Common sense is unfortunately a rare commodity in clown world, and it’s becoming rarer as the very people who are supposed to be the voice of Reason in the vast nuthouse North America has become sometimes seem bent on proving that they can be even dumber than Leftists when they really feel like it. Super-smart and diligent people on the so-called “Right” can descend to subterranean depths of stupidity far lower than that of merely dumb and feckless people, because smart and diligent people are willing to really work for it and have the brain-power it takes to bring forth brilliantly idiotic fruits from their efforts. They take things that, for the merely dumb and feckless, would be so much idle trash-talk and develop it into nothing less than a formal philosophical system, drawing out all the logical implications of the shit-axioms with full Scholastic rigour in a way that the average beer-addled hockey fan or whatever would lack the wherewithal or desire to prosecute.  And where the average drunken hockey fan would still have enough basic class and sense not to talk this way when there are women and kids and/or respectable and serious people around, the Scholastics of shit of course post the results of their shit-disputations on the Internet where everybody can see it and get a good whiff of the aroma.

The so-called Rightists then indignantly complain about being subject to censorship and generally regarded as leprous Dalits on pig steroids by the common man, the very people Reactionaries are supposed to be the champion of. The Reactionaries have obviously been put on this green Earth by Providence for the purpose of using their rare gifts to say the things the common man intuits in his heart but isn’t smart or bold enough to say explicitly- in other words, to pronounce the Law, one of the very highest of human callings (even if you have to follow this calling in near-total obscurity in the dissident underground).  But here are a few examples of what the jurisprudents sometimes pronounce instead. Concerning the correct disposition of illegitimate children, they determine that:

Letting bastards live incentivizes female hypergamy.


[B]astards are not wives and children of the ingroup, nor are they an outgroup that we might get into war with, nor do they have an outroup sovereign that our ingroup sovereign needs to keep the peace with. So, should not be the sovereign’s problem or his business.

And if he makes it his problem, he is undermining the property rights of his warriors and his taxpayers in their wives and their children, pretty much as he does if he sleeps with the wives of aristocrats, which is a notorious cause of the fall of Kings.

It keeps going like that. This position is formally grounded on the following argument from Natural law: Cats when taking a new queen will kill existing kittens sired by other cats. Since cats do it this way, it follows that you should too.

How I wish I were making any of this up. You can’t make this stuff up. Well actually you can, but only if you mean it, or at least say it as if you mean it, and moreover say it over and over again in public as though some impelled by some sort of uncontrollable tic- Tourette’s syndrome, perhaps- all the while affecting aristocratic aspirations while neglecting that an aristocrat never says everything he thinks.

Here are a few rejoinders to this jurisprudence which agree with both formal deontology and common sense:

  1. Cats also lick their own ass and drink from the toilet bowl. This probably isn’t a great idea for the human being which unlike the cat is defined in his species being by various purity taboos. (Every reasonable man agrees that the person who licks around his own ass and drinks from the toilet has degenerated to a subhuman level).
  2. The reason people have taboos is that unlike cats they live in big and complex social groups and utterly depend upon them for their survival. Aside from purity one of the taboos that makes this group life possible is the one on murder, especially when it comes to little kids. Proof from universal human Nature: the most depraved killers and gangsters locked up behind bars nonetheless acknowledge that hurting a little kid is one of the worst things a human being can do. In fact, child killers and molesters occupy the lowest social status in the world of jail; these Dalits of the Dalits are often deemed fair game for any young buck to stab to death in order to impress some gang he wants to join.
  3. It follows that cats and men aren’t the same animal, and the law of the cat isn’t necessarily lawful for Man.
  4. If your wife has in fact borne you a bastard through adultery, by murdering him you announce your disgrace to the world where there would otherwise have been a presumption of paternity in your favour, and add the appellation of cuckold to your public infamy. The course of action is perfectly self-defeating and thus perfectly irrational.
  5. Don’t know about cats, but authority between men works in such a way that the Sovereign’s power and prestige increase as a function of the number of people under his protection. This means that there’s a pretty good chance that the Sovereign or ruling body is going to take a very dim view of your decision to make like a cat and kill the kids of the THOT you’re foolish enough to get seriously involved with (as though the presence of these brats is the only baggage that comes with used/damaged goods, but this is a digression). It is additionally likely that you won’t be able to enter the argument from cats as a defense at your criminal trial, or rationally persuade the Sovereign to forfeit his hard-won rights on those grounds. (It will turn out that he’s every bit as fond of his patrimonial rights as you are of yours- but he has a lot more firepower).

There are, to be sure, extremely important and urgent things to argue about when it comes to the last point, namely defining, in a rigorous and convincing way, the proper jurisdiction and boundaries of the big household of the Sovereign as opposed to the little household of the legally free family man. But the legitimacy of killing an illegitimate child isn’t one of them- and in any case the right or duty to kill a person because he lacks full civil status, as bastards often do, cannot possibly devolve onto private persons in highly urbanized societies with market economies, which must, and in practice always do, reserve the right to kill to the State except in cases of immediate self-defense of life or property. (Sure, your Roman patriarch could lawfully cause the death of any of his children- but this same gentleman as a corollary can’t sell or transfer his own property without a fictive adoption, which would cramp the capitalist style in a fatal way).

Moreover, the argument in favour of the legitimacy of killing the illegitimate at will evidently isn’t even a serious argument to begin with:

Impressing girls is potentially dangerous. I take the appearance of considerable risks often, and sometimes real risks.

However, fortunately girls don’t really want what impresses men, confrontations between alpha male and alpha male. That would indeed be dangerous.

The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him kill her kittens.

Male understanding of alpha is exemplified by cowboy movies. Girls do not watch cowboy movies.

Heartiste regularly gives us examples of alpha as women perceive alpha.

So there you have it. It’s all part of some cheap tough-guy act designed to impress girls without incurring the risk of getting into a fight with the tough guys. Mind you, putting on tough guy acts to impress girls is a Natural, necessary, and perfectly healthy thing to do and every heterosexual guy has done it without exception. But why oh why does it have to get to mixed up with serious discourse and broadcast to the world right along with the serious stuff, the important stuff, the stuff on which the revival of true civilization depends. Reactionaries should be the very ones speaking out against the post-modernist vice of blurring the distinction between the frivolous and serious in law, morality, and politics- one of the very worst vices of the present pigsty of a social order North America has become and one that menaces it at an existential level in a much more immediate way than uncontrolled migration or debased currency or the other things people usually worry about. The University has long since been ruined by this sort of thing, and the State itself rapidly following in the University’s footsteps, with results that are abundantly and alarmingly evident.

By sinking to this level, dissidents unintentionally self-fulfill the see-I-told-you-so social prophecy that goes hand-in-hand with their marginalized social status, namely by proving that they are unfit to come anywhere  near the reins of power, and that their ideas deserve to be censored more vigilantly than they are already. They should instead strive to keep their dignity in the face of their social dishabilitation and take themselves seriously- for if you don’t take yourself seriously then nobody else will. “But nobody reads it anyways”, you might say. Actually, they do- and if they don’t, why even bother at all?





20 thoughts on “Reaction and Trash Talk.

  1. >They should instead strive to keep their dignity in the face of their social dishabilitation and take themselves seriously

    Lol. Bronze Age Pervert the Dionysian shitposter is a more serious reactionary than you


  2. The killing of minimal-value children, including one’s own, has been standard practice up until recent times. E.g., in Russia they used gather orphans on boats, set sail, then drown the boats with the orphans. The Bible explicitly legalizes the killing of one’s own misbehaved son, and killing children (at least male children) belonging to other tribes during wartime is certainly condoned.

    It’s also ironic that you use prison-morality to justify a blanket prohibition against bastardicide; jailbirds are not exactly “teachers of the law.” In fact chivalric so-called virtues have always been used as a pretext to gang up on men who do the right thing.

    Look, you may be correct that some commenters over there are a bit “tone deaf” and come across as psychopathic. But the content of their words is right. There is no reason why age should grant one immunity from physical removal; moreover, privileging the young above the old is especially weird and derives from toxic Enlightenment ideology. In fact, killing children should be a far less serious crime than killing adults; saying otherwise indicates that one possesses a feminine-typical sort of thinking, not a logical-masculine one.

    “Think of the children!” is the morality of priests concerned with holiness, not warriors concerned with functionality.


    1. People do all sorts of things they shouldn’t. Russians also banned private property which was likewise depraved and insane. That you shouldn’t kill women and kids is a precept imparted me not from priests or women but from warriors who, shall we say, don’t think very highly of killing kids even though they may have been willing to do it themselves in certain circumstances. (Jailbirds also have this mentality because they are influenced by the values of martial Maennerbunden that many of them are exposed to in the military and/or gangs and motorcycle clubs and so on). In any case, a Reactionary is supposed to be a guy who can pronounce the difference between right and wrong on formal logical grounds- an activity utterly foreign to the nature of woman and one that women tend to be accordingly uninterested in. I don’t think *anybody* deserves to be killed unless they’ve done something to have it coming to them, which by no means implies that anybody in particular is always immune from physical removal; I am personally in favour of all sorts of life sentences and capital punishments for various crimes, and indeed nuking entire countries if politically organized as democracies and it can be reasonably presumed that every man woman and for that matter child in the country is part of the National war effort. Best way to identify and get rid of truly useless people is to punish the anti-social acts truly useless people invariably engage in.


      1. Protecting women *as women* and protecting children *as children* is a new, modern, Satanic inversion of traditional morality.

        Nowhere in the ancient world do you find these post-Enlightenment, Anglosphere-originated ideas. You only protect women and children that either personally belong to you, or at least to the clan of which you’re a member. All others are fair game, the women generally being married-by-abduction, or made into maids and concubines; the males enslaved or exterminated.

        In general, the punishment for killing maids has always been quite milder than the punishment for killing male servants (see, another Russian example, the vyra fee; this is prior to Communism, of course, as was the previous example), indicating that white knight chivalry has not been the norm throughout most of history.

        Special protections for “children” as a class, as a category, are altogether new and derive from post-Enlightenment Romanticism; before the Enlightenment, people did not much think of “children” as such, and there was little legislation formal or otherwise concerning kids.

        What Jim said about drowning bastards is shocking to modern ears, but the problem is not Jim – the problem is modern sentiments. A bit of desensitization is required here.


      2. Yes the specifically modern thing about women and children based on implicit or explicit assumption that women and children are morally privileged victims of evil patriarch who has a duty to indulge their every whim while he is mocked and reduced to servitude is a very pernicious and Satanic thing. However it needs to be distinguished from much older martial cult of chivalry which taught that a warrior should refrain from killing women, kids, and anyone except enemy warriors and heretics, and that a warrior should aspire to be a protector of the weak, which makes sense since after all he’s supposed to be a ruler not just a mere soldier. I don’t in any case see how it follows from anything you cite that you should drown kids from some ho’s previous man and even if it were true why do people have to say it when there are any number of more pressing concerns to Reaction than what you do with a bastard which, as I keep trying to tell Jim, is 100% up to the Sovereign, with or without the advice of his priests.

        Talking about drowning people (man woman or child) who didn’t do anything to deserve it isn’t going to desensitize anybody- but it *will* cause many to say that dissidents are either morally deranged or just LARPers looking for cheap shock value and conclude that Liberalism is the best and most sensible form of government after all, even I started thinking this for a few seconds while reading that awful thread.


      3. Careful now, the code of chivalry that is talked about in popular culture and taught to you in schools, the one of the High Middle Ages, lended itself to feminism through the invention of what eventually became the concept of “romantic love”. You have to be referring to the *correct* code of chivalry here, the one that created romantic love is potentially dangerous.


      4. Good point there Mike, I meant the one that aimed to keep warfare confined to members of the warrior class, which was beneficial in that it draws a clear line between those destined to rule i.e. warriors and those destined to be ruled i.e. women, children and men not eligible to bear arms. Also the idea that warriors should protect the weak helps warriors to think of themselves as members of a governing class, rulers in their own right not just pure enforcement muscle of rulers like today.


  3. Nah people be reading; as the failure of old religion becomes more apparent, people are looking for a new religion and ours is looking pretty good.

    I take issue with point 4. To kill your bastard spawn is the opposite of announcing cuckoldry; it is announcing you refuse to be cuckolded.

    Men have no balls left; nowadays they are even cuckolded by cats. Cats! I have told my woman that if she brings a cat in the house without my permission, I will drown the cat.

    In order to regain balls, need to encourage having balls: say no to the cuck, and if it happens anyway, better set it right late than never.

    Naturally, you are similarly free to accept your fate as a cuck. But then that’s exactly what you’ll be known as.


    1. The thing about point four is that the whole world will be made aware that were you were cucked during media coverage of your criminal trial following which you’ll additionally be made a slave of the State for 25 or more years with a good chance that you’ll end up the slave of one of the gangs in there. There is no honour in any of that! The Liberal justice system has been meticulously designed to make vendettas of honour have consequences that are much more shameful for the man of honour than pretending nothing happened and thus defeats manly honour on its own grounds in a diabolically ingenious way.


      1. Well yes which is why we want to bulldozer the universities, replace the media and decriminalize such laws. Which, admittedly, is ambitious and far fetched, but that’s the plan.


  4. As I posted in the thread however (and I would like to think I was less hardline than many of the others during this debate):

    “I don’t know exactly where I stand on the “final solution to the bastard question” (hehe) but I will say this obvious fact; there was, up until very recently, numerous restrictions and taboos surrounding bastards. In fact, I think at one point, probably a good while ago now, the Catholic Church wouldn’t baptize a bastard child (don’t quote on me on that, but I think so).
    So the point isn’t that we are burning 6 gorillion bastards, the point is that we have tons of evidence that people, not long ago, treated bastards in a way that was much like the way we might treat someone who is “racist” today. And so this is good evidence that we should not be overly merciful towards bastards.” -From Jim’s Blog, Marxism.

    It may be the ramblings of the insane to say that bastards should be thrown into the gas chamber, but it is not insane to say that bastards up until the last 50-100 years were regarded as social outcasts and that this social stigma then made them prone to being born into bad circumstances and dying young. Bastards could not inherit various pieces of property or titles, they were not regarded as proper members of the family (often being cast out of said family), they were not regarded as “wards of the state” as they are today, and the Catholic Church refused to ordain them (

    You may say that all the people in that thread were being autistic and sounded like the Nazis when they euthanized the disabled, but it would be just as autistic to say that our ancestors did not discriminate against bastards or their family, to say that bastards did not die young more often or commit crimes more often, or to say that allowing “free” bastardy has nothing to do with feminism and the crisis of the modern family.

    Note: Point Two about bastardy life expectancy/criminality might not be as relevant nowadays due to massive state welfare programs and the abolishment of the social taboo surrounding it, but this then causes problems that lead directly into Point Three. Also I might be wrong about Point Two anyhow, black America has tons of bastards and their society is a shitshow.


    1. I mentioned in passing that bastards in the past have indeed faced serious civil disabilities. It indeed may have been, as with homeless people today, easier to get away with killing them, but I doubt that it was ever actually legal to kill them anywhere in the West in the last 1,000 years or so (and would be very interested to learn if I’m wrong here, but until then don’t think the loss of civil status was on a par with fully-fledged outlawry where you really could kill for any reason).


      1. Well to be honest with you, I think the notion of “murdering” the bastards, is, in this debate, mostly used as a hypothetical. Ie, the point of what Jim and the rest of us autists were saying was, since bastards (rightly so) were stigmatized, they were typically born into dysfunctional situations. These dysfunctional situations then led to the bastards dying young (due to crime, lack of care etc).

        So the bastards were being “murdered” in the sense that their social situation led to them being more prone to death, and due to their social situation, people did not overly look into the circumstances surrounding those deaths.


  5. > So there you have it. It’s all part of some cheap tough-guy act designed to impress girls without incurring the risk of getting into a fight with the tough guys

    Of course it is – as I have said on my blog with great regularity.

    Civilization is extended large scale cooperation. Men have been under strong selective pressure to be capable of extended large scale cooperation. Women have not. They are naturally feral animals. Societies with well behaved women employed drastic and extreme measures to make them well behaved – among those measures being a very low survival rate for bastards.

    Female perception of alpha has not changed significantly since we looked like gorillas. Male perception has changed.

    So, just as you need a garden that simulates our ancient savanna, you have to emulate alpha as women understand alpha.

    As an individual, you have to act the bad boy.

    As a civilization, you have to make status in the male hierarchy looks to the womenfolk like status in the jungle where we dwelt before we dwelt in the Savannah.

    And if the Sovereign protects bastards and adulterers from husbands, he emasculates them in the eyes of their women, denying them families and children. This results in dysgenic fertility, as real bad boys outreproduce members of the real elite, and as the real elite fail to reproduce.


    1. It is indeed an extremely serious problem and a failure mode of Sovereignty when, as in our societies, the State usurps *all* authority including that of a man over his own household, and in the interest of protecting the weak emasculates men and reduces them to a position that suspiciously and strongly resembles slavery while continuing to insist that they’re legally free citizens. Thinking about this question was originally one of the things that motivated me to start this blog to begin with. I would be in favour of enacting strong version of defense of provocation in which if a guy catches his wife and her lover in the act in his home, then whatever he does right then and there is excused or punished only very minimally if it can be established that he’s telling the truth about what happened by such means as the State deems appropriate. Adultery should be a criminal offense. It should also be possible for men to have a personal hand in avenging themselves but the only way I can see this working is if it’s done on a consensual basis within the world of warriors: the guy who has been wronged demands satisfaction and the accused voluntarily accepts the challenge, no women or kids or peaceful civilians *ever* involved, everything carried out where neither the State nor anybody not directly involved sees it or finds out about it.


  6. > What Jim said about drowning bastards is shocking to modern ears,

    Less shocking than you think. People think that they should be shocked, think they will be shocked, and yet they are not shocked.

    Repeating the story again: At a pool party, the wife of Mr BetaBucks tells him to look after two small demonspawn. He is by far the most handsome man at the party, not the wealthiest man, but fairly wealthy, and the second smartest man at the party, the rest of the party being mostly normies.

    He is also a very nice man. And did I mention his wife has two small demonspawn?

    Predictably, he neglects to look after the demonspawn, who get into trouble. His wife berates him, and I say to him and all around, that if my wife had two children that were not my own, I would drown them in a sack, and have her give me two of my own. The reaction to me, as to Trump, was more relief than horror.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. > At a party it’s witticism.

    They chose, nervously, to treat it as a witticism, hah hah, but since I was in my cool-to-chicks persona, it was absolutely plausible that I meant it completely seriously.

    As, in fact, I did. That girl was ungrateful for the immense sacrifice her husband was making.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s