Animal Control in Augsburg

An African invader in Augsburg, Germany harasses local women at a cafe and is dealt with by local men. The short video is embedded in the linked article. Augsburg is a city in Bavaria, one of Germany’s oldest cities and one with gorgeous traditional architecture.

Rule of law throughout the modern West tends to discourage the use of fists in solving problems. In the schoolyard, there is some leeway as far as legal consequences go. Among adults, not so much. We hesitate and pull our punches as long as it’s possible.

With the use of physical violence, there are honor codes instinctive in European men. The big one being the use of proportional force. Ordinarily, you don’t have many men beating up a few; if it’s a fight to settle a score, we do it one-on-one. Multiple-on-one is done to subdue a troublemaker, not to hurt him. One also would deal with a fully developed young male aggressor differently than with, say, a handicapped, a very young or old, or a drunken one.

As adults, we’ve learned to be careful even in these “fair fight” scenarios. If you’ve ever been in a serious confrontation, you probably know that it’s prudent to let the other guy make a move or touch you first. Not the ideal arrangement, as it leaves the offender a lot of room to be a pest short of assaulting you first. In fact, it encourages effeminacy because you often end up with two men trash-talking to provoke the other to swing first. But as long as there is perceived fairness in the letter and enforcement of the law, along with the feeling that the justice system works for its rightful beneficiaries (ie the legitimate citizens of a given country, das Volk inside German borders), then you are satisfied that your government provides for public order and is therefore legitimate.

That’s not the case in many parts of the West, including Germany, where their people live under anarcho-tyranny. As such, those governments are illegitimate and people know it. We know the deal: afroasian migrants are pumped in to biologically replace the European nations and so there will be war. In the meantime, it’s salutary to see masculine behavior in Europe; there is a point past which the splashing-up of those cherry-picked images of eurocuck behavior becomes harmful.

See the video. Fundamental rules of proper conduct were violated by the alien, who is shown dragging a nicely dressed, attractive woman from the cafe so by natural law he has forfeit any claim on the protection of civilized restraint and hospitality toward guests (had he in fact been a guest such as a tourist and not an invader). A White man, unclear if he’s her companion, stands up and takes it outside with the African. Three other White men follow them outside, and then more. To the extent that you can see that fight, you can see that the migrant is in the so-called “chimpout mode.” Deescalation is ineffective against him at that point, only decisive force.

People whose governments grant them absolute dominion over their public space (otherwise known as liberty) are free to enforce rules of acceptable behavior in that space. A government that would in any manner and to any degree side with the dark-bodied foreigner in the above case is a government that’s ripe for overthrowing.

128 thoughts on “Animal Control in Augsburg

  1. Good. Very good indeed!
    More and more of my kinsmen are fed up and can’t take it anymore.
    What’s even better is the fact that this happens in Augsburg, a West German city. One would think this much more likely to happen in the former East German part of the country but to see it happen in the brainwashed West is awesome!

  2. Anglosphere whites are very carefully conditioned to fear blacks as some kind of superhuman fighting machine, so whites must submit or be beaten. Blacks arent. They are just more impulsive.

  3. Arabs have all the mendacity, impulsivity, and arrogance of the low-IQ races, but are smart enough to know better. Thus, they must actually choose to be a-holes.

    Few images make my blood boil like this example:

  4. Actually, I should have qualified , as did Chatrates, that it is Arab Muslims, not the Arab Christians, who are the problem. There’s a world of difference in thinking people not like you are “infidels” rather than “unsaved.”

  5. — Anglosphere whites are very carefully conditioned to fear blacks as some kind of superhuman fighting machine

    Same reason why anglosphere Whites steer away from basketball. Going to school together, these Whites are imprinted with memory of seeing black boys hit puberty a year or two earlier.

    — that it is Arab Muslims, not the Arab Christians, who are the problem

    Christian Arabs are a world of difference in some respect, but they still have those semitic qualities that make one not trust them.

    That said… Arabic Islam is a civilization in its own right. Not our kind of civilization but be that as it may. I’ve spent time in a muslim Arab country and was invited to dinner at an upper class Muslim family’s home. We were hosted like royalty. Admirable hospitality and graciousness.

    That civilization has relied on keeping a heavy boot on its own low iq underclass. The Arab Spring events fomented by The Swamp a decade ago were basically a liberation of low class low IQ Arabs from under their ruling class’s harsh law and order. President Mubarak in that courtroom cage was the defining image of that revolution. That same borderline-subhuman class of Arabs is now in Europe as “migrants.”

    Being low IQ, brown and impulsive; being invited to a rich country; being given welfare and legal protections; and being set free to act as you will: the result is what you see in the Jaded Jurist photo above. The borderline-subhuman is attuned to the slightest letting-of-ones-guard or mere kindness on the human’s part. Then instead of acting with reciprocal good will, he exploits the moment for all he can get out of it.

    Shakespeare nailed that very instinct in the character of Caliban.

    Africans such as the one in the Augsburg video are simply even more-Caliban than Arabs because they might possibly not even have sufficient intelligence to tell right from wrong, thus no moral agency of that, which we consider human.

    In all of this, I’m drawing a map to peace: separation and sovereignty. But there is a chance that we won’t get there except through war.

  6. Pingback: Animal Control in Augsburg | Reaction Times

  7. RE: Bavaria. I was saddened to read a couple of years ago, when the afromigrant invasion was in full force that Bavaria was getting affected. I had once worked with a beautifully petite blonde-haired blue-eyed Bavarian Christian woman who was I’d say the very essence of Christianity. She was also German, and I say this because in my attempts to bring some casualness to a conversation, she’d be stern; relative to me that is. If she hadn’t been married, she was seriously ideal wife-up-&-bun-in-oven-with-the-quickness-material.

    She invited me to her church one time (which I enjoyed and wound up going to; always a task to find a solid church that teaches from the Bible) and her family had visited at the time. They good looking folk; the men with strong jaw lines and the women were just lovely. It was my first exposure to actual Germans. It was either her brother or brother in law that reminded me of Til Schweiger. So reading about what was happening to Bavaria affected me because I knew who was being replaced. While it was a mere greeting and handshake, I felt a kinship in some ways with them, no doubt united by our faith.

    Glad these men stepped in. Not just for stepping in, but in the hope that their actions served as a reminder and wake up call to the fence sitters that at times just need the proper introduction on how to act accordingly.

  8. White woman with glasses sitting at table, cigarette poised between curved fingers, limp-wristed, glancing back at tablemate (not shown), smiling, laughing, calmly self-assured, detached, midly amused, no apparent concern for the men, no appreciation for the significance or seriousness of what the men were doing. Maybe I mis-read her.

    And why does the harassed lady, once free, continue to follow the men into the plaza, attempting, it seems, to intervene in the fracas. Again, maybe I’m misreading the situation.

    That said, very gratifying to see White men instinctively and forcefully step up…no matter what the women’s attitudes were. The primitive negro trespassed into White space and was violating White property.

  9. While I’m glad these guys stepped in and did their duty, her behavior raises the possibility that she was entertaining/indulging the “migrant” in some way.

    That’s doesn’t mean she deserved to have his hands on her or that she intended to screw him, she was maybe just being a naive Euro not familiar with how blacks act in public or maybe she was even afraid of not being nice to him for fear of coming off as racist.

  10. It is clear, all throughout the West, that if a critical mass of white men do not severely restrict the autonomy of a “reign-bow” coalition of radicals with their pens then this restricting will be done by their swords. Or, it is racial annihilation.

  11. Well, she obviously wasn’t a White woman randomly grabbed by a strange dindu, otherwise, once free of him, she wouldn’t have kept following, she would have stayed in the cafe or run the other way.

    Looks like she and he were in some kind of argument, which she tried to continue as the one White guy intervened… I can’t tell what the other White guys are doing except rubber-necking, and it looks like the n1gger just kept swinging, once outside, rather than being set upon by multiple White men and (ahem) properly corrected.

    Not exactly animal control… but better than nuthin’, I suppose.

  12. White woman with glasses sitting at table, cigarette poised between curved fingers, limp-wristed, glancing back at tablemate (not shown), smiling, laughing, calmly self-assured, detached, midly amused, no apparent concern for the men, no appreciation for the significance or seriousness of what the men were doing. Maybe I mis-read her.

    A lot of people these days, might as well be at the amusement park, as far as their attitude and participation in what’s going on around them.

    In their defense though, it’s one of the “catches” of our situation, that a body can’t go through life all amped up and ready for action, all the time; advice from internet tough guys notwithstanding. Some people can and do: and they’re called Fighters, and they have special 3d6 attributes, generally in the realm of strength constitution and dexterity.

    There’s a delay that a normal person will have, when a situation breaks violent. And most people will not even be able to enter into action mode.

    Enter the Dragon!

    There’s a good blogger at Unz, well known and been at it for awhile, Paul Kersey. He writes about White victims of black crime, generally American. A lot of the regulars have a schtick, if you will forgive the word, about always being ready for action, and be packing whether or not you have a permit. I agree w/ the latter, but the former about always being ready to rock-n-roll, is just not practical advice. Unless you are, in fact, Johnny Action Soldier.

    One of Paul’s recent stories was about a White motorcycle rider in the Deep South who got pulled up on from behind and gunned down, maybe with a shotgun, by teenage blacks. No situational awareness for that. Which is of course the reason that so many older people retreat from the scene. America, where you have to —

    A. Be combat ready and on the lookout for hostiles, at all times; or
    B. Be blissfully unaware
    C. Retreat, retreat, retreat

    Those who choose the latter can have recourse to the odds, I guess. The old low or mid level criminal who used to comment here and got banned, reassured us once, that one day we would ride through the streets and take them back, and specifically doing so to a Beegees soundtrack. Staying Alive, as it happened.

  13. I’m familiar with Paul Kersey, some of his books I’ve got in my queue, one of them about how our quest of space exploration got hijacked with the civil rights mumbo jumbo. I think I followed him when he was on Twitter but he was probably shadowbanned so I rarely got to see his tweets.

    What struck me about his twitter was that his avatar was Patrick Swayze from Road House and it made me wonder if his real name is Paul Kersey, as that’s the name of Charles Bronson’s character from Death Wish. Which in that film, he went from B to A with the quickness, such that at the end, the NYPD wanted him to C.

  14. Option D in the list above might could be left off the menu; or maybe not —

    D. Join with them

  15. “Paul Kersey” is/was a most underappreciated catalyst for a white awakening subsequently silenced by the Trump Train. When one thinks of the jew-nigger nexus in cultivating and then suppressing knowledge of nigger-on-white crime which is actually jew-nigger-on-white crime then knowledge of one leads to the other so that both Jews and niggers lump together and fail to distinguish in mutually advantageous ways. So for instance, even though niggers know the jew, niggers don’t differentiate between whites and jews. Likewise, jews enforce the prohibition on “nigger,” effectively limiting white man’s attempt at “divide and conquer” by way of differentiating nigger from “black.”

    Paul Kersey needs to make his comeback now that the Trump Train is far less noisy.

  16. “we got into this mess by giving broads a political voice and actually listening to that tripe.”

    I’ve always been amazed at how efficiently women won that war. storming the capitol with their rifles and tanks and superior military tactics. seizing the right to vote from some of the toughest men ever to be engaged on the battlefield. amazing.

    oh wait… that’s not how it went… guys gave it to them, in exchange for all that pussy.

    oh wait… they didn’t actually get the pussy. the ladies gave their pussies to the guys who never would have given them the right to vote in the first place. bummer.

    but yes, absolutely let’s do away with merit and just deport every person who’s not pure white, even the ones with families and jobs and who follow all the rules and who’s ancestors have been here for generations. get em out..that will be a very popular campaign. all the best most intelligent whites will be out in the streets rallying for more. and white guys can then run game on aging fake titty cat ladies without interference and competition from swarthies.

    that will be such a pleasant, stable, sane place to live. a society based entirely on white skin. what a fabulous, well-thought-out idea.

  17. Via CH:
    @Heartiste Pelosi can’t publicly disagree with them, lest she be branded with the scarlet R. The Democratic party is now in the hands of those four obnoxious brown cunts, who are going to put the pedal to the metal on the anti-White animus and terrify the living shit out of White Americans.

    Simultaneously, telling shitskins to go back to their shitholes just got politically normalized.

    Whether this was cynical political manuevering or Trump just boomerposted his way into it, yes, this was a metapolitical masterstroke.

    x1000
    Shit is ramping up.
    On to victory!

    Glad you’re all my bros.
    FE

  18. @PJ
    “that will be such a pleasant, stable, sane place to live. a society based entirely on white skin. what a fabulous, well-thought-out idea.”

    Do you know what board you’re on?
    FE

  19. @PJ
    Also- reading comprehension. PA recently stated he is also in favor of separation and sovereignty. You may want to find a new spot to incel if you’re not on board.

  20. Do you know what board you’re on?
    FE

    the one where people can spout self-flagellating, oversimplified proclamations of purity that they have neither the intention nor the wherewithal to live up to themselves?

  21. So now you’re insulting your host’s position as well? Dude- you stated several times on CH you couldn’t get laid. Not my fault. Deal with it. Go get a prostitute or something. What you’re writing now is impossible to differentiate from the enemy.
    FE

  22. “PA recently stated he is also in favor of separation and sovereignty”

    “separation and sovereignty” is a long way from “deport them all”, tough guy. or have you already started your negro-deportation operation?

    “You may want to find a new spot to incel if you’re not on board.”

    you might want to find a new place to brag about picking up aging skanks. or is that the type of behavior you’re thinking will make up the moral fiber of your imminent ethnostate?

  23. “you stated several times on CH you couldn’t get laid.”

    really? that’s very interesting. please find my quotes where I said that.

    “What you’re writing now is impossible to differentiate from the enemy.”

    is that so? so you ARE already deporting all the blacks yourself, then? because you’re an ally… and that’s what allies do. launch campaigns that are guaranteed to receive widowed widespread public support, right?

    where does someone sign up for the negro deportation league, fast Eddie? people are dying to sign up for that, ally.

  24. “where does someone sign up for the negro deportation league, fast Eddie? people are dying to sign up for that, ally.”

    This stuff is taking on a life of its own, PJ. See my post above. Don’t know if you’re trolling, blue-balled, or what. Don’t care. In too good of a mood for it.

    And yes, I will settle for one nigger deportation at a time, starting with Omar.
    FE

  25. “that will be such a pleasant, stable, sane place to live. a society based entirely on white skin. what a fabulous, well-thought-out idea.”

    Because the ONLY difference between people is mere skin color, don’cha know?

    If tomorrow all Whites, Negros, and Asians turned grey, you couldn’t tell the difference between ’em, amirite? :duckface

    Way to bolster The Narrative, red-pilled stalwart. Carry MORE water for the Synathedral, why don’t you?

    (((shakin’ mah haid)))

  26. Yah I always wondered about eddie

    Whereas, with the likes of you, there’s never been any doubt.

    Eddie has been one of the few consistently salient and sane voices, both here and at the late, great chateau… so you’re either some snarky little sock pup trying to cover for pj’s butthurt…. or explain exactly why you “wondered” about Eddie?

    Let’s hear about these suspicions of yours, stalwart. P:mad:

  27. I doubt pj was dweebstreep, although suddenly you seem up on the Who’s Who of sock puppies. If pj was dweeby all along, he did a stellar pattern-recognition impression of a certain other halfwit whose lances were always straws.

    Instead of your Alinsky attempt to divert, read the exact quote I posted that merited my response to pj.

    Another alternative, of course, is to just keep your insipid yap shut.

  28. Separation is inevitable. What in my opinion is never gonna happen is fullblooded Whites, all but the posterity of 1776 founders, “having to go back.” I did think it likely and even a good thing a few years ago but I see it as a fantasy now.

    If you’re White, if you speak American English in either generic or regional accent, there is absolutely zero possibility of there being a groundswell to remove you and your family from this big continent. “Hey, Mike over there has Irish immigrant ancestors from 1870, he has to go back!” … shit no one’s gonna say. Even US-born children of recent Eastern European immigrants have absolutely zero foreignness about them and in many cases especially if one parent is American, zero connection to their ancestral country and language.

    Where there will be separation is regional. The South and not only. Also cultural, as with Mormons and many others.

    And finally race. When there comes a preference cascade (and a smart betting man would say that it will come), people will go with those they feel trust and kinship with, and this will be exponentially amplified by peer conformity. The backlash to cuckery and decades of forced tolerance will be big.

  29. “Eddie has been one of the few consistently salient and sane voices, both here and at the late, great chateau”

    Eddie my man, I’m glad you found this blog.

  30. Where there will be separation is regional. The South and not only. Also cultural, as with Mormons and many others.

    And finally race. When there comes a preference cascade (and a smart betting man would say that it will come), people will go with those they feel trust and kinship with, and this will be exponentially amplified by peer conformity. The backlash to cuckery and decades of forced tolerance will be big.

    This, this and THIS.

    The de facto Balkanization of the North American continent has been progressing apace since the end of WWII, and wise haids since the seventies (Wilmot Robertson, for one) have predicted a de iure break-up into Ethnostates as the only viable alternative to White survival on this side of the pond.

  31. Eddie has a good habit of writing cheerful stuff.

    I’ve got no personal use for stories about chasing hoes at the bar and hanging out on the tennis court. I’ve got even less use for pie in the sky notions about voting and deportations…

  32. I’ve got no personal use for stories about chasing hoes at the bar and hanging out on the tennis court. I’ve got even less use for pie in the sky notions about voting and deportations…

    That’s a fair point, but it’s totally off-base to then say you “wonder” about someone, as if his posts are cause for suspicion to doubt his intentions or motives.

    If you meant something less noxious than the usual connotation of untrustworthiness that “I wonder about” implies, I would suggest a less loaded and character-damaging phrase the next time.

  33. Separation is inevitable because white man’s desire for Supremacy is real. And because this desire is not contextually different than choosing hell, choosing Perfection is a singular motivation with a very isolating effect.

    If you are a white man who desires Supremacy, you are separating from all others as a matter of course.

    And as an affront to the ghastly scheme of totalitarian integration, even a SINGLE white man with desire for Supremacy falsifies the egalitarian fantasy.

    The real question is whether the single white man’s desire for an inevitable separation via his desire for Supremacy can reach a collective critical mass? Enough mass to create a fresh and regenerating state of affairs?

    “We” know what the parasight fears the most. He eyes a future of genuine separation and violently decries “white supremacy.” He wants “liberation without separation.” And in using “any means necessary” to maintain this decrepit environment becomes “terminable without consent.”

  34. As with a handful of commenters on here, I’d like to meet you IRL one these days thordaddy. It’d be a conversation that would last for hours and somehow seem like only a matter of minutes.

    Perhaps one of these days when the dust settles.

  35. Your race is your father(s)…

    So when a discussion of “purity” and “pure races” comes to the fore, it is for subversive purposes only. In decisively rejecting a “pure race,” it is “purity” in and of itself that is ultimately rejected using race as its memetic vessel.

    The reality is that there are no “pure races” (pure lines of father(s) save perhaps The Papal Bloodline), but there are certainly races that desire purity (The Papal Bloodline, for example). In rejecting the former with devilish zeal, one truly signals his unrelenting animus for the latter.

  36. “The real question is whether the single white man’s desire for an inevitable separation via his desire for Supremacy can reach a collective critical mass? Enough mass to create a fresh and regenerating state of affairs?”

    yes. and that is a matter of narrative.

    and if you have the right Narrative you don’t even need a big cumbersome country weighing you down. you will find a way to create your own, wherever you are. in fact, you would ALREADY be doing so, in whatever way you can.

    the problem I have with the simple minded “deport them all” narrative is that it does nothing to inspire white men to accountability and greatness. we done this mess to ourselves via immediate gratification. more immediate gratification doesn’t fix past immediate gratification, though it may be immediately gratifying in the moment.

    if our role is to lead via the high road then that’s what we need to do….LEAD. and we need to lead our OWN people to greatness first before we start talking about purification.

    there are lots of blurry lines out there. a lot of loser white folks. a lot of self-debasing white folks. a lot of weak weak weak people with no pride. they wouldn’t fight for something if their life depended on it. on the other hand, try rounding up a bunch of colored folks who aren’t ashamed of being colored the way some whites are ashamed of being white, who are proud of who they are, who would rather die fighting to stay in the the place they were born in and see how well that goes after a few months. just try it.

    a hunger games type of citizenship test where only the strongest survive would be required to create a strong bedrock for a new society. no more affirmative action rule-following, fratricidal betas.

  37. ot. we’re reaching levels of shitlib lunacy that weren’t thought possible just a short while ago: women complaining to men about trannies outperforming them in sports, aoc the brown goofy accusing pelosi of racism (even the msm failed to come up with a reason, not that one would have mattered), an african female james bond etc. someone has recently commented about actively working to speed up clown world at this point, which would bring about The Great Reset in the process. electing that somalian apparition would be a step in this direction. someone with an iq in the 60s or 70s (at best 75, and that would be stretching it) with a heavy islamic bent and antiwest mindset would be the perfect fit for presidency. someone with the power and impulse to implement sharia law, fgm and public execution of certain deviant types while the remaining shitlibs would be forced to pay lip service. chaos and entertainment before The Day of The Reckoning was finally upon us

  38. @GE
    I shoulda known the minute it became 2 on 1, I’d see GE with fists flying. Goddamn you are good bro. Appreciate it.

    @PA
    Really appreciate the kind words. Glad I found this place. Glad to be here.

    @PJ
    Try thinking more than one step ahead. You just wrote a semi-lucid post on controlling the narrative. Follow your own advice to its conclusion in this circumstance. Trump finally does something right. Now there’s a new narrative:

    Rational males: Sender back!
    Libtards: Deport yourself! You’re an immigrant too!
    Rational males: We’d consider that. Where do you want us?

    And boom. You have preliminary talks of a White Ethno-state.

    If you’d get your emotions in check you’d see that. Being so triggered by an internet poster that you’d shit on The Dream of a White Ethno-state just to oppose me is (hopefully) beneath you.

    Or, if I’m still too triggering, don’t read my posts. Go directly to the CH gab. Check it out and agree with him. That way you won’t be agreeing with me.
    FE

  39. “If you’d get your emotions in check you’d see that.”

    this IS me with my emotions “in check”. if you were more self-aware of your own over-emotionality you’d see that.

    what exactly do states DO, Fast Eddie?

    who exactly do states function on BEHALF OF?

    and, based on the approval-seeking, I’m-getting-action-from-washed-up-skanks-everywhere!, anti-white-family, borderline-sociopathic “field reports” you post here… why exactly do you think you’d be welcome in a 14 words white ethnostate, if one were to be created?

  40. SD, eh? I’m about 1.5 hours north of that. I’ll get in touch with PA via gab, if that’s okay with you, PA.

  41. Mendo, Thordaddy, let’s each of you post a comment which I’ll mod and then type the other person’s email into. Then just let me know that you got it and I’ll delete it.

  42. “and, based on the approval-seeking, I’m-getting-action-from-washed-up-skanks-everywhere!, anti-white-family, borderline-sociopathic “field reports” you post here… why exactly do you think you’d be welcome in a 14 words white ethnostate, if one were to be created?”

    Greg, that’s what I’m wondering about, right there. Because I’ve agreed with you when you said that the single most important thing we can do is raise our own kids in a stable house.

    Greg, get your head straight on the genital mutilation question before you offer yourself as the arbiter of sanity. Death, taxes, and scrolling past Eddie’s comments to find Eliot, Ball-gargler-in-chief.

  43. Indy- GE already slapped you. Name-calling makes you look even weaker. You’d do better to quit while you’re ahead and let it go. Better yet, you could actually find something to do with your life (that doesn’t include bar skanks or tennis since you disapprove.) Maybe you could join PJ’s hunger games/thunderdome since voting and deporting are unrealistic.
    FE

  44. Greg, get your head straight on the genital mutilation question before you offer yourself as the arbiter of sanity. Death, taxes, and scrolling past Eddie’s comments to find Eliot, Ball-gargler-in-chief.

    The homoerotic projection remains strong among (ahem) red-pill stalwarts, go figger.

    Are you a sock for Suburban Elk? Who else? I believe over at the chateau you finally admitted to sock-puppeting, which automatically puts you behind the 8 ball on ANY topic.

    As far as circumcision goes, digression though it be, anyone from the good ol’ days of the chateau already knows what I have to say about it… or they can just go to the AMA website.

    But I gotta say,given the lurid obsession some of youse yeggs seem to have with it, that you need bring it up in the oddest of places, with the even odder strained analogies which with you attempt to bolster your POV, well… I’ll let wiser haids than yours decide whose is on straight.

    Until then, keep your haid out of my drawers.

  45. Greg accuses Suburban_elk of having a sock puppet. That makes HIM the one leveling accusations.

    Making it personal, where it wasn’t. Not a class act, Greg. Your emotions run high. I am not one to say that’s the worst thing in the world, but GET A GRIP already.

    Your default accusation on your antagonists, of them pulling sock puppets, is off the mark. I don’t use them when arguing, and never have.

  46. As far as circumcision goes, digression though it be, anyone from the good ol’ days of the chateau already knows what I have to say about it… or they can just go to the AMA website.

    But I gotta say,given the lurid obsession some of youse yeggs seem to have with it, that you need bring it up in the oddest of places, with the even odder strained analogies which with you attempt to bolster your POV, well… I’ll let wiser haids than yours decide whose is on straight.

    Show us all the courtesy, and respect; and state your Position on the matter here, on the place that “circumcision” has in White societies; or are you unwilling to do so?

  47. Greg Eliot is here now set up, for an easy disavowal of “circumcision” which is in quotes because it’s a euphemism. And he owes Suburban_elk an apology for casting ugly and unwarranted suspicions on a regular commenter.

    Quite simply that is how it stands. Any one who does NOT disavow 100 per cent, the practice of non-consensual neonatal male genital reduction assignment, is NOT on the side of White children, specifically White boys.

    Matt King would not disavow. I asked him to disavow on at least three separate occasions on two or three threads at CH, one of which threads subsequently went missing from the blog, which missing thread contained in its title the word “bioshock”. Anyone not respecting the genitals of children, to be left whole, is no ally, and needs driven out of good company.

    In the manosphere, and to the extent that CH was part of that, the topic of reduced genitals is understandably extra sensitive, and for that reason, it’s possible, in theory, that taking the line that It’s no big deal could be excused, with the reasoning that those who were done need to cope post with the raw deal that they got, and make the best of it.

    But if and when, as now, we are considering the children: there is no room for negotiation. Disavow cutting out [ no sic on “out” — the intact glans penis is an internal organ ] their genitals, or forever be marked.

  48. I don’t even like talking about it, anymore. It’s a clear case of right and wrong.

    However, when it is discussed, the distinction has to be made, as I did above, of whether the topic is cutting new kids — introducing them “into the club” — or whether we are talking about our own situation. Two totally separate topics. Well not totally separate, but you see my point.

    If we are talking about our own situation, then it’s understandable that men will want to report on how they are a-ok and don’t mind being cut. The obvious fact that such belief is positive and self-reinforcing, is obvious. But still, it’s understandable that they say it, and some men will not mind having reduced genitals; I don’t see that it’s to a man’s credit, not to mind having reduced genitals, but your mileage may vary!

    But if we are talking about kids, and cutting their genitals, it’s a different SUBJECT altogether.

    And but actually of course; it is EXACTLY how those two subjects get tied together that’s the problem, but that’s another effort post, and a difficult one. But it’s not actually not difficult. Everyone knows that violence perpetrates itself; and further, basic game theory explains it: If everyone has one-eye, then the one-eyed man is at no disadvantage. But if he is the only man with one-eye, then he is at a disadvantage.

    In closing [ finally, right? ] let us leave these on the table. If France and most of intact Europe, American men are often known there by the beautiful women, as sexual cripples, for the quality of their performance. And what else was Latin Lover meme? It was American women tired of their half-ticked men. And finally, talk about cope posting: CH with his odes to “jackhammer thrusting” and Captain Obvious and his relentless advice to “work the clit”. Both those techniques are NOT natural sex!

  49. If one man is not ok, with having had his genitals cut out; and but

    Another man is ok, with same.

    Does it then follow that it’s ok, to cut out a third man’s genitals, because the second man is more ok, with the situation, than the first? / serious question

    ****************

    And you watch: If I am not mistaken: Greg Eliot will appeal, or would have, to that reasoning.

    It’s actually fairly subtle, and as far as I can tell, would need some basic set theory to evaluate. Which I didn’t get to in math, but the idea being that the Sets of successfully reproducing men, will be similar in their characteristics such as how many members they contain; but different in the particular members themselves.

    In either case, whether the population is cut or not, a certain percentage of the men will reproduce, and perhaps a similar percentage — but it won’t be the same men. That’s my hypothesis, and I think it worthy of consideration. We know what happens when a Caucasian population reduces its genitals but still reproduces generation after generation: it turns into jews.

  50. Whether or not this turns into a grudge match, I appreciate the chance to clarify my thoughts on the matter. Which as I said, I am reluctant to bring up because it can be tedious.

    So please note, that I did not bring up the topic. I have responded to unwarranted criticisms of using a sock; and then onto the topic which was raised.

    Circumcision has been a cross to bear that is a terrible burden. Knowing that your genitals are incomplete and you will never know sex nor intimacy with a woman, as Nature evolved and God intended, is a lot to ask of a man.

    And for what? It’s hard to square being loved and valued and respected, by the people who do that to you. Clearly the people who do that to you, do not love and respect you.

    Relatedly, a recent DS article and thread was about the US Mexican border guard who was cute and her photo went viral. Anglin got on a stump and said anyone saying she was cute has mommy issues and after all, no one of us should be needing to be loved, which position is not uncommon these days and in some parts.

    But those are not wise words. The part about mommy issues might have a point, but the part about needing loved. A man needs to be loved by a woman. It’s part of the sexual evolution thing. A central part of that is pair bonding. Intact genitals are integral to pair bonding. To say otherwise is absurd. Though, as with my set theory explanation above, there are those men who will pair bond w/o them.

  51. “Rational males: Sender back!
    “Libtards: Deport yourself! You’re an immigrant too!
    “Rational males: We’d consider that.”

    Visited my Northern European ancestral home a few years back. My heart still aches. The land compels the soul. It’s like my genes are pining to be back, brutal winters and all.

  52. Your default accusation on your antagonists, of them pulling sock puppets, is off the mark. I don’t use them when arguing, and never have.

    Nice try, Alinsky, but Indy was not only the one who brought up sock puppets (e.g., dweebstreep), but he himself admitted to being one back during the days of the chateau…. and the fact that he jumped in with the circumcision non sequitur, as you so often do, made it a logical conclusion.

    You, he, and whoever else is playing this sound and fury, are the ones resorting to odd personal attacks and need to get a grip. You’ll notice that when I attack someone, I post the quote of theirs that merited the response… YOU and your inane ilk are the ones who resort to strange homoerotica and other ad hominem folderol that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

    Show us all the courtesy, and respect; and state your Position on the matter here, on the place that “circumcision” has in White societies; or are you unwilling to do so?

    Been there, done that, several times at the chateau… I’m in favor of it, for the same reasons cited by the AMA (if you don’t want to get into any religious or tradition aspect, which would be even more pointless in this debate).

    It’s NOT a question of right or wrong, it’s NOT mutilation is the usual connotation of the word (otherwise doctors would eschew it entirely), that’s just your Alinsky poopytalk, further enhanced by your continued strained analogy attempt to bring girls into the debate, as if African and Arab clitorectomy nonsense can be cnsidered a parallel. Note that Western doctors will NEVER promote the latter, but often recommend the former.

    In short. you follow your conscience on the matter, and keep yo’ haid out of my pants.

  53. We know what happens when a Caucasian population reduces its genitals but still reproduces generation after generation: it turns into jews.

    That sort of hyperbole makes Lysenko seem like Gregor Mendel.

  54. My comment was removed the first time I asked you about streetsweeper. I didn’t realize PA had a 24 hour Off Topic rule. So I put the question out here again. I wanted to see if you had the guts to admit what a buffoon you’d been over the years. In true GE fashion, you double down instead and start fling more cow shit. First I’m a sock for PJ, then SE…

    “he did a stellar pattern-recognition impression of a certain other halfwit whose lances were always straws.”

    Greg, what on this beautiful green earth would you know about pattern recognition?

    “the fact that he jumped in with the circumcision non sequitur, as you so often do, made it a logical conclusion.”

    Inconceivable that two guys would fault you for a bogus position. Never change Greg… (I know you never will).

  55. Circumcision has been a cross to bear that is a terrible burden. Knowing that your genitals are incomplete and you will never know sex nor intimacy with a woman, as Nature evolved and God intended, is a lot to ask of a man.

    I guess, then, some of us have genitals to spare, having known sex and intimacy with women on a level at least equal, and in many ways far greater, than those of unsnipped variety.

    Of course, without current divorce or promiscuity stats on the opponent populations of snipped versus unsnipped, I only have my lying eyes to tell me which marriages have been more stable and longer-lasting.

    And for the record, you are not in a position to speak on behalf of the intentions of either cold heartless Nature nor God Himself… in fact, regarding the latter, the opposite argument you’re trying to make is much stronger, as per His own Word.

  56. Inconceivable that two guys would fault you for a bogus position. Never change Greg… (I know you never will).

    Way to not fail to disappoint, Greg. You never do.

    Aside from all of the eerily similar “genital mutilation” type phraseology coincidences, let alone bringing the subject into unrelated topics, how’s the above for pattern recognition? Even the school-marm tone, in the Alinsky attempt to debate-shame, tells on you.

    You DID admit, back in the chateau, to sock-puppeting… so the burden is on you, buddy-boy.

  57. Involuntary male neonatal genital reduction assignment: where is the lie?

    Make of these facts/assertions what you will:

    – God/nature makes reproductive organs optimal for the given specie.

    – Until three generations ago, a figure approaching 100% of humans who had ever lived did not surgically alter their male organs.

    – Semitic peoples are unique or rare as traditional practitioners of circumcision, even among other desert peoples.

    – It’s common knowledge in Eastern Europe that some Jewish females without overt semitic features passed as Slavic by dyeing their hair a lighter shade under German occupation; all Jewish males, where there was doubt, were identified by their altered penises.

    – Western medical opinion outside of the Anglosphere does not generally endorse circumcision.

    – Only on the Anglosphere and only since after WWII does the medical profession endorse circumcision.

    – There are no libertarian attitudes toward sexual morality in any given culture; you’re either normal or deviant. Thus men who are and whose sons and grandsons are circumcised reasonably defend the continuation of the practice as matter of perceived self-interest. They defend the status quo with selective appeals to medical opinion or like Matt King did, with appeal to Tradition (?!?!).

    – Elk does not use sockpuppets here. I find his writing on this matter both obviouly heartfelt, as well as profound.

  58. – Elk does not use sockpuppets here. I find his writing on this matter both obviouly heartfelt, as well as profound. If you disagree with what he says, it’s still worth your time to read it and give it some thought without reflexive dismissal.

    Well then Indy shouldn’t take such pains at parroting… and if you’ll go back and read my original question to him about sock puppeting, it WAS a question.

    And your use of “reflexive dismissal” is disingenuous poopytalk. Everywhere I’ve debated him on the subject I’ve given counterpoint to his precepts… unless of course said precepts were SO outlandish and hyperbolic as to merit but sardonic retort.

    Heartfelt belief and sincerity (muh feelz) means little… how many times has THAT been the topic of these blogs? Or is it just womenz feelz that are to be ridiculed?

    As far as “profound” goes, we’ll just have to consult our respective dictionaries on the use of that word to describe his pontifications on the subject.

    As far as Anglosphere medicine being the only ones who recommend circumcision, that in and of itself is a pretty strong endorsement… unless you’d rather be placed in the hands of the medical systems anywhere else in the world.

  59. People talk about “projection” so often that I’ve grown weary of the term. Greg, why is everybody a sock puppet?

  60. People talk about “projection” so often that I’ve grown weary of the term. Greg, why is everybody a sock puppet?

    Your continued Alinsky attempts to win this debate are flaccid. I only suspect sock-puppeting from those whose posts merit said suspicion, and I always give examples as to why I come to those conclusions.

    The fact that some, including you yourself, have outright admitted to doing it in the past, only bolsters my contentions, and DUH!

    As far as being wearied of the term “projection”, if the shoe fits it gets worn. lzozlzozlozlozl

    You knock off the insipid South Park “ball-gargler” attempt to win a debate, and maybe your position will gain mettle.

    The only other alternative is to keep getting a virtual Cyberian smackdown. This isn’t rocket surgery.

  61. Thus men who are and whose sons and grandsons are circumcised reasonably defend the continuation of the practice as matter of perceived self-interest. They defend the status quo with selective appeals to medical opinion or like Matt King did, with appeal to Tradition (?!?!).

    “Perceived self-interest” – do you REALLY believe that, if men found circumcision to be the “mutilation” and reduction of sexual satisfaction or true love and intimacy with a woman that they would foist it upon their own flesh and blood, merely because of self-identification ego or because misery loves company?

    I know Cyberia is full of outhouse psychologists, but men of the former chateau usually demand a higher standard of argument.

    And there are (ahem) a few occasions in history where medical opinion and tradition carried more weight than heartfelt feelz and hyperbole. The record of disease control alone proves that SOMETIMES the bonesaws get it right.

    Often, some of the debate surrounding the topic sounds similar to CT rantings about vaccinations, fluoridation, etc.

  62. Cheap is in the butthurt of the recipient, but not in bad faith at all, I don’t play that shit… I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of how we here on the alt-R tag women all the time for their “muh feelz” line of reasoning, yet we ourselves fall into the same trap on certain topics.

    As far as cheap, bad-faith rhetoric, you might want to revisit some of the Alinsky tactics of those whom you wish to defend because you happen to agree with them on the circumcision issue.

  63. Elk is one-hundred percent Right and Eliot is one hundred percent liberated.

    If total annihilation is the end game then self-annihilation is the mechanism of “free will.”

    Eliot possesses this “free will.”

  64. Now, Eliot will probably contend that he does not believe in total annihilation. Yet, he certainly believes in the “right” to self-annihilate.

    Defense of circumcision is a defense of one’s “right” to self-annihilate.

  65. Credit to PA for allowing dissenting voices on something he considers an important issue. Our host walks his talk when it comes to no “safe spaces.”

    Looking back, this whole mess started when I posted the Trump “send her back” clip. I thought (wrongly) that we could all agree on the dream of a nigger-free ethno-state. I thought (wrongly) that we could all agree it’s a good thing to politically normalize telling niggers to gtfo.

    Either there was genuine disagreement, or PJ and Indy are so triggered by my posts, they would oppose even that, just to disagree with me. No big deal. I don’t expect everyone to like me or what I write. I don’t bear either of them any ill will. It’s just not worth my time. Besides, I have a hard time believing they actually oppose sovereign separation.

    But GE sees one of his bros getting piled on and jumps in. That’s his character as a man. It does him a lot of credit in my book. Now guys are coming out of the woodwork to pile on him.

    There are going to be some differences among all our values (or differences in the way we rank order those values.)

    You guys can all continue on or drop it as you see fit. For my part, I’m dropping it. I truly have no ill will toward PJ and Indy. They can take shots at me whenever they want. I look at it as no more than a little virtual dust-up.

    I’ll also continue posting what I want. So you can all look forward to more “borderline sociopathic” (really, only borderline?) field reports about bar skanks and the like.

    Glad you’re all my bros
    FE

  66. Looking back, this whole mess started when I posted the Trump “send her back” clip. I thought (wrongly) that we could all agree on the dream of a nigger-free ethno-state. I thought (wrongly) that we could all agree it’s a good thing to politically normalize telling niggers to gtfo.

    Everyone here would certainly agree on that in theory.

    But some pragmatic thinkers here might say that politically normalizing such things in practice is a pipe dream and impractical as a true electoral plank considering that our country doesn’t even have the current willpower to enforce basic laws to stop dirt-poor Latin peasantry from just walking across the border by the tens of thousands per month.

    Trump is being practical and his constant wall talk is a way of waking core white America from its slumbers as we need to come to the realization that yes, borders matter despite our big business, cheap labor-loving “Conservative” leadership telling us otherwise for the last 2 generations.

    Either way, I don’t think that mass immigration of 3rd-world browns is a topic that the panel here would likely have much disagreement on if we were all assembled in person. Sometimes Web forums have a way of making even the staunchest natural allies seek faults and put too much effort into discussing barely nitpick-worthy (minor) differences, for whatever reason.

    The laughter of Hillary will be our only reward for sitting around bickering over minor rhetorical points on topics where we really don’t have that much true difference anyway.

  67. Greg you argue from ignorance, and we’re not on the same side.

    You have NO supporters here, on this issue at least. Or ask one to step up for you. You are a hopelessly out of touch old dog, who knows not what is right and wrong. Please go away, or learn to listen to those who are more in touch with what it means to be a human being and treat people with respect. You could have had your sons treated with respect and KINDNESS but were unable to summon the clarity and or courage. [ And it’s fair to make it personal here; so please PA do not delete this. ]

    Don’t spread your disease around here, Greg.

    And for the audience. Please consider that this issue is non-negotiable, because if cutters get their hands on your daughter’s son (for instance), then your grandson is cut. So there’s no compromise.

    And also. The cheap digs about you having the dick spare, just goes to the level of emotional maturity that Greg has. This isn’t junior high, Greg. You don’t win an argument with bluster. Again: grow. Learn right and wrong. Or, if it’s too late, then retire and shut up, and learn from your betters: which clearly I am, judging on this series of posts. You are not that bright, and not that funny. You’ve been told this by a thousand commenters, a thousand times.

    **************

    And also. Insisting that your accusation of sock-puppetry, only reveals your paranoia: except that it’s not paranoia, because people don’t think much of your commenting, and lots of people say so.

  68. In other words, I hate to see fellow members of the alt-right needling each other over immigration, as there’s probably few other topics where we agree so much.

    Any vitriol should be reserved for our own GOP leaders who (historically) let us down for the sake of importing cheap labor, especially the Bush crowd and their idiotic “Hispanics are natural conservatives” kind of talk.

    If I had my way to appoint the 25 most treacherous US leaders to hang after conviction by a tribunal the first 15 would be “conservative” leaders.

    As far as getting upset over single women and lesbians running about advocating for refugees and migrants goes, what the fuck did we think feckless, childless women would do once they got a political voice in a country where things are nice, safe and economically stable and all the necessary fighting and dying is done without them ever having had to pay any of the monetary or military price along the way?

  69. Honest to God, Greg. You are a disgrace to this comment section. ou are not in good with God. You will answer for your negligence, if there be a judgment. You failed, as a Father, to protect your children, and now you want others cut so that that’s the norm. GTFOH!

    How do you think your SCHTICK would go over at Daily Stormer. Every single commenter there would ridicule you off the board.

    The ONLY reason you got away with defending your fetish for mutilating, is because CH was part of the American manosphere and the commenters there were bought into the same mutilated scheme of things. Do you think they would not laugh you out of town, on a nationalist board anywhere else? How out-of-touch are you?

    The absurd accusations of sock puppetry: they are not true. You have no appreciation of style and merit. Your jokes are flat and your endless references to movies are tedious; and your weird style of writing with is just old.

    And defending cutting out THE GENITALS OF CHILDREN. You don’t belong in a society that values its children. Please leave, or at least pray for your soul. I won’t be.

  70. “I thought (wrongly) that we could all agree on the dream of a nigger-free ethno-state.”

    you’re not mistaken there. you just mistakenly thought that bar skank-chasing PUAs wouldn’t also be stuffed into the hulls on Africa-bound ships…. if they’re lucky.

  71. I will honor the feelings of the Readership here though, and would like to know, and so ask:

    Are you ok with sharing a society, and your daughter’s sons, with those who will cut out their genitals, and justify with low-grade “poopytalk”?

    If so I will cease my labors on this board, gladly. How does the Readership think and feel, on the question of whether it is a Father’s prerogative, to cut and diminish his son’s genitals?

    Does he have that prerogative, or not? And this question concerns Father’s in your (our) society, and not those elsewhere.

    I am not interested in a society in which the children’s genitals are cut out, and will not work toward or for same. It’s absurd. I am ashamed to participate in a comment section where that opinion is even entertained. It’s insulting to one’s respect, to argue with those who answer the above question in the affirmative.

    Any regulars or readers answering in the affirmative, that a Father would have the right to cut out his son’s genitals, will you please post your opinion.

  72. I do not enjoy arguing with those people, who defend the practice of cutting out their own children’s genitals, which is why I ask who they might be.

    Sometimes they will come around. Plenty of cases on youtube, where the father insists on getting his boy cut, but the mother will not give in, and then he learns. After watching some videos perhaps.

    If anyone does insist on doing that to their kid: please witness it, so that when are judged by God you will know what for.

    And for the record Greg: it is fair to speak on God’s intent and Nature’s design, in this matter. It’s the jews who go against God here, and they somehow got you on board. Admit your mistakes Greg. Be a better man.

    You’re not the best man reading this. Don’t presume to be. Your 3d6 wisdom comes across as around 13, or maybe 12. I am not just saying that. You seem to be lacking, in a certain balance. And that’s not even mentioning your intelligence, which as many have noted, is what, 120? Not that there’s anything wrong with that; it takes all types.

    Besides your kids, do you have any real world accomplishments?

  73. Elk is one-hundred percent Right and Eliot is one hundred percent liberated.

    If total annihilation is the end game then self-annihilation is the mechanism of “free will.”

    Eliot possesses this “free will.”

    That’s a lot of verbiage to merely say that you agree with the Don’t Circumcise crowd.

    Defense of circumcision is a defense of one’s “right” to self-annihilate.

    More poopytalk… those of us without the turtleneck are still living large… and the folks who initially got the word from God seem to be thriving as well, for all their other miscreations, so there’s that (more’s the pity).

    For all y’all’s grandiose claims about the alleged enormity of this procedure, the fact remains it’s no big deal in the Big Picture, and White men, as well as others, have been living solid and fruitful lives, with or without a foreskin.

    If you want to paint it as anything more, to the point where you’d make an enemy of another White man over it to the point of character disparagement and witch trials, then… well… that’s why we lose.

    (((shakin’ mah haid)))

  74. As far as criticizing my commentary on this topic as heartfelt feelz; as if that’s the extent of it. Give me a break. I raised several other points. The personal feelings are included by way of example.

    There’s nothing wrong with being guided by your feelings, anyways, but that’s neither here nor there.

    I didn’t want to go through life with a reduced set; and it’s not to a man’s credit, to be ok with having been done.

    To all the un-diminished men in the world: How would they be expected to deal with it, were they circumcised against their will, last night, as adults?

    Would they be expected to not have any feelings about it?

    Obviously feelings are part of the equation. No babies want to get done; which is why they have to be strapped down in a specially designed restraint.

    I am sorry for ranting (not at all sorry). If there is anyone else, aside from Boomer Prime above, who defends the practice, please, speak up and now is your chance. I will not participate on a Board that has anything to do with it.

  75. Greg you argue from ignorance, and we’re not on the same side.

    You have NO supporters here, on this issue at least.

    Actually, you and others are arguing with your hearts rather than yo’ haids… and as far as consensus, on this or any other issue, you might have noticed by now that I don’t mind voicing the minority opinion and, in fact, could give a rat’s ass about supporters… especially of the ilk I’ve seeing ’round chere.

    Back at the chateau others tried to neener-neener me with this tactic, as if now here, PA’s blog, is a popularity contest from the days of grade school.

    Come up with something new, for cryin’ out loud.

  76. And also. The cheap digs about you having the dick spare, just goes to the level of emotional maturity that Greg has. This isn’t junior high, Greg. You don’t win an argument with bluster.

    That was merely an amusing aside, for those of ready wit. My jests are legendary, even when they fall flat.

    You trying to make it a debate point, along with the bluster and emotional immaturity YOU’VE been displaying, in spades, merely shows who’s conning who ’round chere.

    And the usual egregious hypocrisy of you attempting to use this as a sign of immaturity, while not saying a FUCKING thing about that “ball gargler” remark once again proves the paucity of genuine character on your part, along with the weakness of your arguments.

    Pathetic.

  77. And the usual egregious hypocrisy of you attempting to use this as a sign of immaturity, while not saying a FUCKING thing about that “ball gargler” remark once again proves the paucity of genuine character on your part, along with the weakness of your arguments.

    What’s insincere, Greggy Greg boy, is you insisting on ascribing that remark to me, when it’s under another handle.

    That’s not arguing in good faith, and it’s tendentious. I have denied it twice; doing so again will be pointless.

    You’re jests are legendary? I don’t think they are that good.

    Whose opinion counts for anything, in your book, btw?

    Your tone is accusing and unfriendly. You started this argument with a BASELESS ACCUSATION, that Suburban_elk was puppeting; which accusation is baseless because other people AGREE that cutting their kids genitals is bad. Do you see how I used logic to prove the baselessness of your accusation of sock puppetry, or is that above your meager iq-level?

    I was courteous enough and even respectful, when you showed up around here; and you come on with baseless accusations. Go cut your kids; stay away from mine. We clear?

    No one’s interested in your dick, pal. What they are interested in, is keeping your world view from harming their kids. Or is that too much logic for your oversized head which is short on evolved miniaturization?

  78. And for the record. Anyone following this argument — and it’s worth noting that people usually don’t care much, outside the primary participants — please do keep in mind, that Suburban_elk is advocating best he can, for your kids’ genitals to be whole and un-molested, whereas Greg Eliot is arguing that they be cut and reduced.

    Let us please stay on topic. Greg you can have the last insult, if you must. It might do you some well, to forego it, but it would seem you are unable to, because your character and will power are not much.

    Greg started this argument, with his false and baseless accusation; and he also have the last word? What an insufferable man.

  79. There are a lot of individuals, both “white” and nonwhite “living large” off the prophet-ability of the white race’s self-annihilation.

    Before all other things, circumcision is ritual self-annihilation.

    The jew qua jew is the archetype self-annihilator.

    Ergo, the jew practices circumcision.

    So to be jew/wed just is to embrace self-annihilation.

    On this point alone all sane minded white fathers can reject circumcision for their white sons unapologetically and without second thought.

  80. 120 sounds about right. Or what is called a mid-wit. Like someone who knows just enough of a martial art to be too dangerous to spar with.

  81. could not have said it better myself.

    No socks ’round chere, nosiree! :duckface

    As far as the IQ question, if all you got is weak sister Alinsky shaming attempts to bring something like THAT into the debate, and with ad hominem snark, when your own half-witted feelz have been continuously trumped by logical address of specific claims you’ve made and been called out on for the melodramatic hyperbole that they are, well… that reflects more upon yo’ haid than mine… as well as the haids of the League of Morons that oh-so-coincidentally copy your (ahem) style, such as it is.

    And for the record, I’d be willing to bet that the average of all the IQ tests I’ve taken since grade school would be higher than your best score, so there’s that. But the irony is, you’d probably be the first to argue, on some other thread, about how IQ doesn’t really mean much… which it doesn’t, if not accompanied by drive and perspiration, in the best Edisonesque connotation of the word.

    But let’s just keep losing, shall we?

    (((shakin’ mah haid)))

  82. Satan cannot destroy Creation, but he can work towards a mundane world of perpetuating self-annihilators…

    Abortionists, homosexuals, euthanasianists… Circumcisers.

    It’s not feelz, but realz.

  83. Elk and Jurist are not “socks.” They are different people with different styles, on different parts of the continent.

    Two rules of internet trash talking. Not that I mind the argument, it’s lively stuff. One, nobody reads long comments in such arguments (except me here); brevity is the soul of wit. Two, the last guy to get the word in holds the hot potato.

  84. FYI–I know someone was asking if CH was still on gab. Yes, he’s still active. Just visited yesterday and he’s still as strong as ever.

    I, like many of you, are hoping for his return back to blogging, in whatever form that might be.

  85. The formulated question is straightforward.

    Is circumcision is an act of ritualized self-annihilation or just a medical procedure? Or even more fantastically, some such of both?

    Eliot says “no” to circumcision being ritual self-annihilation or else he would evidently oppose it as a Christian. So what is “it” besides “medical convention?”

    Elk say “yes” despite any explicit religious leaning and thus his appeal to its mechanistic suboptimality and therefore medical unnecessity.

    The solution to solving this riddle is quite simple.

    Elk and Eliot are clearly of different races.

    And because they are of different races of fathers, there will not be conformity in their stance on one’s “right” to self-annihilation. Each generation signals a shift towards annihilation or regeneration. Nothing is at it seems.

    Perpetuating acts of self-annihilation cannot at all be construed as Christian acts. But appeals to mechanical futility lack true spirit.

    No one can argue that circumcision is a Christian act. And one can easily intuit that circumcision is far more than a medical procedure.

    Heart + head = resistance to self-annihilation.

  86. No socks ’round chere, nosiree! :duckface [ … ]

    And for the record, I’d be willing to bet that the average of all the IQ tests I’ve taken since grade school would be higher than your best score, so there’s that.

    Another sock puppet accusation, from the guy who can’t find a single person to support his position. That’s internally consistent with his lonely frame of reference. I will explain, for the low-iq Greg.

    Since no one ever supports his position, he assumes that, as with his statements, anyone else finding agreement, must be a sock!

    It is to laugh.

    Greg you are dimmer and dimmer by the minute. And you weren’t that bright to begin. And you are bragging about your iq, in order to score points. Ffs this is the special olympics here, now.

  87. Elk and Eliot are clearly of different races.

    And because they are of different races of fathers, there will not be conformity in their stance on one’s “right” to self-annihilation. Each generation signals a shift towards annihilation or regeneration. Nothing is at it seems.

    I agree with this. Of different Fathers, indeed and in thought. On the ethnicity question, mine is Old American. The good stuff — “Members of Our Race are still being born” …

  88. I think the Right side of this issue is unassailable.

    Circumcision can be rejected as both the ritualized self-annihilation of an alien cult and pure medical unnecessity.

  89. when your own half-witted feelz have been continuously trumped by logical address of specific claims

    No they were not. You are defending cutting out the genitals of infants, against their will. And you are then defending your defense of it, because it makes you feel like you haven’t done something wrong.

    You have the self-awareness of a bug. How old are you? Do you have signs of senility, in your real life? Would you cop to them, now, in this exchange?

    In all seriousness, Greg. Your being a stubborn dick, on the question of “circumcision,” is dumb and stupid, but would have been bearable; were you just not such an asshole!

    As I have said repeatedly now, the accusation of sockpuppetry is not Cricket; because —

    1. It can’t be disproved
    2. It’s not true
    3. PA vouches that it’s not true
    4. Anyone with a modicum of close attention reading would recognize different styles
    5. Not allowing for your opponent to answer in the negative, to the accusation, leaves us nowhere to go, except this pointlessness

    You are literally going nanny nanny booboo with this accusation; and yet you don’t quit w/ it. This means you are going senile; or B) were never very sophisticated to begin with; or C) both of the above.

    But in the interests of fun, if you will please down the negativity, what is (or fair enough: was) your real iq, and based on what test? There’s only test that we have in common, probably; and that is the pre-renormed SAT’s, which are regarded by experts as the best data set out there. So what did you score. You go first, and then me.

  90. when your own half-witted feelz have been continuously trumped by logical address of specific claims you’ve made and been called out on for the melodramatic hyperbole that they are, well… that reflects more upon yo’ haid than mine… as well as the haids of the League of Morons that oh-so-coincidentally copy your (ahem) style, such as it is.

    The hypothesis, which in all honesty might seemingly be credited to Suburban_elk, that jewish psychopathy and malevolence, and generally sexual dysfunction and paraphilia, is caused directly by their breeding successfully despite having reduced genitals, is not melodramatic hyperbole.

    It is a serious idea which deserves evaluation.

    But hey, what do you know: in America for some reason, people are reluctant to consider the long term generational effects on a population, that might be caused by non-consensual neonatal male reduction assignment aka “circumcision”.

    Now why might possibly Americans be reluctant and even unwilling, to consider those (albeit possible) effects, Greggy Greg Greg greg. Consider it an iq test item, worth 10 points. Why might Americans be reluctant to consider any potential effects such an assignment might have?

  91. In the meta-logue, both “sock-puppetry” and defense of circumcision fall under the jurist’s friction of “radical autonomy.” Consequently and more specifically, the Christian is employing a sort of inverted “unprincipled exception” (opposing the “radical autonomy” of sock-puppetry, yet endorsing the “radical autonomy” of circumcision, ie., choosing a greater act of self-annihilation over a lesser act of self-annihilation) while the nonChristian is standing resolutely against both acts of “radical autonomy” and thus firmly against both ritual and mediated act of self-annihilation.

    Nothing is at it seems.

    Though, Good on Elk.

  92. And as for your digs at my “(ahem) style, such as it is” —

    Ok then; in good fun, if we can let go a bit of the acrimony and bad feelz. Who on God’s green Earth has given you the idea that your opinion matters, on questions of style?

    Because at CH, you were to very very mixed reviews. Actually your reviews [ as in: the reviews of you ] were mostly negative, were they not?

    So by implication, you are saying that in real life, you are were very stylistically quick on the draw?

    Ok then how about try bringing some of that, here and now (for a change).

  93. A few short years ago my son was to be born, and I had to think about this topic. I’d never before spared it a thought, or stopped to wonder why I myself had been cut.

    (I wasn’t near as red-pilled as I am now, but even then I knew something stank about all of the eyebrow-raising justifications given.)

    I did have a gut conviction that the nebulous “health benefits” claimed by (((professionals))) could not stack up against entire rest of the world being just fine uncircumcised. So at a minimum then, not-cutting would cause no harm.

    With that out of the way, the only reason FOR the procedure, was… so he’d be like me. And I couldn’t do that.

    How could I, ever, explain to him later, that the only reason I had it done, was just to go along to get along. All so (I ultimately realized) I wouldn’t have to contemplate my own reduced condition?

    I thank God I refused to consider it for my son then. I thank God.

    Only much later did I finally do more in-depth research, and understand just how in the right I was, even what I myself had to miss. And, now and forever, what my son(s) and grandsons will never have to miss. That cycle is broken.

  94. There are strong desires for redemption in the here-and-now. White parents not circumcising their white sons should be a mundane expression of this desire amongst real racists.

  95. Great story, wess. That “gut” instinct of ours always looking for our best interest. I’d dare say it’s the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s discernment. The more we listen and act upon it, the greater we are able to increase our ability to always follow our gut.

    To your sons and grandsons! Cheers!

  96. As I said all along, let each man follow his own mind, on this and any other subject.

    But when rhetoric like “nebulous heath benefits” (quotes included) are mentioned, along with rhapsodic waxing about what was “missed” and Alinskyesque “breaking the cycle”, well… that tells me that we’re still in the Muh Feelz realm of things, and let’s just admit it.

    So if you want to applaud anyone for following their gut instincts, then be of genuine intent and grant others who do it like respect, though they chose the opposite.

    For the record, the health benefits are NOT “nebulous”… and if you think true love and intimacy with a woman is dependent upon a tad more muh dik sensitivity, and merely at the tip at that, then perhaps there is no true fellowship between us and “the rest of the world”.

    Then again, doesn’t Scripture itself tell us that a friend of the world is the enemy of God?

  97. “As I said all along, let each man follow his own mind, on this and any other subject.”

    Uncle Greg…a light unto the interwebz.

    doesn’t scripture have a thing or two to say about planks in one’s eye?

  98. There are no libertarian solutions in sexual morality. You’re either normal or deviant.

    I tend to agree… the only issue then would be who gets to define “normal”… aside from the obvious deviancy we see these days that we’re demanded to tolerate by law… even celebrate… I wouldn’t presume to legislate what goes on between a man and a woman behind closed doors… but that’s not really relevant to the topic at hand.

    If you’re trying to make circumcision a question of sexual MORALITY, well… that’s a bigger leap than the one we’re all celebrating on this anniversary of the moon landing.

  99. doesn’t scripture have a thing or two to say about planks in one’s eye?

    As usual, sock diversionary tactics… explain, O lover of Scripture, what this has to do with anything that’s been said thus far.

    On a side note:
    PA, if you’re going to tolerate the same sock nonsense here that we had to stomach over at the chateau, then shame on you.

    Both dweepstreep AND Indy have admitted to being socks in the past… and examples of pattern recognition, tone and phraseology have outed them long before that.

    Choose now, whether you want to continue to play stupid games, merely to try to put a burr in Eliot’s saddle, or whether you’re going to be serious-minded men (or at least exhibit SOME sharpness of wit, when the situation calls) who are tired of losing.

    (((shakin’ mah haid)))

  100. I don’t feel like checking who is whose sock every time an accusation arises. Plumpjack confessed that he’s Streetsweeper. I don’t remember who Indy said he had socked as or if he even said that. Streetsweeper is a comic one-liner character, doesn’t bother me that he’s a sock. None of the long-time intelligent commenters such as Suburban_elk are anyone other than themselves.

    I do like you Greg despite many disagreements. You do have wisdom that sometimes shines through and I value that. A memorable example of that is the comforting answer you once gave a despairing commenter at CH who wrote that he’s a young Bundeswehr soldier presently processing savage migrants in some German welcome camp.

    You do attract slings and arrows in other areas though. One way to reduce the Incoming is to not doggedly argue about every little thing that you think some other guy is wrong about. Also, “Alinskyite” is not synonymous with “Greg doesn’t like.”

  101. “Alinskyesque!” cries the Uncle Greg pull-string doll. “Sock puppet!”

    At least sorcerygod said different things each time he was being irritating.

  102. You do attract slings and arrows in other areas though. One way to reduce the Incoming is to not doggedly argue about every little thing that you think some other guy is wrong about. Also, “Alinskyite” is not synonymous with “Greg doesn’t like.”

    You’re being disingenuous… it’s not a question of “arguing every little thing”, it’s a question fair debate in which I call someone on something they said and give them the reason it doesn’t sit right, and then the ad hominem South Park insults and sock-piling begins.

    As far as attracting slings and arrows from THAT crowd, I consider that a mark of honor. Of course, if you want to make this a popularity contest, it’s your party… but don’t on the other hand applaud guys like Trump for the same sort of flak-catching from the types that he irks.

    Look at this thread alone… I jumped in when pj carried water for The Narrative by making like “white skin” was the sole criteria by which we would separate ourselves from The Others, i.e., as if “the color of one’s skin” were the only thing that made the races different. I think that deserved a rightful rebuke, ESPECIALLY among those of us supposedly alt-R, or whatever you want to call our obvious leanings.

    Then Indy, a known sock, “wondered” about Eddie… which connoted that Eddie wasn’t to be trusted or his motives in posting were questionable. And I merely asked him to explain himself as to this doubt about Eddie, who both you and I agree is a known stalwart.

    Then he starts in mentioning dweebstreep… I didn’t think pj was dweebstreep, but it if turn out he is, then there’s another asshole for you, but I digress. I then asked Indy, since he brought up a known sock, was he socking for Elk, since the out-of-the-blue circumcision issue was introduced, not to mention the school marm tone of how he and Elk then attempted the “there’s Greg all over” condescension, to cover their butthurt at getting called out on the usual nonsense.

    All the other Alinsky tactics of attempting to win Cyberian debate by bringing in questions of intelligence and such were, again, just more of the usual disingenuous gambits usually employed by those we say we abhor, yet can’t seem to escape the brainwashing of the past two or three generations raised on (((MSM))) culture.

    So now don’t YOU be disingenuous and attempt to put it on me as “arguing every little thing”… it’s obvious that these other issues, like circumcision for one, are so near and dear to some hearts that they lose all semblance of rational thought and revert to the most petty of, yes, Alinskyesque jew-jitsu in the attempt to save face… hence, it ain’t “every little thing”.

    And just because you happen to agree for the most part with the Eliot Has Green Hair crowd doesn’t mean you get to use your own dictionary and thesaurus either, when it comes to the topic at hand, nor who starts the shit ’round chere when it begins to fly.

  103. Dr. trav, Medicine Woman
    Greg Eliot, Second-Tier Adventist
    Greg Eliot has Green hair
    DavidFrenchOnionSoup

    I don’t believe I’ve used any here. Any posts on Heartiste were clear jokes. Even a windbag who writes “Alinsky” nine times on one post recognized that at CH and gave credit for my attempts at humor. But people get old and I guess they forget things.

    If anyone else accused me of being Elk, I’d take it as a compliment. But it doesn’t mean anything coming from you Greg.

  104. I thinks S.A.’s name has been referenced more on here as of late than on even the most shitlibian blog; if those even do exist. Something tells me writing is of the patriarchy or some such.

  105. You have a selective memory Greg. How is it even worth our time to rehash this stuff. You insult me one last time (“butthurt”) and expect the last word.

    Your personality is insufferable. You insulted Suburban_elk to begin with, by imputing that he employs socks; and now STILL with the unnecessary insults. Can you accept that I am hurt, having my genitals cut: that it hurts me? Do you not care that White people are hurt by it?

    Anyone advocating White children having their genitals reduced, is no ally. Greg Eliot is no ally. Greg Eliot is a liability. If you are going to post here, please tagline every comment with your position that you want your children to have their genitals reduced. If you will not, I will do my darnedest to tagline your posts with that information, as it reveals who you are.

  106. I won’t be tag-lining every one of Greg’s post; that would be Tedious. However, it’s fair to ask that anyone advocating for cutting the genitals of White children, be known by their intentions, by everyone with whom they deal.

    And so to the Readership, a question in good faith: Is that practice acceptable, by anyone in the White society, in the society that we are presumably working together, for?

    Is there a single other reader, participant, who will take the position that it is a White Father’s prerogative, to cut out his son’s genitals?

  107. There’s a separate meta post, on the topic of Feelings. That feelings are involved in the consideration of an issue whatever it may be, does not invalidate its consideration.

    And yet that was precisely Greg’s limp wristed return, on my criticisms. That my criticisms were “heartfelt” was an easy branch for his spazzing ass to latch onto. He was trying to imply that because something is felt, it is therefore not reasonable.

    But everyone who is more balanced, will know that wisdom and let’s-call-it-what-it-is, Righteousness, comes from the place where Feelings match with Thoughts. Some people will primarily determine what is True Good and Beautiful through Thought and others primarily through Feeling; and most people with both. Balance is crucial but in the final neither is illegitimate, both are tried and true human techniques for apprehending and navigating the world.

    nb4 And but yes of course: in clown world, woman are given way too much reign for their feelings. This does not imply that men’s feelings are irrational, or not in accord w/ reason.

    This cute little summary is human wisdom 201, worth maybe five credits in an introductory college course on the topic of how to be a man; which curriculum Greg despite his advanced years, fails.

  108. Sexual deviancy is sexual degeneracy. Sexual degeneracy just is degeneracy. And degeneracy is the annihilation of the true self, ie., self-annihilation.

    The “sexual revolution,” which is actually a mass generational sexual pillaging and denigration, has conditioned the white race to sexual deviancy and self-annihilation.

    Homo = same = exact same = self…

    The Church was one hundred percent Right in condemning homosexuality as is any nation set on a viable future.

    The self-annihilation inherent to ritualized circumcision propagated under the guise of medical utility is, if one were to really scratch the psychological surface, a homo-sexual mechanism of perpetuation. Circumcision is a real, live procedure for turning a white boy’s sexual nature inward and at an isolated self right from his beginning. Circumcision is a mechanism of stunting a white boy’s sexual maturity.

    It’s all Right there, Greg, for your close examination.

  109. Greg’s boomtastic wisdom was well enough delivered and his old school schtick believable.

    But on this issue, there is no compromise. Either involuntary disfigurement is allowed or it’s not. Those are the only two positions. A half-assed [ half-dicked ] compromise might be: we’ll figure it out later. But even that is a sort of concession, and so it doesn’t work. The two positions remain what they are.

    Others might weigh in. Thanks to Wess for his story.

  110. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 07/21/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

  111. So when a discussion of “purity” and “pure races” comes to the fore, it is for subversive purposes only.

    +1000. PJ’s comment was nothing more than an attempt to make the “perfect” the enemy of the good. We all know not every “furriner” is getting deported, despite Brett Stevens’ fevered dreams. Not even sure that is ultimately desirable. Nothing wrong with keeping the best of the best around, in manageable numbers (where would we be without Enrico Fermi or Nicolai Tesla?*). The problem is letting the bottom of the barrel absolutely flood the fruited plain.

    FWIW, this is most likely how it will go down:

    1. The Squalid 4 and their ilk eventually take control of the reigns of power, steadily (but maybe not quickly due to momentum from the past keeping things going) degenerating society.

    2. Eventually, the central (meaning Fed) government loses control because of its bloating and incompetence, maybe a black swan event such as the dollar collapse after losing reserve currency status – although being rather foreseeable, that may not qualify as a true black swan.

    3. Regional sections of the country either follow the path of the Feds (Cal, North East) or become stronger through self sufficiency and taking over more functions from the Fed (Texas is probably in best position for this, if it doesn’t get blued to oblivion first).

    4. Eventually, these regions become their own sovereignty, either through formal separation, or practical separation (i.e., the Fed just no longer does anything, or has the wherewithal to prevent the state/region from doing things its own way). Each step of creeping power hastens this day (e.g., Texas, under its own state authority, creating its own “Fort Knox” gold depository is an interesting step, can issuing its own currency be far behind?).

    * It is technically true that we would not need Enrico or Nicolai physically here to take advantage of their genius, but intelligence is largely genetic, and getting them to swim in our gene pool does require their physical presence and is advantageous. Hopefully, we could get a Heidi Klum to balance out the looks department.

Comments are closed.