This is a collection of quotes from Jim’s blog, some from the proprietor and some from commenters there. I started to assemble this list from miscellaneous notes I had when his blog went down near the end of 2020. The blog is now back up at a new base url, blog.reaction.la rather than blog.jim.com. However, pasting an old url into the url window prompts an automatic re-direct, so the links below still work if you want to follow up by visiting the indicated pages.
These are listed in no particular order.
(1) The phrase “social technology.”
Certain laws and customs regarding marriage, for example. This is one of those phrases that just clicks when you first encounter it and makes you wonder why someone else didn’t coin it a long time ago.
(2) As anyone can see, leftism is simply the craving for power, which is why leftists 100 years ago were fanatically communist, leftists 30 years ago were fanatically environmentalist, and CURRENT YEAR leftists are fanatically white-hating. Jim in his comments at https://blog.jim.com/war/creeping-coup/
Leftism has no essence, no defining doctrine, no fixed character other than heading off to whichever apple carts look vulnerable and have nice apples on them… It is a tactic and coalition, not a doctrine. If you pay attention to doctrine, program, and platform, you are listening to the magician’s patter instead of watching the magician’s off hand. The doctrines change too fast. If you pay attention to them you are being distracted by deliberate misdirection.
A few months later at https://blog.jim.com/culture/status-and-violence/#comments, comenter Pseudo-chrysostom had a good description of core aspects of leftism:
Leftism is not any one particular set of precepts, notions, goals, objectives … or demands. People who you could call leftist can call and have called for many different things at many different times; including things in one time that contradict things in other times. It is not a ‘checklist’, but a strategy; or more than that, an attitude. The consistency is never in the ideas, but in the targets. … Whenever that attitude pays, naturally there will be incentive to indulge in it, some kinds more prone than others… so, if you desire nice things, good things, great things… you make sure it [leftism] doesn’t pay. (And make sure such sorts of kinds don’t win the ‘continued existence’ sweepstakes.)
“Disputes over sovereign authority inherently escalate until resolved.”
Plainly, seriously disputed sovereignty is not an equilibrium situation.
“The red pill is the alt right’s killer app.”
There’s a lot to unpack there. Try this comment by Peppermint at http://blog.jim.com/war/trump-probably-on-track/#comments
In order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should… The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.
(5) And a related point, from Jim’s comment at https://blog.jim.com/politics/marxism/, 2019-01-02 at 21:44:
[Women’s] perception of alpha is more primitive, cruel, uncivilized, and antisocial than that of men. Heartiste regularly gives us examples of alpha as women perceive alpha… We need to create a society that aligns female perception of alpha with the actual male hierarchy and with civilization, and such a society will necessarily resemble a savage society in the sense that a garden resembles a wilderness. For women to want to sleep with the man they should sleep with, the man they should sleep with needs to be able to kill adulterers and bastards. We cannot impose rules for prosocial behavior on high status males that run too far contrary to the primitive desires of women.
To put it another way, to preserve civilization we have to bend— return— norms of male behavior in the direction of what makes a man desirable to women. We don’t want to go all the way to that, Lord no! But we must use it in designing society.
(Yeah, talking about “designing society” is simplification and Overlord LARPing, but that’s the idea.)
In a similar vein, Jim at https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-three-magic-words/:
Alpha as women understand alpha is not capable of working together with other men. Women cannot do large group socialization.
So males have to present one social reality to women, and a different social reality to each other.
(6) At https://blog.jim.com/war/the-reactionary-program/, Art says,
“Personal trust and caring relationships do not scale.”
He wasn’t talking about immigration, but it certainly applies to that. The politics of immigration is largely, “We must admit those poooor, suffering refugees!” This hijacks sentiments evolved for dealing with people who had some genetic relationship to you, or were at least not actively hostile to you, and uses those sentiments to induce you to admit unfriendly foreigners within your walls.
(7) Jim in the comments at https://blog.jim.com/politics/michael-knowles-at-ukmc/#comments
“I know that I am conscious. And when I get into a disagreement with a snake or with tree ants on my property, they compellingly persuade me that they are conscious also. In a conflict, you are forced to model your opponent, and modeling a living opponent as a video game ai opponent does not work too well.”
I don’t agree about ants in particular, but that’s not relevant for the broader point, which is about consciousness and (if you think about it) about the evolution of certain features of evolved human intelligence like the tendency to attribute intentions to things we interact with.
This insight also has SERIOUS implications for dealing with women. Once I did something that scared the crap out of a woman. She treated me much more nicely after that. Why? Two reasons, actually:
The obvious reason is that I’d scared her.
The less obvious reason is that…
(a) Because I’d scared her, she had to think about how I’d react to her behavior in the future. She didn’t want to piss me off again.
(b) But thinking about how I’d react to her behavior requires her to model my internal states (thoughts, emotions).
(c) But the very fact of modeling my internal states means treating me as a person, as an agent with thoughts, emotions, etc. Women do not think of men this way by default.
That they don’t is obvious from experience with women, as well as from e.g. Cosmopolitan that articles that reveal, in breathless tones, that your man actually has emotions. Seriously, you’ll be flipping through a Cosmo article that a college woman friend has, and there’ll be a lightning strike of a revelation like, “If you cheat on your boyfriend, he’ll feel humiliated and angry.” What a stunning insight! Yet women, or a significant chunk of them anyway, receive this kind of information as a revelation. I think that by default they basically perceive men as robots. They have to be shocked into seeing you as an actual person.
(8) Jimbo in the comments at https://blog.jim.com/war/creeping-coup/
The only possible response to weaponized holiness is not to say “misguided and impractical virtue and goodness”, but to denounce their beliefs as evil, self serving, and demonic, and attribute to them the intention to do what most holiness spiraling movements wind up doing: Mass murder and mass destruction. Any attempt to ally with a holiness spiraled movement always winds up as a one way alliance, because they view you as evil, and a tool to be used and then destroyed. A holiness spiraling faction always assimilates or destroys its allies, and frequently both. That is inherent in the nature of weaponized moral superiority.
(9) At https://blog.jim.com/war/the-reactionary-program/, Jim’s comment at 2019-03-16 at 20:15 emphasizes the point that we don’t move left forever, despite the “Cthulhu only swims left” meme. (Or to put it another way, maybe he does only swim left, but he’s not always in power.) An excerpt from his comment:
No, we have not always been moving left. It does not go all the way back.
We have been getting lefter for a very long time, but if you go back far enough, to the British civil war and the French revolution, you see today’s leftists all over again.
As Kipling’s poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” tells us, leftism expires over and over again in terror and slaughter, and the Gods of the Copybook headings return, over and over again.
Leftism destroys itself, there’s a counterrevolution of sanity, then leftism starts up again. The dynamics are basically long steady movement left, then when it gets ultra-extreme it’s destroyed, whether through its own unworkability or a civil war. Then, the human race refusing to learn, it starts up again. Another relevant Jim quote: “Trees don’t grow forever, but they do grow until they fall over.”
(10) Some sexual evo psych at https://blog.jim.com/science/natural-selection-is-reactionary/#comments
See Walter Brown’s comments at 2019-02-12 at 09:09 and 2019-02-12 at 09:39
From Brown’s first comment:
We would expect sexuality to be oriented around successful reproduction.
It looks like the man with the most children is Genghis Khan or Ismail Ibn Sharif, who essentially had harems. And all the super-successful men listed all seem to follow that pattern, except for a few sperm donors. Obviously sperm donors wouldn’t have existed in the ancestral environment.
And all those guys who were wealthy and powerful enough to have harems, probably also ensured their sons married well. Ismail Ibn Sharif’s sons probably often had several wives apiece, meaning that if he had 700 sons and 500ish daughters, he easily could have had 20,000 grandchildren. Same for Genghis Khan.
So we would expect men to want harems. Not that men can’t reproduce monogamously, but if you give a man sexual options (e.g. he’s rich, or famous), expect him to build a harem.
From Brown’s second comment (in WordPress’s fuckwitted interface it’s too much of a PITA to put the whole thing in bold):
Continuing this logic, the woman with the most children is Mrs. Feodor Vassilyev. She was just a peasant woman with a tendency to have twins/triplets/etc). Or, if we don’t believe her, some similar story. The women with the most children are mostly peasants, who got pregnant a lot, and had a lot of twins.
However, she had 67 children, and those children were probably not reproductively successful themselves. They likely had compromised health (67 kids is hard on the mother, and on the kids), and a peasant family with 67 kids isn’t going to be able to have money for a dowry, or to help their son build a career. She probably only had 100 grandkids.
Actually, the most reproductively successful woman was probably Hoelun, the mother of Genghis Khan. She gave Genghis half her DNA, and thus got half of his success. If he had 1,000 children, she had significantly more than 1,000 grandchildren. (Genghis Khan had three brothers, who had kids, too)
Essentially, the way for a woman to reproduce at a fantastic rate, is for her to ensure that her sons all have harems.
In other words, I would expect women to want a monogamous marriage, with a fantastically wealthy and high-status husband. The kind of man whose sons will each have a bunch of wives and concubines.
And by “monogamous”, I mean that her husband’s resources will go entirely to her children. In principle, this doesn’t necessarily imply sexual monogamy. Roman monogamy, essentially. Where you can screw as many women as you like, but you can only marry one.
This logic probably holds in Afghanistan, too. A rich man, who only has one wife, is probably going to make her fantastically reproductively successful. She’s going to have 7 kids, and all her sons are probably going to have four wives. She’ll probably have over 100 grandchildren.
…I would expect women to want a version of Genghis Khan that wants to be dedicated to her, and her children.
And Steve Johnson responded to Brown with,
[Women] would be best served by trying to birth Genghis Khan but they have bad mental algorithms for finding him – more accurately they have good mental algorithms for finding him under the historical constraints that they were under but those algorithms fail badly in the modern environment.
Related: Commenter Motet at https://blog.reaction.la/culture/the-trouble-with-rotherham/:
“All religion is a conspiracy by men and their grandmothers to impose a more civilized mating pattern onto their daughters and wives.”
(11) I don’t agree with this community’s views on everything. For example, the discussion at https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/praise-the-holy-starprophet/#comments illustrates one of the problems with the “Jimian” worldview: Its view of status is one-dimensional, whereas in reality status is multi-dimensional. The Jimian view of status is that it’s all a question of who can commit violence against whom with impunity. In reality that’s only one dimension of a thing that has like six or seven dimensions.
The other mistake is that it’s way too dark, too black-pilled. When thugs beat up innocent people, the vast majority of people who witness this are outraged at the assailant and seethe to see him punished. They don’t suddenly want to be on the assailant’s side because he’s “the strong horse.” Indeed, the “civil rights” movement of the 1960s won largely by showing blacks being attacked by white police on TV, thus generating sympathy for the blacks. The sympathy went to the victims, not the assailants.
(12) More evo psych: At https://blog.jim.com/war/the-final-election/ is a comment which is otherwise not very impressive, yet contains this nova of an insight:
“Osama Bin Laden’s 50 siblings, which enabled him to take such risks and yet not have his entire lineage destroyed.”
Wow. Can’t believe this isn’t a more widely-mentioned point. If I have 50 siblings and I die in a risky venture, veritably 100% of my genes are veritably guaranteed to be passed on anyway. That could be really important from an evo psych point of view.
Math: If I have one sibling the percent of my genes that aren’t instantiated in my sibling is 1/2 (statistically). If I have two siblings the percent of my genes that aren’t instantiated in my siblings is 1/4. In general, if have n siblings, the percent of my genes that aren’t instantiated in my siblings is 1/(2^n). So if I have 50 siblings, the percent of my genes that aren’t instantiated in my siblings is 1/(2^50) = 1/(1.1 quadrillion).
Given that genes are a discrete set (i.e. not continuously subdivisible), it’s really exactly zero. That is, all of my genes are copied in my siblings.
(13) Aidan MacLear notes, https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-logos-has-risen/
As a front the Left is powerful, but it is made up of inferior specimens.
In general that’s a good comment by MacLear:
“The most effective insults against leftism aren’t pointing out the difference between their beliefs and reality. It’s direct mockery of their status, outing them as ineffectual losers. As a front the Left is powerful, but it is made up of inferior specimens.
It’s mocking Bezos for being rich and powerful but still thirsting over ugly old divorcees.
It’s mocking the catlady for dying childless…
It’s mocking the numale [from “new male,” presumably] for never getting a scrap of pussy because of his enlightened soy-based masculinity.”
(14) Peppermint in the comments at https://blog.jim.com/culture/fixing-or-replacing-christianity/, April 2018:
“The most significant thing to have happened recently is that there are no intelligent well-intentioned leftists under 40, and no intelligent White leftists under 30. The priesthood has forsaken the intelligentsia, which is now the alt-right.”
(15) A good comment on holiness spirals by Pseudo-chrysostom (again, not bothering with bolding) at
The phrase ‘surely they’ve gone far enough’ implies a degree of conscious rectitude, which only applies to persons of honor and loyalty who are earnest in their workings towards a clearly defined objective.
It doesn’t apply to people caught in the grip of a left singularity; they can’t stop even if they wanted too…
There is no such thing, in fact, as a ‘set doctrine’ in such a body; it is ever shifting, as each individual player must keep running to stay the same place in the status hierarchy. Yesterday’s [left-wing] avant-garde is today’s [right-wing] heresy. If they are not amongst the first ones to champion the ‘next step’ down the line, they risk peril at the hands of those who do. Either you do the backstabbing, or find yourself getting backstabbed.
It is the act of defection, the change itself, that is the essential consistency of the dynamic. The spiraling process must keep finding new positions to jump too, regardless of rhyme or reason, or else the whole dynamic collapses; the same way a shark must keep swimming, or else it drowns.