“I thought you guys killed yourselves! Without me!”

“Fake and Gay” — a new episode of Murdoch Murdoch.

Remember that older episode in which Murdoch-Chan (the girl) redpilled Taylor Swift:

There are many virtues that are attractive about men besides money. Like honor. Courage. Intelligence. Taking leadership when needed regardless of his social status.

No such high ideals in this episode. Here, they plunge into nihilism. It gets ugly. But it’s Halloween and time for a horror story.

On and off, questions come up in Murdoch Murdoch storylines, like: is everything we do in vain. In this episode, the fiasco of Charlottesville is shown for the waste it was. The cyanide capsule of the black pill is never far from reach but there is sometimes a faith that rises above the hellscape. They search for salvation in the spirit of the Volk. In great books. In the most recent episode they invoked this daemon, Coniugator.

There is one place they haven’t looked.

And they overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (Rev. 12:11-12)

mm2

Murdoch Murdoch videos are archived under cheekyvideos.net and under murdochmurdoch.net.

33 thoughts on ““I thought you guys killed yourselves! Without me!”

  1. Just came here to mention the new vid. Strangely cathartic. Agreed at just getting rid of the darkness isn’t enough–we need to shine the light.

  2. Yes… It’s not good enough to reject self-annihilation. One must perpetuate his race, too! Likewise, it’s not good enough to name the jew IF you cannot state that the jew qua jew is anti-white Supremacy. It’s like bemoaning a gluttonous vision without real eyeing the perpetuating parasight.

    The real movement, collectively, is white Supremacy. Literally, white people striving towards Supremacy. Short of this is an infinite dynamic of clashing desires and blurred vision.

    Practically-speaking, it is the responsibility of white men of Right mind to push for the inculcation of this desire CONTRA the zeitgeist of “equality” dogma.

    If one rejects collapse, he is, however unconsciously, on the side of objective Supremacy. But his rejection is not then affirmation. The anti-egalitarian reaction MUST EVOLVE INTO a racially-affirmative regeneration of the individual white child or else it has been stunted.

  3. Pingback: “I thought you guys killed yourselves! Without me!” | Reaction Times

  4. TD — Your fulgurously collected precision is exhilaratingly sobering — like Rachmaninoff executed piercingly on a viola organista by an asteroidal steer-wrestler.

    “Short of this is an infinite dynamic of clashing desires and blurred vision.”

    A dynamic that can be heightened to the point of fully transcending it: with the objective supremacy of nearly frozen aloe vera juice, fresh wheatgrass extract, Thor’s Hammer Lemon Vodka, and some slightly cooled sparkling water. It’s called ‘Yolk of Moon Yawns.’ Try a few when you can if you want to show-jump midnight fatigue.

  5. EPG…

    I only hope I can continue to elicit your suggestions of cultural supremacy? Rachmaninoff is quite the delight! And the “Yolk of Moon Yawns” is a must try.

  6. There was some headline I scrolled past, “People are becoming disabled by choice, labeling themselves Transabled.”

    When prefixes are a marker of larger social alignments, it occurred to me, “Trans-” is for the Left what “Alt-” was for the Right.

    Actual trans-anything people are just mentally ill, some also demonically possessed. However, the regular liberals who embrace trans-something in concept are grasping in their own way for a way out of the clown world.

    This clown world is bigger than the Things That The Establishment Likes: diversity, militarism, free market, perversions. It’s the sum total of dislocation that everybody has experienced starting two generations ago. The parallel between Trans-left and Alt-Right ends at the point in which this Right goes in the direction of Truth and Beauty and the Left runs in the opposite direction, deeper into the darkness and toward madness.

  7. It’s true, what’s holding back the Murdochs from a transcendent, indomitable motivation is their alienation from Christianity.

    I’ve listen to the Murdochs’ AMAs, and from what I gather all three had typical surburban/lower-middle-class Churchian upbringings. And naturally, all they got from it was a sense of hypocrisy, dysfunction, and eternal cuckishness.

    On his children, Dr. Murdoch said he is still “raising them Christian”, but it’s not out of any genuine belief himself. It’s merely obvious to him that any other environment tends toward abject degeneracy.

    Murdoch and Chan are an item but as far as I know don’t have children yet. Without that new responsibility and awareness — and the inherent striving toward the transcendent in fatherhood and motherhood — all the squabbling and theatre in clown world can only alienate, depress, and demotivate.

  8. Murdoch and Chan are an item but as far as I know don’t have children yet.

    As we know, not having children, in this our thing and when in a position to do so, is an apostasy.

    What might be their reasons or justifications? Are they having “difficulties”?

    On the topic of fatherhood. The old TRS [ yeah yeah yeah; TRS: now and forever tainted ] the old TRS podcast The Fatherland had a regular character by the name of Coach Finstock, who was an excellent radio personality and he now has his own show. One of the latest episodes of which was linked to on Tanstaafl’s RS feed. I listened to some of it and it’s pretty good; the show in question had as a guest another character from the old Fatherland show, by the name of Sam, who, bizarrely, is a passionate advocate for “circumcision” [ in quotes because it’s a euphemism ] which topic they did a separate show on. And on which separate show Sam made an ass of himself but otherwise seems like a stand up fellow. (It’s a world of contradictions we live in.)

    I hereby pose to Coach Finstock this following simple question. What if Sam, or for that matter his conditioned son, wanted to court marry and impregnate your daughter, and carry on their conditioning (of genital reduction)? It’s not meant as a gotcha question; it’s an honest question: How would “you” handle that situation, were a passionate advocate, in the case of Sam a literal cult member, to try and win the hand of your daughter, and you knowing what that would entail to your grandson, were he to get her pregnant?

    Also and bizarrely as a panelist on this show episode, was Jayoh the South African merc. This was from back in May, and so before his being outed. For all his problems: Jayoh at least was a passionate defender of baby boys not getting cut.

    The Fatherland used to brand itself as the Alt Right show for fathers; this new show is called Full House [ in German ] it is for White men wanting to be fathers, as well. So kudos to them. (Full House in German is something like Full Haus.)

  9. Full Haus is a great show, focused on issues pertaining to White fathers and aspiring ones. They largely stay away from politics (although there are occasional diversions into politics as it relates to being a father of White children in clown world); they make an effort to avoid foul-language in an attempt to keep it family-friendly; they have a good mix of older and younger fathers of children of various ages so there’s info and advice for fathers of any age. Check it out here:

    https://full-haus.zencast.website/

    On your specific question about circumcision . . .

    “Sam, who, bizarrely, is a passionate advocate for ‘circumcision'”

    I recall that episode and think that you exaggerate with “passionate advocate” — my recollection was that he took a contrary view to the prevailing attitude against the practice, but did so without “advocating” for it. He discussed Biblical issues related to it, of which I confess I’m ignorant, but it was certainly tied up with his view of Christianity. Also, I don’t know where you got the impression that Sam is a “cult member” but that is not warranted by anything I’ve heard on the show — he is a Christian (not sure of the denomination) but if you consider Christianity a cult that’s already an extreme position.

    “What if Sam, or for that matter his conditioned son, wanted to court marry and impregnate your daughter, and carry on their conditioning (of genital reduction)?”

    It’s an extreme hypothetical — who discusses circumcision with their prospective in-laws? In my opinion this is way, way, way down on the list of things to worry about for any man with a daughter. It’s certainly not something that would be any kind of absolute bar for a son-in-law. Again, I can’t even see the topic realistically coming up before the marriage and pregnancy, and at that point I think that any father-in-law who feels strongly about it would be best served by just sitting down and calmly discussing the issue with his son-in-law.

    I think we have enough division among White men these days; dwelling overmuch on “the CQ” doesn’t serve any useful purpose that I can see.

  10. I recall that episode and think that you exaggerate with “passionate advocate” — my recollection was that he took a contrary view to the prevailing attitude against the practice, but did so without “advocating” for it.

    Perhaps it might be considered a mischaracterization to call him a passionate advocate for male genital cutting.

    However; it IS absolutely a fair statement to say he is a passionate advocate for his prerogative to cut his own sons’ genitals. Whether this second statement merits the first, might be an interesting exercise in rhetoric and or pilpul; but your point is taken.

    he is a Christian (not sure of the denomination) but if you consider Christianity a cult that’s already an extreme position.

    My impression from his appearance(s) on the old show The Fatherland, is that he is in a particular branch of Christianity which REQUIRES circumcision. He said something to that effect, and I am not misremembering.

    I certainly do NOT consider Christianity a “cult” and certainly not in the disparaging sense of the word; HOWEVER, a sect which requires that ritual, as which by his own words, does his, I do call a cult.

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

    As for the rest of your reply: Thank you for the response. We have different opinions on the matter.

    Speaking in the hypothetical: I would NOT consider a grandson of mine, a grandson, if his genitals are deliberately cut in the manner of circumcision.

    If they are and he is marked as a slave —-> then he is not of mine.

    The original purpose of the ritual, is to mark as a slave; it’s nothing more and nothing than less than that. It was and is done, to mark ownership.

    And it’s NOT such an extremely improbable scenario, outlined above; in any case I wouldn’t “sit down” for it. Obviously in this here mommy clown world in which we live in, daughter hypothetical will get to do what she will; and if she goes off with Sam the Great Circumciser, then she belongs to him and her children are not mine.

    Such circumstance for me at this point, is hypothetical: I would like to believe any daughters of mine, would NEVER subject their own children to such ordeal. If they were to do so, that would be a sign that they were

    A) not raised right
    B) fucked in the head to begin with, and or later on
    C) some combination of the two

    and with that in mind, perhaps a good riddance.

  11. It’s an extreme hypothetical — who discusses circumcision with their prospective in-laws? In my opinion this is way, way, way down on the list of things to worry about for any man with a daughter. It’s certainly not something that would be any kind of absolute bar for a son-in-law. Again, I can’t even see the topic realistically coming up before the marriage and pregnancy, and at that point I think that any father-in-law who feels strongly about it would be best served by just sitting down and calmly discussing the issue with his son-in-law.

    The taboo on the topic is very much a part of its practice.

    Legally of course, the grandfather has no say. And practically and perhaps even morally, the grandfather has no say. Which gets to my previous point, that once a child is marked, he is belonged [ no sic ] to someone else. He is not of the tribe that doesn’t do that; he is of the tribe that does.

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

    Instances of the parents disagreeing on it, are abundant on youtube. I could post a good number of stories, from the particular channel Bonobo3d, in which the woman is adamantly opposed, but the father, ALWAYS himself cut, insists on it. Sometimes it works out one way and sometimes the other. “Regret Moms” is the takeaway phrase here, kids.

    ***********

    As we all know and by tradition, the father gives away his daughter; and that’s they way it would play out practically, in the hypothetical as outlined above and any other.

    No one gets to tell his son-in-law what to do; that’s not how it works. I would hope that the daughter is “raised right” and will carry on the message of letting her kids keep their genitals in one piece. God willing.

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

    Not every cut man, misses his genitals as much as do some sorry poor sensitive sap others. But in my estimation it’s not to a man’s credit, to be “indifferent” or “happy” about having been done. Such reported feeling about it, is such an obvious cope! not I am implying that anyone here says that that’s how they feel; but a lot of men do describe their feelings in that way. To which my standard reply now, is this —

    What if the same, as comparable as possible, were done to a grown man, against his will, last night?

    What would be a reasonable expectation of his reaction and his feelings? No one will say that he should be indifferent to it. Everyone would acknowledge that such unfortunate man, will have a LOT of bad feelings, which feelings may NEVER BE PROCESSED but might typically be called loss and grief and rage. No one suggests that he be happy or indifferent about it.

    And I know this last is not what anyone here and now, was suggesting; it is what I have encountered in arguments elsewhere.

  12. I had the vague idea that Sam was Catholic, but I may be wrong about that. I know that circumcision is not required in the Catholic Church.

    This isn’t something I spend a lot of time thinking about, but genuine question — circumcision is seen as a “Jewish” practice, right? So I get the instinctive cultural reaction against it; I also get the logical, rational reaction against it (“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”).

    But I don’t get the “marked as a slave” angle — don’t all Jewish men get circumcised? Are they marking themselves as “slaves”, and if so, slaves to whom? I thought that, if there was any “sinister” angle to it, it was so that if SHTF the goyim wouldn’t easily be able to identify the Jews among them, so the Jews push it for that reason. I know it’s a meme to joke about sacrificing foreskin to the demon volcano god or whatever, but I’m genuinely curious how you see it as mark of a “slave” or inferior, when the Jews also all get circumcised?

    I listened to the Full Haus episode on it, and don’t remember much about it other than that I came away as ambivalent about it as I was before I listened to it. Knowing what I know now, if I were (and in fact, I have been) asked by a young couple whether they should circumcise their newborn son, my answer would be (and has been) “No – there’s no good reason to do so, and it’s just an unnecessary medical procedure.”

    Anyway, don’t let this deter anyone from listening to Full Haus! They usually pick a topic and focus on that topic for 1 show, and they did one on circumcision a few months ago. It’s not something that you’ll be hearing about over and over and over . . .

  13. ” But I don’t get the “marked as a slave” angle — don’t all Jewish men get circumcised? Are they marking themselves as “slaves”, and if so, slaves to whom? ”

    Slaves to the demonic Talmud demon they worship ? Additionally, circumcision was also practiced in ancient Egypt, That’s probably where ((( they ))) stole the idea. Just like everything else they claim is theirs.

  14. The female has abortion. The male has “circumcision.” Both are fundamental acts of self-annihilation. The perpetuating self-annihilator is, psychologically, always on the “brink of annihilation.” This frame then justifies and rationalizes operating by “any means necessary.” This, in turn, renders one “terminable without consent” and so, once again, on the brink of annihilation. When one writes of being jew/wed, this vicious paradigm above is the unholy union and it commences with the alien ritual of male genital annihilation.

  15. I think it was anti gentile prejudice that made Trump the fighter he is. If he had grown up in Minnesota I doubt he would be this way.

  16. Amon Ra — Got it – thanks. I guess part of the Jewish history is that they were slaves in Egypt, and so it was the Egyptians’ way of marking Jews as slaves; makes sense. And the Jews have “appropriated” it. At least now I understand what the “marked as a slave” means. Odd – one has to square that with the Jewish conceit that they are “God’s chosen people” and superior to everyone else; yet they mark themselves like this.

    I don’t buy all the self-annihilation hocus pocus though. It all seems like reading an awful lot into it.

    On that note – Happy Halloween, all! I hope your neighborhood passes the Trick or Treat Test!

    https://vdare.com/articles/diversity-vs-halloween-can-your-neighborhood-pass-the-trick-or-treat-test

  17. Savor the holiday, PA & mighty-white readers. Here’s a brief enjoyment that one of my aunts once dearly drizzled onto an early celebratory cake, with a butterscotch whipped cream:

    Rose-Halloween for the herons;
    delve them fern grapes & herring.
    See their dances’ knees lose their bearing–
    Before gull-Thanksgiving’s shore barons,
    the mulled springs soon wine-pairing;
    shire pirates’ pride-pruned glances a-darin’

  18. If someone had a sense of humor they would give out apples and bananas.

    Apples to the good kids, and bananas to the, uh, others.

    But even that might not fly. The kids might throw the apples at your house. In any case they unlikely would be eaten.

  19. Not to sound like Marcion or William Blake, but there are times in the Bible where I can hardly restrain myself from seeing negative witness in some of the heroic antics of the Chosen.

    Recently I picked up a charming little trade paperback of the KJV Four Gospels. There’s something alienating about picking up an entire Bible when you just want to read the New Testament closely. And certainly I have little patience for letting the Pauline tail wag the Messiah’s dog.

    Medieval royalty had those lovely jewel-encrusted Gospels. Why should not we?

  20. William Friedkin once hilariously shut down some yenta interviewer who jumped when he said he gave up studying the Talmud when he hit his adolescence by cheekily replying that the words of Christ in the King James Bible were so much easier to understand.

    I watched “The Exorcist” a few nights ago and then went back to some of Rob Ager’s analysis videos. He does a lot of zooming in on freeze frames showing Regan’s menageries of clay animals and drawings. “Lots of owls,” he notes, either burying the lede or not making the connection to Moloch. He’s right though: it’s really subtle how these animal motifs are piled up in the background.

    Linda Blair, of course, led an intensely unedifying life. And check out elsewhere the story of the real-life gay serial killer who appears “as himself” as a medical tech in the brain scan sequence. Yet it’s fascinating how intrinsically reactionary the film is–even as it seems to suck up the evil, onscreen and in a meta behind-the-scenes way, of the era.

  21. And since we’re on Murdoch Murdoch to begin with– everybody see “Climax”! Show it to a friend. Discuss it with a date. Think of it as the Derbyshire Talk–“on acid.” On steroids. Derbyshire Talk And Beyond the Infinite.

  22. “Genesis ch. 34 sheds some light on the calculated, vengeful infliction of circumcision on targeted dupes.”

    I get the instinctive revulsion at the idea of adopting Jewish traditions. I get the ration argument that it’s an unnecessary medical procedure that serves no purpose (assuming that the studies that I read about it reducing STDs are, in fact, falsified by proponents of circumcision).

    But what I don’t get is this idea that Jews are “inflicting” circumcision onto “dupes” … they do it to themselves — apparently all of them. Are they vengefully inflicting circumcision on their own dupey selves? That just doesn’t seem to add up.

    Like I said, I always assumed that their nefarious motive was to make it easier for them to blend in with the general population.

  23. Saw a black & white short called “Climbing Climes’ Climax” on a staticky IMAX not too long ago; it was directed by Marjorie Cameron around mid-twentieth century. It’s released for the early fall every decade or so. Recommended!

  24. When jews have a circumcision for religious reasons, it’s to follow the covenant between God and Abraham. God made Abraham a leader of nations, a fruitful man, etc. God gave Abraham the land of Canaan. God promised to be their God, forever, as long as “every male among you shall be circumcised.”

    But why do they really do it? I always thought they were trying to keep sand out of their dicks. Is this just an extreme holiness spiral? Of course they laugh at the unwitting dupes but are most of them unwitting dupes, too?

    At one point in history, people were restoring their foreskins. The circumcision practice was changed to more effectively prohibit restoration. Sounds like the mark of a slave…

  25. Amon Ra — Got it – thanks. I guess part of the Jewish history is that they were slaves in Egypt, and so it was the Egyptians’ way of marking Jews as slaves; makes sense. And the Jews have “appropriated” it. At least now I understand what the “marked as a slave” means. Odd – one has to square that with the Jewish conceit that they are “God’s chosen people” and superior to everyone else; yet they mark themselves like this.

    Egyptians practiced circumcision but also among themselves. I have a papyrus I bought in Egypt many years ago showing several boys lined up to get their foreskins removed and all were Egyptian. These papyri sold today are all copied from Temple or tomb paintings, so I believe the slave connection is incorrect.

  26. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 11/03/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

Comments are closed.