Notes on a Frosty Monday with the Baying Igbo Dogs at the Door

It’s only the end of August, but a chill has crossed into Nigeria – a cold front down from the south where the Igbo dogs lay in wait, in their rabbinical robes, plotting against the people.

In the whispers of the wind, I can hear their howls, as the fiends cry out for the blood of the noble Hausa.

Fall is coming.

All it will take is one small misstep.

I believe I must have blown a fuse in my brain yesterday, and all you will get from me on this day is filler. I wrote two pieces that totaled more than six thousand words on Sunday. I’m proud of these works, and I encourage anyone who missed them to check it.

American Endgame is one article I split into two parts, regarding the current status of “America” as an entity, and what the future appears to hold for us.

The other one perhaps should have had a title that popped out a bit more, as it includes content that is certified fresh – an analysis I’d never written before on midwit psychology and the way the system targets midwits while largely ignoring uniquely dumb or uniquely intelligent people. It also includes some standard analysis of the media’s attack on Joe Biden.

I hadn’t seen it when I wrote it, but this morning I found a clip from Friday’s Tucker Carlson Show, wherein he came to similar conclusions.

He doesn’t actually say the conclusion. He just points out the vicious absurdity of the claim that Joe Biden is personally responsible for the Kabul debacle, and states that “something else is going on here.”

Clearly, the only thing that could be going on is that the media is ready for Joe to step down, and for Her to step up.

An Apology

Some readers noted that I used the f-word in a piece about Tom, 24, who is struggling with his Tinder profile.

The readers were correct that I’ve made a solid effort to exclude profanity from the site several years now, and I should keep up with that.

However, I do think the context is relevant (originally appeared without “**”):

What Tom should do is this: he should find a woman he likes, study her daily routine, and wait until she is alone, preferably in a dark place. Then he should come up behind her, grab her by the throat with enough force to prevent her from screaming, and wrap duct tape around her mouth. Then he should pull her arms behind her back, duct tape her wrists together, and throw her in his trunk. Then he should drive her to the woods, pull her out of the truck, f**k her, and then slit her throat with a box-cutter.

We have here some very edgy imagery, intended to point out the disgusting and absurd nature of the modern “dating scene.” I don’t know what other word I could have used there.

The concept of forcing men to perform for women, while using the entire apparatus of culture to lie to them about the nature of female sexuality, and their role in a system that operates exclusively for the purpose of creating a sexual utopia for women, is so offensive and obscene that it is natural to understand it in offensive, obscene terms.

No one is ever going to love Tom, 24. No one is going to suck his dick, unless he turns gay.

But poor Tom, 24, has submitted his profile, sacrificing all of his dignity, in a completely impossible quest to be loved and have his dick sucked.

A literal female Jew expert then came in and told Tom, 24, that if he just works harder to fix his profile, love is just around the corner. Heck, if he gets his puns right and showcases his unique personality and interest in adventure, he could end up in a threesome with two college girls later this evening.

This is a coronavirus-tier Jew hoax. The Pussy Palace is not around the corner. If Tom works hard, and stores up 5-7 million dollars by the time he’s 35, he might be able to marry a 32-year-old single mother who has been dicked up and down by literally hundreds of men. That is truly the best thing that Tom, 24, can hope for.

The sexual revolution was a Ponzi scheme. The boomers who got in early went to big orgies in California and France in the 1960s. However, each successive generation who buys into the hoax gets less of a return. As women closed in on peak liberation, they realized that they could all have sex with the same very desirable men, while isolating and crushing the souls of men like Tom, 24.

What we have seen is a regression to primitivism.

In barbarian times, the most alpha men had first dibs on all of the women. We can see this now amongst gorillas, where all of the females of the pack only have sex with the silverback. The only time a non-silverback gets a chance to get his dick wet is if the female is using him as a tool to provoke jealousy in the silverback.

Genetic tests show that 85% of gorilla pregnancies are from the dominant silverback leader. This is about the same as what we’re told about prehistoric human mating patterns. Women’s sexual drive is to get pregnant by the best male possible. This is because a woman has to carry the child to term, and then care for it for several years before it is capable of giving her a return on her investment. So she wants to get the biggest possible return by producing children of the highest quality.

Someone sent me a black pill documentary about this.

Although I agree with the basics of this black pill documentary, it focuses a bit too much on looks, probably. The implication is that women are capable of objectively evaluating the quality of a man. And yet, as we know, hundreds of what we consider to be the most attractive women in the world had sex with Harvey Weinstein, who is considered to be the ugliest person who has ever existed.

Perhaps, some of Harvey’s affairs were basic prostitution. But the line for a woman between prostitution and love is often nonexistent. In court, we saw the text messages from Jessica Mann, where she told Harvey how much she loved him, and how she couldn’t stop thinking about him.

Furthermore, many women have sex with blacks. Part of that might be due to their high testosterone, or their aggressive and violent nature, which a woman’s primitive, ape-like mind views as evolutionarily beneficial. But they also may simply find them physically attractive.

Regardless, it should be made clear:

  • The dominant silverback really does have the best genes. He is the biggest and strongest, and also intelligent enough to manage politics and fight off challenges.
  • In theory, primitive free sex among humans (sans birth control) would lead to a super-attractive and intelligent race, as women consistently chose the best men to get pregnant by.
  • In reality, women are nigh totally incapable of objectively evaluating a man’s reproductive value.
  • Therefore, marriage as an institution was pro-eugenic, given that the sexual freedom of women leads to dysgenic sexual practices.

Exhibit A:

Frankly, scientific racism and eugenics are not really at the top of my list in terms of concerns. People on the internet who get big into that tend to almost treat it like a religion, and I don’t really see what the payoff is.

But we have to absolutely note that allowing women sexual choice would not lead to a super-race.

It’s possible that the reason that wouldn’t work is because the current social order distorts a man’s natural status. Certainly, in a traditional society, Harvey Weinstein would not have high social status.

The way social status is organized in this society is busted, in total. As I have been working through in various different articles, even basic physical attractiveness now de-ranks a woman’s status.

Related: Victoria’s Secret Embraces Ugliness, Signaling That the Porno Age is Already Totally Over

I do not think this is true of men, so it’s not directly relevant to the topic, but it is relevant to the way people are ranked.

I still see morons on the internet who claim to be right-wing attacking “capitalism.” In some cases, this is a semantic argument, where low IQ people accept the leftist definition of “capitalism,” which is “what we currently have now.”

After I commented on capitalism in an article about OnlyFans, a French “right-wing anti-capitalist” from the Gamer Uprising forum began spewing ideology gibberish at me.

I am not interested in semantics, and I have found that the only people who have a special interest in semantics are weasels, who seek to purposefully confuse discussion. But the fact is: capitalism is not the same thing as libertarianism and what we have right now is neither of those things.

“What we have now is actually somehow capitalism because we had capitalism before and it was turned into this, and therefore capitalism caused this, so it really is capitalism because it was caused by capitalism,” is not an intelligent argument, it is simply nihilism.

The point is: capitalism was defined by Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776. All he really did was codify the system of free exchange that had existed since the advent of currency – while also putting barriers on it, and defining the interaction between the economy and state. He said that it was of key importance that the government prevent monopolies, or capitalism could not function. He said the biggest threat was the government colluding with industry leaders to create monopolies that function in concert with the government.

Libertarianism, as defined by Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, et al., is a system of total deregulation, which removes the obligation of the government to prevent monopolies – while also outlawing the government from regulating the market in any other way. Ultimately, libertarians end up saying that the state shouldn’t even exist at all. It is a utopian ideology, like Marxism.

What we have now is neither of these things: we have a fully, massively regulated economy, where the government endorses and props up monopolies, and the industry leaders move in and out of government. The regulatory system of the government exists purely to prop up massive corporations, which operate multinationally. It does this because individual politicians are directly bribed by the corporations. Meanwhile, the government forces Christian bakers to make anal cakes.

The left has defined “capitalism” as an ideology, which it never actually was. That gets back into semantics. Usually, when they define capitalism as an ideology, they say that it is what we have now. But there is no ideology driving society, and in fact, no society has ever been driven by an ideology. Ideologies are simply a goofy stand-in for philosophy and ethics.

Therefore, there is no “ism” to define the system we have now. It is just absurd corruption and robbery, where the state collaborates with a financial elite to dominate the population.

Belief in an ideology is a midwit practice (see the above-mentioned midwit article), which assumes that everything in the universe is a complex mystery. In reality, any economic order is going to have a mix of a free market and government regulation. Anyone talking about how they want “socialism” or “libertarianism,” or is claiming that “capitalism” is an ideology, is either a teenager or a midwit who believes that reality is an unknowable mystery.

Bringing this back to sex and marriage: in a developed society, a free market controls for male social status, and therefore serves as a basis of the organization of marriage. “If I work hard, start a business, and produce a good income, I will be able to marry a reasonably attractive young woman” is a good order for a society. I cannot think of a more reasonable way to organize society.

Obviously, the current order prevents many people from being able to work hard and build a business (even before the virus hoax). And even if it was structured that way, the divorce courts, welfare programs and affirmative action for women (also a welfare program) would prevent it from working correctly.

If you want to claim that “capitalism” is a system of government-backed monopolies that prevent the establishment of independent family-owned businesses, wherein the government also has massive welfare programs and affirmative action hiring schemes to ensure women are able to feed off of men’s wealth without marrying them, then okay – by that definition, “capitalism” is definitely bad. But unless you’re a moron, I have no idea why you would refer to this system as “capitalism” unless you were purposefully playing into leftist tropes with the intention of promoting some or other ideology.

If you want to be a right-winger, but say you also support “socialism” because you have really unique and interesting views: I want to tell you, you don’t really look like a super-complex individual, but just a pathetic person who has to take purposefully contradictory positions in order to give the illusion of being interesting. I’ve seen this a lot with the old Alt-Right. Sure, you’re going to be able to dazzle morons with gibberish that seems rebellious and unique, but if your identity is defined by your ability to dazzle morons with the complex and contradictory nature of your unique personal ideology, then maybe you should get into kayaking or rock-climbing or something.

You don’t look cool when you promote socialism. You just look like you’re overcompensating for the fact that you’re fat.

The problem with the economy is not ideological, it is Jewish. Every single ideology was invented by the Jew Karl Marx, and its primary use has been in distracting people from Jews.

Saying you can fix the economy by bringing down capitalism is a bit like saying Tom, 24, can get laid with a hot bitch if he just gets his puns right. Female sexuality and economies are not unsolvable mysteries, and are actually basically very straightforward. If you’re overcomplicating them, no one is benefiting from that.

Nothing is really a big mystery. We don’t have to work to solve mysteries. Pretty much, the facts are in, we understand the way the current system works, and we understand what it would take to fix it.