Jim’s Blog: Bastion of Pedophilia Normalization

http://www.renegadetribune.com/jims-blog-bastion-pedophilia-normalization/

 

An unrepentant, determined pedophilia-apologist has been running loose for over two decades, shielded from having to face the spotlight. Under the guise of “free speech”, he has been peddling — seeking to normalize — the vilest, most sickening form of cruelty: child-rape. What kind of man (surely, it must be noted here, not really much of a “man”) could advocate for harming, traumatizing beyond recuperation, the most vulnerable members of our society? The answer is: a man of Jim’s kind. James A. Donald, for those vouchsafed unfamiliarity with the creature, is in it for the long run. Already noted in an article for the Renegade Tribune for being, indeed, a vile pedophile, Jim’s vigorous, obsessive apologia for his own predatory monstrosity spans all the way back to the earliest days of the internet.

Jim's blog

A tiny grain of his creepy crop has been documented over six pages in here. This article, however, will serve merely as a compilation of Jim’s most recent pronouncements on the heart-rending subject. It is not known, and probably all for the better, just how deep does the rabbit hole go. All over his rather obscure blog, which has gained some degree of notoriety among the saner minds who have been unfortunate enough to encounter it, are interspersed virulent abscesses of, not merely advocacy pieces for child-rape, but also direct admissions of engagement in it. As will be clearly shown below, this is not an exaggeration – far from it! But first, some minimal background is indispensable.

James Donald, writing under his real name unperturbed for as long as anyone can remember, is one of the principal founders of the aptly-named “Dark Enlightenment”. An ardent Zionist, “pedo Jim” is not himself Jewish, if his own self-testimony is to be accepted (and would you believe anything coming out of a child-molester’s mouth?), although his commentariat is disproportionately Jewish; at times, it’s entirely dominated by persons of Hebraic persuasion. That already is as obvious a Red-Flag as any that perversion is not far off. Members of the Dark Enlightenment, let it be remembered, seek to overthrow all of the governments throughout the world, be they democratic or authoritarian, and install in their place a One World Jewish Government. ZOG-on-steroids, in other words. Presumably, this Jewish Government will de-criminalize all forms of pedophilia on day one. That most possessors of child pornography “happen” to be Jewish is scarcely worthy of mentioning; and everyone knows what the Talmud deems acceptable for Jews to engage in. The harrowing stuff of nightmares.

Following the trail of bloody Red-Flags, Jim is known among his circle of acquaintances (a cabal of weirdos if ever there was one) for his extremely misogynistic views, and in particular, his seething hatred of White women. With Jim, the phrase “rape-room nationalism” takes on a whole new meaning: he believes that White women deserve confinement in underground dungeons — ones modeled after the dens of iniquity that are BDSM “temples” — chained to the dank wall, there to experience nothing but constant marital rape with no end in sight. This is Jim’s dystopian vision. On the other hand, he has proclaimed again and again that “the Yellow woman” is ideal for the White man, and that he hopes to see one day all White men sexually enslaving White women and “replacing” them with women from East-Asia. Race-mixing propaganda? Check. In Jim’s vomit-inducing view, inter-breeding of Whites and Asians (that is: White men and Asian women) will create a veritable Master Race, to inherit the world for Jewry’s sake.

Jim’s rationalization of pedophilia, in his own words

Now, having inspected Jimmy’s sordid positions on issues beside this article’s subject matter, we can delve into his pedophilia-apologia and outright child abuse. The material presented here has been taken from his most recent blogposts dealing, from his degenerate perspective, with the subject of sexuality. The entries in question were submitted on the 11th18th, and 20th of July, 2017, and all the comments contained therein belong to the same time period. Most of the quotes will deal with pedophilia; a few, however, will showcase other vile aspects of Jim worldview. All are authentic. Warning: the words you are about to read are not only deeply offensive to the human soul, but are extremely vulgar. There are going to be graphic descriptions here. These are Jim’s words. Take heed.

Women are quite agreeable to being made to have sex. They prefer it that way. Resistance is a shit test, and they are turned on by being overpowered. So we need to make it the law that the man that they should have sex with, their husband, the father of their children, gets to overpower them.

Standard (((PUA))) nonsense, here justifying marital rape. Nothing warps one’s mind worse than Jew-invented, anti-woman, anti-White, “Pick-Up Artistry.” It’s one of the least healthy scams the Jews have ever concocted, and the Jews sure do know something about unhealthy scams.

If a girl has boobs, chances are she can get pregnant. If a girl has menarche, can probably get pregnant. If she can get pregnant, sexually mature.

Reality also is that they are often disturbingly keen on sex even at age ten, even before sexual maturity. Girls that are keen on sex before menarche and boob development are a minority, but they are a very large minority. Girls that are sexually mature at twelve, have menarche at twelve and have boobs that dramatically advertise this fact, are also a large minority, possibly a majority. And should be married off to young men who are starting their careers, because otherwise there is a very high likelyhood that they are going to seduce the first male they encounter who plausibly seems high alpha – who is likely an affluent mature adult male with an adult girlfriend, a mistress, and a wife.

In other words, claims pedo Jim, if he finds an underage child sexually attractive, he should have the right to violate her. Otherwise, warns he, she herself will go around seducing married men. That’s actually the argument.

Personal experience: A very large minority of ten year olds with no boobs who have not yet experienced menarche are into sex. A very large minority, likely a majority, of twelve year olds have boobs, have experienced menarche and are therefore potentially capable of bearing children, though substantially less fertile than sixteen year olds, and are into sex. If not all of them have done it yet, they are intensely interested, and keep aggressively inserting themselves into situations where sex is likely to ensue. 

If you think only a very small minority are into sex, that tells me that only a very small minority are into sex with you. Women are hypergamous, and very young girls are very hypergamous. If you don’t have money, charisma, and substantial and obvious adult female preselection, you are invisible to them. You should not conclude from your own invisibility that they are not into sex. Plot line of “Cinderella”: He is a prince, he is rich, and older higher status females want him. You will notice that his age and physical appearance is not mentioned, while the story pretty much drools over all the loot and his personal power. The target audience for “Cinderalla” are rubbing their p*****s against their broomstick.

Jim makes sure to tell us about it being his “personal experience”. The meaning is clear.

Your ten or eleven year old daughter is likely to do bad things to an adult male with pre selection and charisma.

Typical PUA jargon. Notice the inversion: it’s the girl who does the bad things to the older man. Just despicable.

Women continue to have the minds of children until menopause. If we wait for them to be competent, responsible, and capable of rational consent, we are never going to reproduce.

Note that it has already been rumored that Jim murdered his own wife, in order to pursue younger women. With views such as these, it’s hardly surprising. Another claim that has recently surfaced is that she has committed suicide; being married to Monster Jim, who could expect anything else from a suffering woman?

A few years ago my thirty year old son hit on a fully developed twelve year old, who was hanging around in a pickup joint. He did not realize she was all that young, and neither did I. She looked adult to me.

Does anyone find that even remotely believable?

Every “child” in that image is capable of conceiving, bearing, and suckling children, none of them are engaged in sexual activity, nor are any of them posed in a sexually suggestive manner. If you felt yourself assaulted, it was because you felt desires that you found disturbing.

The women depicted in that image are the ideal age to begin lifelong monogamous patriarchal marriage, and in a healthy society, would promptly do so.

That was written while discussing illegal, filthy (((child pornography))). Notice the abundant logical fallacies here. This stuff is all disgusting, but for the safety of our children, it must be documented.

Women are incapable of consent at any age. Consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong. Sex between males past puberty and girls past menarche is normal sex, not pedophilia.

Immoral sexual activities between adult men and girls who have not yet developed breasts or menarche is usually a result of sexual aggression by those girls, because there are a lot more pre menarche girls who want to have sex with adult males, than there are adult males who want to have sex with pre menarche girls.

The problem is predominantly one of misbehaving girls, and is not separate from nor very different from the problem of misbehaving women. The problem is that they need control and supervision, often starting at a quite early age, and they do not stop needing control and supervision until menopause. The problem of ten year old girls improperly engaging in sex with adult males is not a separate problem, nor a different problem, from twenty year old girls improperly engaging in sex with adult males.

Victim-blaming? Who could have seen that coming!

Sexual desire sets in at roughly the time the ability to conceive sets in. Sometimes inconveniently it sets in quite a bit later. Sometimes, quite often, even more inconveniently, quite a bit earlier.

If anything we should have a reverse age of consent – that women above a certain age should have the decision to have sex or refrain from having sex made for them by someone else.

Yep. Jim literally wants a reverse age of consent. That’s how far a pervert abuser would go to justify his sick cravings. An inverted sense of morality: black is white, sweet is sour. True madness.

If you want a society where daughters are strongly under parental authority, you need a society like the ones where daughters remained virgins, and in such a society ten year old girls could be, and often enough were, shotgun married.

Child brides. Could it get even more awful? You bet.

You cannot ban female children from engaging in early sex, you cannot ban them from position nine on Jeremy Meeks’ midnight booty call list.

The pedophile has spoken! And if someone should be one’s authority over what’s best for the interests of the child, surely, that’s a pedophile, rapist, and possible murderer such as Jim. Reminder: he writes this stuff completely nonchalantly, as the police made no attempt to arrest him over any suspicions, despite him being a criminal openly boasting of his myriad crimes.

My personal experience is substantial. If you have charisma for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and a display of nice stuff for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and then you get preselection from adult women, then their little sisters, often very little indeed, are apt to sexually harass you.

As the age of consent rose, we saw the horrifying consequences of failure to guard eggs. The alternative to ten year old brides, is eleven year olds at position nine on Jeremy Meek’s midnight booty call list.

This man is dangerous, that much is clear. Also, seems oddly fixated on Jeremy Meeks.

White civilization has never been successful in preventing intolerable levels of female misconduct except the age of consent was ten years or younger.

Transferring sexually uncontrollable females to the authority of a man highly motivated to control their sexual activity, which is to say, marrying them off, is an absolutely essential social technology without which the family is going to collapse, and society, civilization, and the state is built on top of the family.

Every society that was successful in controlling women had an age of consent that was around ten or younger, or else completely disregarded female consent altogether.

Society, it turns out, will utterly collapse if Jim doesn’t get to rape little ten year old girls. That’s how pedophiles think, folks. That’s what goes on in their inhuman, psychopathic minds. In case you were thinking that pedophiles were “just like you and me”. They aren’t; they simply aren’t human. Look at this horror. It’s not human.

If you blame males for female misbehavior, you conclude that women do not need to be controlled. This approach has been tried, has failed spectacularly, and continues to fail spectacularly.

Rapist Jim blames male “misbehavior” (rape) on the woman victims, under any and all circumstances. Men can practically do no wrong, ever.

Reality is that the only white people, as far as I know the only people, who have succeeded in controlling female sexual behavior are people who set the age of consent to around ten. (Or nonwhites who employ female genital mutilation.)

And from my experience, that is what you are going to need. Not for all females, but for enough of them to be a substantial problem that simply has to be dealt with firmly.

Maybe we could block andrenarche till menarche with drugs, and block menarche to whatever age we decide to be the age of consent, but with human biology as it is, and unmutilated genitals, there is always going to be a significant number of very young girls f*****g, a large enough number of very young girls f*****g to substantially undermine family, society, and the sexual social order, and the only solution is to marry them off.

If you want female sexuality under control, and you are not going to change female nature with drugs or surgery, then you are going to have to do what past societies that successfully brought female sexuality under control did.

If you look back in time to times when female sexuality was under control, the age of consent was ten or so, or else they did not give a tinker’s dam about consent.

Maybe we should block andrenarche and menarche using drugs and hormones till sixteen. Or eighteen.

You’ve read that correctly. He wants to pump girls full of drugs, lest they seduce him. Jim is in his mid 70s, by the way. It’s a lecherous 70-year-old man blogging about how it should be legal for him to rape little girls that we’re dealing with.

Raising the age of consent was part of a package preventing marriage, disempowering fathers and removing them from their families, which conspicuously failed to have the effect of protecting women from themselves.

Women should not be allowed to consent at any age. They should be under paternal authority, until he transfers authority to fiancee or husband.

Jim is against any age of consent, at all. But I’m sure his pedophilia is already well established by now.

And until 1850 or so, the age of consent was ten. Part of the social technology of controlling female sexuality was the capability to shotgun marry female children who were misbehaving or likey to misbehave, and in particular those that were misbehaving long before puberty. By and large, most heiresses who had lost their fathers at an early age, most female orphans with dowries, or a very large proportion of such heiresses, were married well before puberty. If no dad, need a husband to keep them from f*****g around.

Which does not mean that all of them f*****d around, but enough of them f*****d around to cause serious problems. Why do you think some cultures apply female genital mutilation at age nine or ten? 

Sexual female sexual interest in males commonly starts when the girl reaches nine, and she is primarily interested in males that are well and truly adult and have adult female preselection, but male sexual interest in girls commonly starts when the girl reaches twelve. Thus from nine to twelve we see a lot of unreciprocated sexual seduction and aggression by prepubescent females.

Wants to mutilate prepubescent girls’ genitalia, lest they “misbehave”.

If we ban forty year old men having sex with ten year old girls, ten year old girls will find the kind of man untroubled by such a ban, for example the overweight forty year old ice dealer and motorcycle gang leader, thrillingly attractive. What we need to do instead is ban ten year old girls from having sex with forty year old men.

If she gets a whipping, but the banker and the judge and the CEO that she f*****d are just fine, then the banker and the judge and the CEO will behave in ways she finds attractive. And if you whip her hard enough and publicly enough, she might even wait until she is old enough for marriage, and marry the banker, the judge, or the CEO, instead of f*****g three different motorcycle gang members at age ten in an effort to work her way up to the bottom of the gang leader’s booty call list.

But if you punish the CEO, and do not punish her, she is going to find the overweight forty year old ice dealer and motorcycle gang leader, thrillingly attractive, and be ruined for marriage.

What we do now, forbidding forty year old men from f*****g ten year old girls, but not forbidding ten year old girls from f*****g forty year old men, is the wrong way around and spectacularly fails to work. It stops bankers from f*****g ten year old girls, but fails to stop ice dealers from f*****g ten year old girls. Rather, we should assume that the high status older wealthy male is behaving just fine, and the ten year old girl is a seductive slut and needs to be punished.

What disgusting thinking. What else is there to say?

The concept of rape is seldom easy to apply to interactions between men and women. Therefore, as in the old testament, need to minimize the extent to which the courts have to apply this concept to men and women.

Jim plainly wants to make it legal for men to rape women. Note the appeal to the (((Old Testament))).

In order to fix this key fundamental problem, have to acknowledge the sinful, lustful, and dangerous nature of women. Which sinful, lustful, and dangerous nature usually starts at puberty, and in a disturbingly large minority of females starts two years before puberty.

Women should marry as virgins (or equivalently, marry the first man they have sex with): Which, given the difficulty of restraining them, should generally result in them getting married a few years after puberty, nineteen or so. In few cases, particularly if they do not have strong fathers to restrain them, should result in them getting married a few years before puberty.

Whenever confronted about his horrendous beliefs, Jim doubles down on them. It’s a common trait among clinical psychopath. They can admit no wrong, and never take responsibility for any mistake or any harm they cause.

Nothing in my comments suggested that I intentionally had sex with girls below puberty, or ever sought to have sex with girls below puberty, or ever intended to have sex with girl below puberty, and if you read them that way, you are projecting your own deviance onto me, or perhaps you read any accusation of improper desires in young girls, as an admission of my own improper desires, since it is obviously unthinkable to you that girls would ever have improper desires.

Girls before puberty have considerably fewer acceptable options, and as a result have been known to take a more direct approach.

Oh, you see. He did not intentionally rape children. It was all unintentional. The victim is to blame. Beyond responding with sardonic sarcasm, now, just look at this paragraph. Jim clearly admits to very illegal conduct right here. Will the police intervene?

You know nothing about women. Treat them mean to keep them keen.

The child-molester has issued his verdict.

A screenshot of Jim's main page

Conclusion

These are all quotes taken from a regular, accessible-for-everyone wordpress blog. People on the (((Alt-Right))) occasionally link to Jim’s Blog, in agreement with various proposals that he proposes. That he is a pedophile, who openly admits to (“unintentionally”) raping underage little kids, seems to be shrugged off. This is one of the founders of the Dark Enlightenment. Together with Curtis Yarvin and a few other Jews and Shabbos Goyim, he has founded the Neoreaction, a vicious, bloodthirsty movement if ever there was one. The two central Neoreactionary aggregators, this one and this one, link to him. By all means, he is leading a key faction of the Alt-Right. And what an abhorrent, perverse person he is. Beware, everyone, for James “Jim” Donald is free and dangerous.

We must secure the existence of our people. And a future for white children.

Advertisements

One comment

  1. Well, he is pretty radical. But, you see, he isn’t the only one. I fear that he is saying those things for sake of sounding radical. If that’s so, I’m thankful that he most likely wouldn’t support 100% of his views in practice. Other pedophiles are pretty slow-building in their argumentation and don’t usually reach conclusions like those, specially worded like that. But yeah. Freedom of speech. You don’t have to agree with him, but let him speak. You can, like you did, speak against and many do. I support that, as no one is supposed to accept whatever is being said.
    Minor-attracted people (an umbrella term for nepiophiles, pedophiles, hebephilies and ephebophilies) are coming out of the closet since the previous DSM revision. The next decade is going to be wild! But really, I do think that people should understand that there are four kinds of pedophile, that pedophiles aren’t just sexual beings and many other things. There’s a veil of ignorance around them. You gotta know to judge and Jim, from what I could read, lost his mind at some point and began to shitpost. Try something else, like, say, Consenting Humans, which isn’t as radical and worded more sanely (plus, not alt-right).
    We keep condemning pedophiles as child rapists, but we have never consulted them to know if that’s true. Isn’t it a little bit unsettling that we are talking about pedophiles like a third person in a discourse that is about them? And you picked one fucked up example. There are others that should be taken in account. Jim surely isn’t representative of that whole population. There are some who even don’t advocate acting on the urge at all and would refrain even if age of consent were abolished today. Sure, they aren’t a majority, but they exist.
    There are some other considerations we should take, like considering if it’s always rape, or if the kid is willing, if the kid is actually harmed or not. There are plenty of studies that pro-contact pedophiles have acquired, from impartial sources, that back up the view that kids are usually not harmed, with some taking benefit from the encounter. But that’s one extremely polemical point to touch, because it would be really easy to show scientific evidence (including one article concluded by Bruce Rind and published in July 2017) to back up this point, but that wouldn’t make a contact morally correct. Finkelhor said that statistics show that it’s generally safe, but allowing such would mean tearing apart a moral pillar that sustains Western society. That, translated, means that science is already fine with adult-child intimacy, but the ones in charge of thinking about morals (philosophy) are still inconclusive. If philosophy agrees with that, the prohibition of adult-child intimacy would completely lose academic support.
    Three books that tackle the subject in neutral or positive light are “Harmful to Minors”, “The Trauma Myth” and “Pedophilia and Adult-Child Sex”, this last one by a philosopher. Plus, academic consensus is shifting towards acceptance that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, thus unchangeable, which makes therapy an ethical puzzle.
    So, all this to say that we won’t make sense of this shit without talking to pedophiles themselves. And Jim doesn’t seem to be up for the task. He, as many people on the alt-right, don’t seem to like civil convos.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s