a lot in life. Was a Marxist in the past, apparently, but not on the level of Maschke. Far from it. Too uneducated and stupid, reads very little, writes too much. Like his fellow koanic / Leo Littlebook.
What J. D. Unwin wrote about in his Sex and Culture is now playing out; he even uploaded this work as a PDF. No joke! Yet, he lives in fornication because of his sex obsession he cannot control. Then calls himself a reactionary? So self-unaware. Like his fellow koanic / Leo Littlebook.
As I wrote above, not worth occupying oneself with. They also seem obsessed with teenage girls who have intercourse with whole football teams. Yes, such girls may exist; they are mentally ill and may have been damaged somehow by their upbringing or other events. They need Christ.
It is, of course, possible to live chaste until marriage, because this was the way of life for centuries prior to modern birth control. Otherwise, you would have been fifteen and pregnant. Instead of making juvenile jokes about fathers being cuckolded by their daughters—they apparently do not know what this word means—, why not think about what a sixteen year old girl who is pregnant meant. Who would have paid for the child?
Strange, too, that biographies of great men and women from the past usually show what we would expect: most parents marrying young or not so young anymore, but never did I read that the mother of a genius had copulated with a whole football team (or the equivalent in the 1700s, 1800s or way back even.)
A host of geniuses were born to pastors, as Gottfried Benn noted, who was son of a pastor as well.
As if our overly sexual culture, which is a sign of decadence, has no influence on peoples’ sexual behaviour. This jim guy even reads and takes seriously—Risum teneatis amici! Do not laugh, friends!—the likes of Chateau Heartiste and Rollo Tomassi. Criminals and perverts!
They also seem obsessed with health and living a long and “good” life as well as other feminine trash. I do not care about life itself, I only live because God forces me, otherwise I would kill myself. You are addicted to this world, this life. I am not. You want to act as if being addicted is healthy, when it is not; it is clear that God forces us into the world.
Your sex obsession is the best example: you are too weak to live a celibate life, too horny, too sex-obsessed, only sex on your minds, not Latin or Greek or mathematics or philosophy or history or poetry or any science. You are, after all, not that intelligent, not that introspective.
Which is why I am alive and was forced into this madhouse: because most people, as Schopenhauer already mockingly wrote, are only capable of eating, drinking and copulating. Just like my father. Or you guys.
One last remark about the intellectual calibre boomer jim’s blog attracts. From this comment by imbecile Hank Rearden (maybe a bot or so, not sure):
“Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” is the way a more honest translation reads.
If you’re snuggled into the bosom of some other man, and openly in love, don’t be surprised if folks think you’re a degenerate faggot. Especially when, in context, that kike-faggot Jesus:
1. Banned normal male-female relations in his perverted utopia, in favor of angelic androgyny. (Matt. 22:30)
2. Encouraged men to transition to a less manly physique by castration. (Matthew 19:11-12)
3. Mocked normal men’s sex drive towards women. (Mark 9:47, etal)
4. White-knighted for whoring skanks. (John 8:4-11)
Jews gonna jew. Hasn’t changed for 2000 years.
Just more sex-obsession, what else do you expect given that the host of the blog cannot control himself, wants to have sex all the time? The vulgar language is repugnant already.
What does Hank want, copulate in Heaven? This is what Islam teaches, not surprising given the mean IQ of Arabs …
The commenter answering this trainwreck of a comment did not even mention that Christ begins by saying that not many are able to receive this word (or celibacy), and ends it with saying that those who are able to reiceive it, let them receive it. Which is true, if you look around the net: sex obsession upon sex obsession.
Even the commenter answering this Hank crazy person was basically defending sex obsession, even though he called himself a Christian.
That we are able to lust is obvious. However, I see it like Andy Nowicki: sexualization IS degradation. It is therefore not noble to brag about it; it is a weakness.
He does not get the core truth that is obvious to certain souls, certain kind of thinkers. Andy Nowicki is one of the few contemporary authors who has pointed this out as well, especially in two of his works: Notes Before Death and Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker.
Then there were great thinkers like Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Weininger and so on who have written about it. Schopenhauer leveled one of the harshest attacks on sexuality in his Metaphysics of Sexual Love. Strindberg saw it in a similar fashion, his letters to Weininger’s friend Artur Gerber are well-documented. Wise ancients did not think highly of it either. For example, see Seneca’s take on lust.
I am done with this idiocy, this inanity that they force onto us, lewd boomer jimmy as well as his fan and regular commenter koanic / Leo Littlebook / Leo Joseph Buchignani III / Leo Buchignani, who is not just as sex-obsessed, but a true kook, a false prophet of the worst sort even his sycophants now reject. Such hogwash!
If at all, I agreed with their rejection of the view regarding Vox Day’s claim that there is some qualitative difference between so-called VHIQ vs. UHIQ (very high versus ultra high IQ or so).
I do not see this, since at least those who claim to have such high IQs, like koanic, don’t appear to me to be deep thinkers. They aren’t the next Leibniz or Kierkegaard. They occupy themselves with fringe topics that may require above-average intelligence. Most of it is vulgar, though, and they all lack depth.
Even someone like Thomas Wolf, a German computer scientist who is member of the Giga Society is simply someone working in IT. He is not comparable to such geniuses either. Or think of Rick Rosner. What did he achieve? Langan, at best, is. This is also the view that Bruce Charlton takes in his book The Genius Famine.
Further, though, they would need to bow before Chris Langan’s feet, who has an IQ between 195 and 210. I would indeed read him rather than those sex-crazed chaps who puff themselves up so much. Langan, after all, was single most of his life. He married when he was almost fifty years old.
He had little success with women, see his remarks about them. Why would he, anyway? He has an IQ of 210, at such a level, you would be mostly occupied with abstract thought. Which is also what Nils M. Holm writes in Bridging the Gap:
[…]
If a lot of abstract thought is going on in your mind and you are not able to share most of it, this is a very special kind of loneliness. To most people, being lonely depends on the number of familiar people around them. To them loneliness and being alone are strongly correlated.
[…]
Some high-IQ people do not care much about the nuances of interpersonal relatinships (sic), because they are too absorbed in abstract topics. This can be a self-reinforcing mechanism: abstract topics are interesting, which makes people uninteresting, which increases the focus on abstract topics, etc (sic)
[…]
These guys, on the other hand, are not absorbed in abstract topics. They hardly read and think, yet want to play know-it-all on a vast range of subjects. They write blogposts and comments to kill time; unlike myself, however, they take themselves very seriously, after all they are alphas or sigmas, because they do not have much going on upstairs.
Chasing women, lusting after them the whole time is not something you’d expect such brainy people to be occupied with. Boomer jimmy’s behaviour and this of his commenters therefore doesn’t surprise me.
Certainly hilarious, though, that sex-crazed jim claims Vox Day’s “[…] portrayal of what women like is misleading and will cause you to fail with women”, which just shows how stupid, superficial and subjective this dung is. A bunch of kooks, shysters and liars, nothing more.
He also think “I have not. There are no psychopaths, none.” Well, of course there are, you are one, for example. Your nonsense about killing is sick, men of good breeding and high culture don’t talk like that. I am not reading such dung when reading Goethe or Leibniz, or Aquinas or even Nietzsche, who was of good breeding, too. You are mentally ill, you think we need to cater to your sick and disgusting view of what a man is. You don’t even know Latin, you think swinging an AK-47 is manly, when it is just repugnant. “cringe”.
Buffoon.
This PUA trash is nonsense, boomer jimmy even calls VD’s a projection of his own virtues and flaws. Well, you are not free from that either. Trash is trash, your trash is trash, too. Read Schopenhauer instead.
One last comment on a remark showing what a weasel he is. Inclusivity codes of conduct:
If the New York Times blesses you, you are our enemy, and you intend to destroy everyone like me, you intend to deny me grandchildren, you intend to to erase my culture and destroy its statues, monuments and great buildings. You intend to demonize and erase my ancestors and their great achievements from history, you intend to erase my past and deny me a future. You are planning to flatten the great buildings of my ancestors, and replace them with concrete boxes, because you hate my past.
deny me grandchildren: whine some more, cretin. You boomers did it, you admit to being sex-obsessed, you don’t teach chastity either. You are weak, slaves to lust and women, you read books and blogs about them even. You admit it! You waste time with this. Time men of good breeding use to read Homer, like Don Colacho. Who was not only a man of taste but great learning, being able to read Latin and Greek fluently, in total he knew eight languages. You don’t. So shut up.
Know-it-alls like you get on my nerves, you pollute the web. This “discourse” is a joke, the intellectual level of the blogosphere is embarassingly low. Yet you puff yourself up as “smart”. Smart, maybe – learned and well-read? Certainly not.
I do hate your culture. The US is a plastic country that has destroyed more culture than any other nation. First via bombing Europe, especially Germany, like maniacs, followed by cultural imperialism: their music, movies and (bad) mannerisms, not to speak of pornography and their fitness obsession; their crude XXL “culture”. It has to die.
You seem to defend this, judging from your sex-crazed posts and commenters; not much else going on there. No Latin and Greek either. So what is the point? You are prole yourself, and fine with it.
I also don’t want to be your grandchild. You have no right to force me into this world because of your horniness. Before you say: “… but my grandchild would want to …”, I answer that no, I don’t want to and I’m not a clone of my father either. I certainly reject my father’s views, he is not a thinker, I have not much in common with my ancestors.
Had a quick look again at this perverse, vulgar sex addict: apparently, his name is James A. Donald.
A common, a kind of garden name. More interesting, though, is that he was the first to answer the Bitcoin guy’s email. Which is one of the reasons some people thought that they are the same person.
He was a communist, which is what I already gleaned from reading his awful site jim.com / blog.reaction.la. However, he even was in Cuba or Russia, according to someone online. Not sure if this is true. Some sources call him a “Canadian cypherpunk”, whatever that is: I certainly would never want to be associated with anything that has punk in it. Sounds kind of trashy. It would fit, though, since he is a vulgar person.
Now, imagine it is true and he invented Bitcoin (after all, he is a nerd, his domain jim.com dates back to around 1996): a boomer communist who is also a nerd—see his Gnu reference above—creates Bitcoin, hailed as an alternative to our corrupt banking system … not to mention he is a vulgar, sex addicted prole on top!
I am done with this loony, do not want anything to do with him or the crazies he attracts, like his fellow sex addict koanic. jim.com is for sale; reaction.la, though, hosts most of what I saw years ago on jim.com, back when I first stumbled upon this lair of creepy sex addicts.
He also seems to think of himself as a “philosopher”—don’t laugh!—writing shoddy trash titled A proof that moral judgments, when done correctly, are judgments of objective fact. With which he shows that he does not understand what morality even is.
Obviously, if you remove God, it is about taste. I do not like life and would be glad if someone killed me. Not torture, but kill me; I do not need to die a gruesome death and experience an abundance of unnecessary pain – however, no longer to exist I do not mind, and haven’t for more than a decade. I hate my life.
(Maybe he did not write it himself, though no author is specified. A waste of time and horrible text regardless.)
I doubt James A. Donald is a cryptographer. He was a communist in the seventies – during a time when Unix got off, so he was not at Berkeley or MIT. “I am a newbie to linux” he wrote in 2005.
He wrote a Windows (!) program called CryptoKong no one uses; there is hardly any information on it, except in the wayback machine. From echeque.com/Kong/existing_proposals.htm:
Ecash by DigiCash and a real-world application of it. Dead. Killed by fear and greed, mostly fear. They were afraid of offending anyone, so they crippled their cash so that they could vet anyone who wanted to use it, and then used that vetting power to exclude the major early adopter market: Pornographers. Chaum, the founder, neither endorses or denies the rumor that his banking partners were ambivalent about its potential success.
Who cares. Seems he’s in favor of pornography. How reactionary!
To quote Gómez Dávila:
It turns out it is impossible to convince a businessman that a profitable activity can be immoral.
The businessman’s greed surprises me less than the seriousness with which he satisfies it.
This is a reactionary …?
This guy is a nobody but wants to be important, just like his friend koanic. He does this via his laughable blog and floozies.
Christopher Langan was born in 1952, has an IQ of 210 and was busy thinking in the seventies; James A. Donald, on the other hand, is an ideologue, busy not-thinking. To quote Don Colacho:
Ideologies were invented so that men who do not think can give their opinions.
That he posted to Metzger’s—a NetBSD developer—mailing list may simply have to do with him being a nerd and net addict (beside his sex addiction.) This is the reason for his fifteen minutes of fame, basically.
Interestingly enough, I am not the only one who thinks that James A. Donald is a creepy pervert. Someone on reddit asked Is James A Donald alive?, to which user mkgll replied:
Of course he’s still alive. He’s a racist pedophile. He blogs almost daily at http://blog.reaction.la
I also never cared for or even read Moldbug, a worthless author who most likely got pushed by the “elites”, yet his name appears several times on the pervert’s blog. Do they really read such trite junk? James A. Donald identifies as NRx, i.e. neo-reactionary?
They obviously are not reactionaries, since true reactionaries are not vulgar, sex-crazed perverts who write blogposts and comments day in, day out. True reactionaries were Catholics—Christians at least—with some decent morals. Men of good breeding.
Bruce Charlton rejects the so-called Dark Enlightenment as well. The term itself is ludicrous, for if you read them, they have nothing else on their minds than money and sex.
This is punishment! This is a nightmare! This is unbearable!
No wonder copulation is on people’s mind all day, which in turn leads to children (theoretically). No wonder suicide is a lot harder to accomplish, especially if you want it to be quick and painless! No wonder God threatens us with eternal damnation – who else would want to remain alive in this meat grinder!
I certainly don’t.
One last “gem” and I am done. Really done. This guy is so vulgar and deranged … this is only possible in our day, where the internet allows all kind of crazies to masquerade as “deep thinker”. When in reality, they are not deep but just disgusting, mentally ill vermin plaguing us with their trash, even calling themselves reactionaries.
The gem in question (about sex, of course, his favorite topic which is on the mind of James A. Donald all day, every day.) From slatestarcodex.com (archive.is, archive.org):
To the extent that I am aware of sexual acts between adults and pre pubescents, sexual acts between men and pre-pubescent boys consist of middle class gay males predatorily going after fatherless underclass boys, hence it is plausible that they are using improper inducements and improper pressures, hence harm based arguments are plausible.
But with sexual acts between men and pre-pubescent girls, it is middle class girls predatorily going after middle class men, often married middle class men, so harm based arguments are implausible.
Progressivism, having dumped religion after going holier than Jesus, always claims to use harm based justifications, but with environmentalism and the ever rising age of consent, their real motives are clearly not harm based. Consider the common case of the large high school football player having sex with the rather small twenty five year old teacher. Applying harm based criteria to that case is really silly – and it is almost as silly when a nine year old girl seduces a few of her father’s friends.
Another one from his blog:
But reality is that they frequently are. If a girl has boobs, chances are she can get pregnant. If a girl has menarche, can probably get pregnant. If she can get pregnant, sexually mature.
Reality also is that they are often disturbingly keen on sex even at age ten, even before sexual maturity. Girls that are keen on sex before menarche and boob development are a minority, but they are a very large minority. Girls that are sexually mature at twelve, have menarche at twelve and have boobs that dramatically advertise this fact, are also a large minority, possibly a majority. And should be married off to young men who are starting their careers, because otherwise there is a very high likelyhood that they are going to seduce the first male they encounter who plausibly seems high alpha – who is likely an affluent mature adult male with an adult girlfriend, a mistress, and a wife.
Yes, copulate with ten year olds. That’s gross. And just imagine what this would look like? You should be burned at the stake.
More deranged junk straight out of the blogosophere gutter (from the same post):
Personal experience: A very large minority of ten year olds with no boobs who have not yet experienced menarche are into sex. A very large minority, likely a majority, of twelve year olds have boobs, have experienced menarche and are therefore potentially capable of bearing children, though substantially less fertile than sixteen year olds, and are into sex. If not all of them have done it yet, they are intensely interested, and keep aggressively inserting themselves into situations where sex is likely to ensue.
If you think only a very small minority are into sex, that tells me that only a very small minority are into sex with you.
Women are hypergamous, and very young girls are very hypergamous. If you don’t have money, charisma, and substantial and obvious adult female preselection, you are invisible to them. You should not conclude from your own invisibility that they are not into sex. Plot line of “Cinderella”: He is a prince, he is rich, and older higher status females want him. You will notice that his age and physical appearance is not mentioned, while the story pretty much drools over all the loot and his personal power. The target audience for “Cinderalla” are rubbing their p*****s against their broomstick.
He even uses this to puff up himself again, claiming he is such a stud-muffin, even ten-year old girls want him … Disgusting enough if true, however, it also gives away his class, the circles he frequents. Sounds like he lives near trailer park trash whites. Class differences may also manifest on the genetic level.
You can read this in rather old medicine books, for example. I’ve got one from Müller, Schlecht, Früh (around 1920-1930s). Wherein they write that those of the lower classes exhibit higher sexual activity; the higher classes may not even have a shared bedroom, have more varied interests. This was already a time of decadence.
It should be obvious, though, that the daughter of a physician who has her learn the piano or violin will not tolerate such behaviour, and his daughter will also not behave in such a way. Or of Christian parents. To have parents who don’t care about their ten-year old daughter living sexually promiscuous, you’d have to be lowest of the low, living in some kind of ghetto, a god-forsaken region, a kind of trailer park.
2024-03-12:
(Most likely the result of increasing number of children growing up without
a father. Indeed, studies show that girls who grew up without a father
are sexually active at a younger age. Today’s rates of abandonment did not
exist in any age, since the technology and wealth did not exist.)
Further, if a ten-year old asks you if she ought to perform a certain sexual act on you in an explicit manner, one is dealing with a damaged child and ought to be mad about those who have done this to her, as Andy Nowicki rightly noted once.
Childhood is a kind of paradise because it is a- or pre-sexual. Schopenhauer thought so, too. There will be enough time to copulate, why be such a disgusting pervert trying to rationalise raping children? Do you have nothing else going on in your life?
He also ignores our decadent culture which has never been more sex-obsessed than today, duly noted by F. Roger Devlin in his Sexual Utopia in Power as well.
EsotericTrad, a user with manners, who also seems to be better educated than James A. Donald, who is a sex and internet addict, writes:
Dishonest, ahistorical and still creepy.
Modernity and all its improvements is largely responsible for the reducing of the beginning of puberty so that your claims about young girls in earlier times when control was better exercised do not match up.
If we examine the record of births as well we see that far from young girls it is healthy 18-20 year olds reproducing consistently NOT 12 year old or even 16 year olds.
Marriage or pledging a young daughter was not uncommon but sex was not expected, not was it encouraged. You and your defenders continued attempt to normalize the sexualization of early puberty girls reminds me of the dweebs at highschool who’d hit on the younger girls because they thought it acceptable. It wasn’t and healthy vital men were repulsed by it an remain so.
Correct.
Notice the title of the blogpost: Nazis are virgins. Which is proof for what Andy Nowicki mentioned: that in our age of sexual decadence, virgin has become a slur, while some women almost proudly call themselves slut.
You are just a pawn, a tool, you have been played by the powers that be, who want you to be sex-obsessed the whole time. Lenin knew it. J. D. Unwin wrote about the loosening of sexual mores and the havoc it wreaks.
On the same blogpost, he basically just regurgitated the common PUA trash one almost has gotten used to in this vulgar age I hate with a passion:
2. Marrying a thirty two year old woman who is reluctantly settling for you after having dropped off the bottom of Jeremy Meeks midnight booty call list as a result of hitting the wall, having spent her hottest and most fertile years banging innumerable men richer than you, handsomer than you, more charismatic than you, and with bigger dicks than you.
PUA boilerplate. Why not throw out your wife, then? When she hits some wall? Idiot.
His son is a creep, too:
A few years ago my thirty year old son hit on a fully developed twelve year old, who was hanging around in a pickup joint. He did not realize she was all that young, and neither did I. She looked adult to me.
?
He is obsessed with “proving” that it is healthy for a man to want a ten or twelve year old wife. You are just nuts and deranged; at least a few other commentators thought so, too.
To give an example from Denmark in the 19th century, take Kierkegaard. His father was a Lutheran Pietiest who did not want his daughters to have a lot of education. Rather, they ought to marry. Until then, he had them mostly serve their brothers.
From ancestors.familysearch.org:
When Petrea Severine Kierkegård was born on 7 September 1801, in København, Denmark, her father, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, was 45 and her mother, Ane Sørensdatter Lund, was 33. She married Henrich Ferdinand Lund on 11 October 1828, in Copenhagen, København, Denmark. They were the parents of at least 4 sons and 1 daughter. She died on 29 December 1834, in her hometown, at the age of 33, and was buried in København, Denmark.
Kierkegaard’s father himself had seven children. His first child being born when he was around forty-two, his second wife twenty-nine. His first wife died childless two years after marriage (he married when he was already thirty-eight.)
James A. Donald, also commenting as JamesD127, does not think so, though, as his historical knowledge is absent. He does not read books, after all, but rapes ten-year old girls and hits his multiple wives – a reactionary? That made me laugh.
His take:
[…]
And if you want a society where daughters are strongly under parental authority, you need a society like the ones where daughters remained virgins, and in such a society ten year old girls could be, and often enough were, shotgun married.
You say that in the old days women remained virgins for long periods. Well, some girls, many girls, remained virgins for long periods. Not all of them. And part of what kept them virtuous was that one of the remedies fathers had against the disturbingly common problem of daughters disinclined to remain virgin for long periods was marrying them off as early as necessary. Which was in those societies sometimes very early indeed.
There is not much data on this anyway, and there are enough cases showing that people usually married in their twenties and went on to have a lot of children, at least more than today (which I am against).
Decadent media pressure regarding sexuality was absent, obviously. Women and men had enough to occupy themselves with in the past: there was more manual labour to do, women often had to and knew how to cook, sew, help on the fields, in the household and so on.
Another famous case is Luther, who was forty years already when he married Katharina von Bora, who was around twenty-five.
He went on to have six children and you are an idiot.
Another bit showing how sloppy he is in his thinking:
My personal experience is substantial. If you have charisma for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and a display of nice stuff for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and then you get preselection from adult women, then their little sisters, often very little indeed, are apt to sexually harass you.
Freudians are correct about what fitting the glass slipper stands for. Conan has his terrible swift sword, Cinderella has her glass slipper. The prince fucks all the girls of the land (preselection) until he finds the girl who fucks like Cinderella.
If you want to invoke the Hajnal line, ask not what when the average female west of the Hajnal line got married, but when orphaned heiresses west of the Hajnal line got married. They tended to get married at age ten, when the typical age of puberty back then was sixteen. That is equivalent to marrying them off at age eight today. This tells us that women did not have late virgin marriage merely because women are just naturally wonderful. We are looking a rather fierce, forceful, and determined coercive apparatus for keeping women from immoral conduct at very early ages. And extremely early marriage was an important backup part of that apparatus.And extremely early marriage was an important backup part of that apparatus.
Yes, we got it, James Bond. Obsessed with sex. A clown, basically. You are most likely a very simple, almost barbaric kind of guy, primitive, brutish even. I have linked to Nils M. Holm before: it is not only geniuses not fitting in with the rest of society, but often enough even those with IQs three standard deviations above the mean. The smartest do not reproduce, Langan neither. You aren’t that intelligent, certainly not well-read at all, as you have aptly demonstrated with your repulsive comments and blogposts.
(Freud was not correct, your assertion does not make it so. As always, James A. Donald passed up reading him for copulating with ten-year old girls …)
He is historically-challenged and immensely deranged, which he proves with this comment:
Reality is that the only white people, as far as I know the only people, who have succeeded in controlling female sexual behavior are people who set the age of consent to around ten. (Or nonwhites who employ female genital mutilation.)
And from my experience, that is what you are going to need. Not for all females, but for enough of them to be a substantial problem that simply has to be dealt with firmly.
Maybe we could block andrenarche till menarche with drugs, and block menarche to whatever age we decide to be the age of consent, but with human biology as it is, and unmutilated genitals, there is always going to be a significant number of very young girls f*****g, a large enough number of very young girls f*****g to substantially undermine family, society, and the sexual social order, and the only solution is to marry them off.
If you want female sexuality under control, and you are not going to change female nature with drugs or surgery, then you are going to have to do what past societies that successfully brought female sexuality under control did.
If you look back in time to times when female sexuality was under control, the age of consent was ten or so, or else they did not give a tinker’s dam about consent.
Maybe we should block andrenarche and menarche using drugs and hormones till sixteen. Or eighteen.
Most who are active sexually at an early age are of lower IQ, have been abused as a child or both. For example, blacks are able to raise their heads as infants (!) already, unlike whites or East Asians. Daniel G. Freedman has shown this – ironically, this link goes to Cochran’s and Harpending’s blog, where pervert jim used to comment, too (as jamesd127.)
It makes sense, given that they also have lower mean IQs. Developing faster usually means being neurologically less complex/developed. This then goes for the girls jim has sex with, too; maybe they are mentally retarded even? Reminds me of what happened in Rotherham. They were underage girls—not for James A. Donald, of course! Way too old! They hit the wall already!—from the British lower classes.
Reality is that the only white people, as far as I know the only: you don’t know anything, you don’t read anything, you hardly understand anything. Your “experience” is worthless; we are talking about history here, do you even know Latin? Imbecile?
He tops it off, though, by writing that ten year old girls want to copulate with men aged thirty to forty. From http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/7929-jims-blog/ (archive.is):
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.
First off, I don’t believe this at all, as I already wrote; secondly, they would only copulate with them if the men acted on it, which no one has to do.
His obsessiveness in this regard makes him look really bad, really creepy. Why be such a nerd about this topic? Why force us to want ten-year old girls in bed? In a civilised society, you would have been shot. Problem solved.
Enough of this, this is disgusting, I’ll throw up if I continue wading through his perverse writings. He also mentions Jeremy Meeks an awful lot in his comments.
(I got most of them from here, archived version of a blog post titled Jim’s Blog: Bastion of Pedophilia Normalization).
It becomes quite laughable, though, to read boomer Jim’s debased blogposts and comments while knowing that he is—or at least, was—fat. Which he wrote under his nickname Jamesd127 on fellow pervert Heartiste’s blog. While his blog is gone for good, the wayback machine has a copy (this was linked to in another article on renegadetribune.com.)
(I don’t endorse their views, certainly I reject their anti-Christian stance; I link to renegadetribune as source for the comments I quoted here. They may all be feds. If it’s true, though, that jim even approves of Israel nuking Germany, then that’s not just plain evil but also sure sign of him being the stereotypical boomer no one should listen to at all.)
In the article I linked to above, Jim’s Blog: Bastion of Pedophilia Normalization, jim even claims forty year old overweight ice dealers are thrillingly attractive …:
If we ban forty year old men having sex with ten year old girls, ten year old girls will find the kind of man untroubled by such a ban, for example the overweight forty year old ice dealer and motorcycle gang leader, thrillingly attractive. What we need to do instead is ban ten year old girls from having sex with forty year old men.
Is this part of the prole drift, as Paul Fussell called it? One certainly needs nerves of steel to endure existence in this vulgar and decadent age.
So women “preselect” him, the overweight boomer, because of his … charisma? Such women, at best, seem like what they use to call “gold diggers”. Some idiot even put this guy into that laughable chart about the Dark Enlightenment, which some rightly call Dork Enlightenment. Where is this guy a political philosopher anyway? He is sex-obsessed, it’s lewd content mostly. His mind is in the gutter.
You’ve got to be kidding me if you want me to believe that he is comparable to a de Tocqueville, let alone de Maistre or Donoso Cortés! Wake up, idiots! Your obsession with women, reading vulgar crooks like Roissy and the like, is part of the downfall.
I did not even need to search for more than a minute to know that one of the first Pick Up Artists was Albert Ellis, a self-described “picker-upper of women”, who wrote The Art of Erotic Seduction in 1967. His paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from the Russian empire. No comment. It would not surprise me if Eric Weber, who published How to Pick Up Girls! in 1968, is of the same stock.
Can’t they all just learn Latin and Greek? Or a classical instrument? Or what good breeding means?
We got it, boomer. You are into sex. A lot. All the time. There is not much more going on upstairs, a pea-brained nutter who most likely hits—courting would be the wrong word—on women still, despite being in his eighties.
As I already wrote, Christopher Langan was single most of his life, married when he was almost fifty years old. Despite his IQ of 195-210, he does not appear nerdy at all. You are not wanted or even lusted after by women, you are just a pervert forcing yourself on almost every women—ten year old girls even, yuck—who moves. Not much different from the Epsteins or Russell Brands.
Most women are annoyed at the sex-crazed attitude of certain men, so they just give in, as Josef Pieper was told. According to the female students he spoke with, it simply was too much trouble to say no.
That’s it. Not charisma, this is you having watched too many James Bond movies. Such men hardly exist, and you may or may not be one of them. It does not matter: you are a nerd who wrote CryptoKong, a Windows program … no one even uses.
You sound like a prole. You most likely are prole and live like one. Which means you surround yourself with them. This is the reason you experience what you experience. I doubt he plays a classical instrument or knows Latin and Greek. Does he know Latin and Greek? Yet, he always goes on about “saving” civilisation, which for him means copulating with ten year old girls. No wonder our boomer child molester commented on the blog of fellow prole Eric S. Raymond.
Not only does the New Testament recommend celibacy, marriage is seen for those too weak to abstain, those who are burning with lust. This is what it teaches, you morons. No wonder koanic was drawn to this dungeon of sex-crazed perverts.
I mentioned Fichte above, who wrote that primitive men boast about their sexual life; however, I remember reading something similar way back in 2007 or 2008 (before my botched hanging attempt.) (I am not going to link to it, given how awful the site is.) Quote:
Nord wrote: We don’t even have to de-code it, really; reason suffices: what’s more likely…that a straight man would be concerned with his dick length in the context of other men or in the context of women? From whom would he need “approval” anyway? How many men do you know that regularly compare penis size with other men to see who the ’winner’ is? How many men do you know that talk about dicks or even care about the subject in any way?
Where did you grow up? Maybe you had a fairly rational group to hang out with growing up. In my case, alot of my friends were hockey players, drinkers, who liked to party hard, smoke weed, etc.
But then I was also close with a few cousins of mine who were well educated, liked dungeons and dragons, monty python, talking scientifically, etc.
The former, the jocks, seemed very preoccupied with their penises. The later, my nerdy cousins, had no interest in talking about their penises, or even girls for that matter.
My jock friends growing up, usually the ones who were well endowed, liked to bring up the topic of penis size, at least indirectly, sometimes whipping it out when they were drunk, doing the helicopter, showing off. One time at a party where there was no girls around, there was a sort of western face off, where two guys stared each other down with each having his hand down his pants, threatening to bring out the gun. Neither man actually brough it out, and they settled it at that.
[…]
(It would not surprise me if those who are active sexually at a rather young age, and who are pre-occupied with sex, like jim, also have a lower IQ on average.)
Jim, no two doubts about it, is prole. No wonder he’s heavily into getting drunk as well. He also supports Jordan Peterson, this boomer just cannot be taken seriously.
One almost feels sorry for this guy. Last quote:
I was watching the anime cartoon, Strike Witches, which is the Battle of Britain fought by cute witches on broomsticks […]
Got it.
Insane?
A wicked pervert? Both?
His egomaniacal rants are just projection. He has proven with his blogposts and comments that he is a nerd writing Windows software, watches anime and otherwise only talks about money and sex … with ten-year old girls …
If this is some kind of reaction against the awful globohomo pest – then God help us!
Case closed.
One last remark regarding this awful pervert. I don’t care at all about you calling me not charming enough to get ten-year old girls. Not only is this disgusting in itself, history does not remember the lewd and lecherous psychopaths. This label he even rejects, not surprising given what kind of views he defends; I guess Ted Bundy was perfectly sane and not a psychopath at all.
Schopenhauer was not charming or wanted by women, yet he got fame for his brilliant works. Hardly anyone, not even his critics, would use a juvenile slur towards him like “he couldn’t get any”. As if that means someting.
From a Christian perspective, this is irrelevant anyway, as for God, the losers of society are good enough. God sees and will judge our hearts, as the Bible teaches, not how much success we had with the other sex, how “charming” we were – which is certainly partly genetic anyway.
Jim then wrote that instead of reading Vox Day, one ought to read Roissy (“Chateau Heartiste”) or Rollo Tomassi. Two crooks, maybe even feds, who knows. Interestingly enough, neither teach that you can be overweight and have success with women.
I personally don’t care about this stuff, though I remember tuning into the interview Molyneux did with Tomassi, where Stefan Molyneux would go on about how status is or was important to women, to which Tomassi slightly shook his head, saying its abs, looks basically. I don’t remember if he meant that times have changed or this having always been the case.
I have never read this Rollo imbecile, being too boring, writing blogposts that are way too long – of which he is even proud, as I remember how he pointed out every now and then that he “just wrote a post about this”: of course! What else does he have to do? He apparently lives off of his book Rational Male, which, judging by his blogposts, must be torture to read.
Though I guess even Rollo Tomassi does not write much about wanting to get ten year old girls into bed. Yet it is quite laughable for him to claim that we—i.e. us guys who are alpha—will only stay with one woman if marriage is enforced and one can be sure that the childre are one’s own.
This is like saying I will only stop murdering if such behaviour is met with penalties, otherwise I’ll keep doing it. Which shows that Vox Day is right and noble pagans hardly exist; Seneca being an exception.
You need a state to pay for this anyway, otherwise fathers or whoever would end up caring for other men’s children would take justice into their own hands. Without modern contraceptive technology, this kind of decadent lifestyle would hardly be possible.
Both Tomassi and Roissy are prole anyway, which may be said about most people nowadays, myself included, given the reality of prole drift. Still, the way one ought to act according to them is rather vulgar and has to be rejected.
It certainly shows that all of this game degeneracy is subjective mush, not worth paying any attention to.
In another post about losing weight, he claimed that real men eat meat and salt the hell out of it. It’s just your opinion. The Monks on Holy Mount Athos do not, they mostly eat vegetables and fruit, yet many up there are realer men than you’ll ever be. What does this even mean? I am a man because I eat meat? No idea why I would want to read such a guy. I’d rather open a page of Montaigne or Pascal instead.
Why would accomplished men waste so much time on the net? Did Jim even write a book of note? He has nothing to show for.
As EsotericTrad wrote above, his claim about the age of girls and their first intimate encounter is ahistorical.
During the reign of the Anabaptists led by John von Leiden (also called Bockelson) in Münster, Hermann von Kerssenbrock shockingly wrote about the immorality taking place, namely that men even forced themselves on tender girls hardly aged eleven, twelve or thirteen in their (lustful) fury. Resulting in the untreatable illness or sudden death of many of those girls. Showing that such behaviour repulsed him.
The James A. Donalds have always existed, have always been with us – being nothing more than men acting on their evil desires and lusts.
Disgusted by so much vulgarity, I cite Nicolás Gómez Dávila, disgusted by the modern world just as well:
The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.
Men can be divided into those who make their life complicated to gain their soul and those who waste their soul to make their life easier.
Love may have its erotic spring, but its autumn must remain chaste.
– Few notions are more embarrassing than a fifty-year old man copulating with a forty-year old woman.Posterity is not the whole of future generations.
It is a small group of men with taste, a proper upbringing, and erudition, in each generation.Nothing is more irritating than the certainty with which a man who has had success in one thing gives his opinion on everything.
The American is not intolerable because he believes he is important individually, but because he possesses, insofar as he is an American, the solution to every problem.
The growing difficulty of recruiting priests should embarrass humanity, not disquiet the Church.
A high “intelligence quotient” is indication of distinguished mediocrity.
Nobody, nothing, in the end forgives.
Except Christ.The tolling of a monastery bell penetrates into areas of the soul not reached by a sonorous voice.
The true religion is monastic, ascetic, authoritarian, hierarchical.
Sex does not solve even sexual problems.
In the end, there is no area of the soul sex would not succeed in corrupting.
Sins that appear “splendid” from afar are from close up nothing more than small sordid episodes.
It is not worth talking about even one erotic topic with someone who does not feel the unalterable baseness of erotism.
It is above all against what the crowd proclaims to be “natural” that the noble soul rebels.
What we discover as we age is not the vanity of everything, but of almost everything.
Despite what is taught today, easy sex does not solve every problem.
By merely looking at the face of the modern man one infers the mistake in attributing ethical importance to his sexual behavior.
Modern man’s life oscillates between two poles: business and sex.
Modern society is abolishing prostitution through promiscuity.
Sensuality is a cultural legacy of the ancient world.
Societies where the Greco-Roman legacy is being wiped out, or where it does not exist, only know sentimentalism and sexuality.Immodesty is the solvent of sensuality.
To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.
This century has succeeded in turning sex into a trivial activity and an odious topic.
When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.
Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.
Let the priest leave stupid occupations to the stupid, for he is not responsible for doubtful progress, but for inexorable agony.
