On the current path

If you teach your elite to hate western civilization, whites, and modern technology, you are not going to have any of them for very much longer.

It looks rather as if 99% of western peoples are going to perish from this earth. The survivors will be oddball types, subscribers to reactionary and rather silly religions in barren edge regions like Alaska.

Recent events in Syria suggest that the Russian capability for air warfare is substantially more technologically advanced than that of the US – Russians are acting as if they think it is, and Americans are also acting as if they think it is, though no one will know for sure unless war ensues. Maybe Russians are bluffing, but when civilizations decline, it is normal for the center to decline first, while the periphery keeps going for a little bit longer. That American spacecraft rely on Russian plutonium, and that for a while America relied on Russian transport to the space station suggests that technological decline has hit America harder than Russia, is consistent with Russian air superiority over Syria.

Chinese GDP now substantially exceeds that of America.

Singapore is a trap. Smart people go to Singapore, they don’t reproduce. People illegally hiding out in the wilds of Chernobyl do reproduce. But Chernobyl is also a trap. People there turn into primitives.

The west conquered the world and launched the scientific and industrial revolutions starting with restoration England conquering the world and launching the scientific and industrial revolutions.

The key actions of the Restoration were making the invisible college into the Royal society – that is to say, making the scientific method, as distinct from official science, high status, and authorizing the East India company to make war and peace – making corporate capitalism high status. Divorce was abolished, and marriage was made strictly religious, enforcing patriarchy socially and legally, thus encouraging reproduction.

Everywhere in the world, capitalism is deemed evil, the scientific method is demonized and is low status, and easy divorce and high female status inhibits reproduction. If women get to choose, they will choose to have sex with a tiny minority of top males and postpone marriage to the last minute – and frequently to after the last minute. (“Top” males in this context meaning not necessarily the guy in the corner office, but rather tattooed low IQ thugs)

We need a society that is pro science, pro technology, pro capitalism, which restricts female sexual choice to males that contribute positively to this society, and which makes it safe for males to marry and father children. Not seeing that society anywhere, and those few places that approximate some few aspects of this ideal are distinctly nonwhite.

It is sometimes argued that the Restoration did not last long, that the Glorious Revolution put Whigs and Whig doctrine in power and ended divine right. Which version of history has Whigs presiding over the triumph of the West.

Maybe.

But for a hundred and twenty years, any Whig that said the Glorious Revolution was Lockean was apt to find himself in exile.

Divine right was still going strong when George declared that God had appointed him regent, though this unleashed a firestorm against him and all the Georges similar to that against Trump today.

Indeed, the doctrine that women are pure and chaste, and that therefore men are always in the wrong, which is currently being used to attack Trump, was originally deployed to attack King George, in much the same style, deploying much the same rationales. The entire Victorian era can be thought of as weaponizing the sainthood of women against that horrid alpha male, King George. To this day Queen Caroline is still sainted, and to this day they either deny that George was Regent, which makes it a bit odd that there is an entire period of art, science, and architecture known as “Regency”, or else they say he was “appointed” regent, passive tense, without, however, saying who appointed him. They are still to this day in shock that divine right was live and effective for King George.

Corporate Capitalism lasted about as long as divine right lasted. Aristocratic control of the army lasted a little longer, to the Crimean war. It is hard to say when patriarchy ended, but the sainthood of women logically implied an attack on patriarchy. If women are naturally virtuous, there is no need to coerce women to obey their marriage vows, only men. So all coercion against women was an unprincipled exception, albeit in much of the world that unprincipled exception lasted all the way to 1972. The Scientific Method, enforced and upheld by the Royal Society, lasted all the way to end of World War II.

One could argue that Whiggism was victorious in 1788, when the Whigs successfully prosecuted a revolution on the principle that all men were created equal – while refraining from suggesting that women were created equal, and kind of avoiding the issue of whether blacks were created equal, but I would not count the triumph of Whiggism in America till the war of Northern Aggression. Whiggism was victorious and triumphant in some American states starting 1788, but not in all.

The sainthood of that whore, Florence Nightingale, was part of policy of demonizing the warriors who actually fought the war, and led to a policy of logistics being carried out by high status people classified as soldiers, rather than low status people classified as camp followers acting under the supervision of regimental commanders and lower, acting under the supervision of officers who were expected to actually fight in person. This reorganization of military supply put warriors under bureaucrats, thus dramatically lowering the authority of warriors within the military. This eventually gave us today’s British army, which has two hundred generals none of whom have heard a shot fired in anger, but which can only put two hundred actual fighting men on the field of battle to combat their enemies.

The argument was that there were a lot of dismal failures of logistics during the Crimean war, but in fact it is not obvious that transferring power over feeding and clothing soldiers from those close to the soldiers being fed and clothed, to those in the capital, has led to an improvement.

The greatness of the west derives from patriarchy, science, and capitalism, which in turn derived from the divine right of Kings, the established state church, and the supremacy of King over Church, for all of these were established or greatly reinforced in the restoration of 1660, and fell apart after divine right came under sustained and venomous attack in the nineteenth century.

Maybe we still have corporate capitalism, but in the nineteenth century the state took the guns away from corporate capitalists.

Saying “Things went wrong on date X” is misleading, because entropy is constantly increasing while efforts to clean up the mess and expel entropy are sporadic, but things suddenly got a whole lot better in the big clean up of the restoration, and things started going to hell a whole lot faster after they sainted women in order to demonize King George.

While Pol is always right about Jews, the trouble with Jew centric theory is that it prescribes nazism, which is just a return to nineteen thirties leftism from twentieth century leftism. Any real fix is necessarily going to resemble the restoration, which makes puritan centric theory more applicable. And if we look at the carpetbaggers sent to rob the Ukraine, they did not come from the vicinity of Jerusalem, but from the vicinity of Harvard, the headquarters and seminary of the State Church of Massachusetts.

To keep organizational entropy under control you need one man in charge. And then the entropy grows in those parts of the state that he has trouble controlling. The decay of our civilization is priest led and priest caused, (defining priests broadly to include the professoriat and similar). So, when there was a state church under a divine right king, that king could, and often enough did, expel the entropy – frequently by encouraging problem priests to emigrate, often to America. Would have worked considerably better if England had had an inquisition, to make sure that those professing adherence to the Church of England were actually adhering to it, rather than actively subverting it. And if he had expelled the offenders to cut sugar cane in the tropical sun, rather than to America.

With the death of God, hard to manage a divine right King. Somehow I doubt that Moldbug’s crypto locks would do as effective a job as God did.

Maybe there is some other solution to installing science, the scientific method, corporate capitalism, and patriarchy, and preventing the growth of entropy within the organs of the state. But the method that mostly worked from 1660 to the early nineteenth century was divine right monarchy ruling over a church and state united.

Corporations are often effective in controlling entropy within the organization, because the CEO has plenary power. But we are not yet seeing any well run corporate states.

As the current election campaign demonstrates, America today is rather close to being church and state united, but with no one man in charge, and no inquisition, we get holiness spirals and phariseeism. Free lance witch finders always manage to drum up business more efficiently than state sponsored witch finders.

The usual way these things end is that one leftist makes himself supreme, makes it as dangerous to be to the left of him as to be to the right of him, and proceeds, like Cromwell and Stalin, to put some order into the system. And if you are lucky, he is eventually replaced by a rightist who, being a rightist, is able to put a whole lot more order into the system. On the other hand, a leftist singularity can go directly all the way into a dark age, or just kill pretty much everyone until outsiders take over.

204 Responses to “On the current path”

  1. Koanic says:

    I appreciate the concern, grandpa. But don’t underestimate the energy and ingenuity of cornered youth. There are things coming which you have not seen. Two continents is not a bad first growth spurt.

    • jim says:

      I surely did not see Trump coming.

      But the legacy electorate always rebels too late, rebels after the government has elected a new people.

      Trump will very likely win the election, but, facing a hostile governing apparatus, if he is to actually implement the program he is running on, has to do an Augustus and make himself God Emperor.

      • Koanic says:

        Yeah, I’m enjoying Drumpf for what he is, but I’d be less cheery if I had to pin my hopes on the usual cycle of history he represents.

        One thing you consistently don’t factor in is the massive disruption caused by the Internet, which is equivalent to that of the printing press. The first wave of results include unforseeable intellectual developments such as those you release here. Cut to 30 Years War…

      • Koanic says:

        That said I am very far from criticizing your article as written. Your title makes clear it is a linear projection and thus completely true and fair, and a much needed kick in the pants. Pardon my emote. I am still stuck on the last post, “Deus Vult”!

      • Zach says:

        He’s not winning. That would be something if he did.

    • Father Thyme says:

      Grandpa? Careful there, Koanic, some fellows are touchy about that. 😉

      “Any of you sonsabitches calls me grandpa, I’ll kill ya.” -Sam Elliott
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mNPJkDwlHs

      • Koanic says:

        A sign of the patheticness of the times, that the triple generation patriarch is despised.

        • peppermint says:

          Intellectually, I recognize Revilo Oliver, the last honest professor, as a grandfather, and Jim as a father of our people but stuck in the last century of thoughts.

          /pol/ is the young men of the nation. When Hillary ends the arguments, the Kek kooks klub will kome forth from /k/ to kill the christcucked clergy “resettling refugees”, and there will be open war between the people of Kek and the people of ((Yahweh)), with muds as confused auxiliaries of ((Yahweh)), like they always have been,

          Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan didn’t get elected, Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan did and cucked out.

          We will capture them and tell them, now say thou nigger, and if they say nigger they shall be spared, and if they say dude I’m not saying the n word,they shall be slain.

          Shadilay.

          • Koanic says:

            And if you pronounce it “dindu”, you’re the one doing the slaying.

          • Robert says:

            Christianity is not your enemy. Kek and shitposting will not save you. Much of your science, and the search for knowledge of the physical world, came from the desire of Christians for truth. Christians have no problem with the truth, we have no problem saying people are not biologically equal. Many Christians have been tricked, have been brainwashed, just like many atheists. Christians are capable of being deceived just like anyone else. You are wrong to make Christianity your enemy.

            • Father Thyme says:

              Are you really going to invite strange middle-eastern Eskimos into your house (or nation) on orders from the King of the Eskimos?

              “I was a stranger, and you invited Me in.” -Matthew 25:35

              • Father Thyme says:

                Rapefugees welcome, a middle-eastern guru said. It’ll be fun, he said.

                “Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.” -Luke 14:23

                Fill ‘er up!

                • peppermint says:

                  …refugee resettlement churches are Lk. 14:23’ers.

                  I’m thinking about the top 1000 professors, journalists, clergy, and politicians need to be killed, and the skypes need to either be uninstalled or put in a virtual machine, and second degree mischlinge given the option of that or total assimilation.

                  Meanwhile, they’re calling for social consequences (remember: social in front of a word means the opposite of what the term would ordinarily be assumed to mean) for the top nazis in the US, but they’re ultimately going to try to put Jim and me in jail if not Father Thyme. But MILO already told them what they need to do to stop the alt-right: they must offer White men lives of dignity.

                  And since they are not only constitutionally incapable but physically incapable of doing that, they will die.

                  Any ėłıtęŝ reading this, if you can’t bring yourself to openly betray the Narrative and face reprisals from the Cathedral, try to disengage from politics and escape to somewhere innawoods. Your bug out room in your mansion in the city is not a secure location. Nowhere will be safe for anti-White VIPs who can’t bullshit that they were always secret Nazis.

                • Father Thyme says:

                  The burden of America. The book of the vision of Peppermint the Ogdoad. Kek is jealous, and Pepe revengeth; Kek revengeth, and is furious; Pepe will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Kek is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: Pepe hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Hollywood languisheth, and Manhattan, and the flower of Georgetown languisheth. The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. Kek is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies. What do ye imagine against Pepe? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time. For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry. There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against Pepe, a wicked counseller. Thus saith Kek; Though they be quiet, and likewise many, yet thus shall they be cut down, when he shall pass through. Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more. For now will I break the Skypes’ yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder. And Kek hath given a commandment concerning thee, that no more of Googles’ name be sown: out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the Bing’s image and the Yahoo’s image: I will make thy grave; for thou art vile. Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O America, keep thy solemn holidays, perform thy flag’s pledge: for the cultural Marxist shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.

                • Robert says:

                  The verses you are referring to are taken out of context. Context matters. Jesus came for the Jews, much of what he spoke was for the Jews, to call them (specifically them) to repentance. If you apply Many of Jesus’s sayings universally they don’t make sense. You dislike Jesus’s teachings because you make the mistake, as many Christians do, of applying them universally.

                • Father Thyme says:

                  >> Context matters. Jesus came for the Jews…

                  Why did you leave out the word “only?” “Only” is in the Bible. You know, context and all.

                  “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.” -Jesus (Matthew 15:24)

                  >> …you make the mistake, as many Christians do, of applying them universally.

                  Oh, like this?

                  “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…” -Jesus (Matthew 28:19)

                  The (((Jesus))) character can’t even keep his story straight from chapter to chapter. That’s the fun of the (((Bible))), you can find just about anything you want to prove inside it, and all you have to do is wave your magical “Context!” wand over the disagreeable verses. Poof! It all means the same thing now!

                  Why the hell would a White man need a Jewgod, anyway? Maybe you’re the submissive type that likes to spend a lot of time on his knees bowing to a Skype?

            • Father Thyme says:

              Robert’s opinion:

              “we have no problem saying people are not biologically equal.”

              St. Paul’s opinion:

              “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to ALL who believe. There is NO DIFFERENCE.” -Romans 3:22

              “For there is NO DISTINCTION between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of ALL, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him.” -Romans 10:12

              “For by one Spirit we were ALL baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were ALL made to drink of one Spirit.” -1 Corinthians 12:13

              And that “ALL” specifically includes Googles as your brethren, as in Acts 8:26-40, with Philip and the Ethiopian; and in Acts 13:1, where Simon the Niger/Black is elevated to the status of “prophets and teachers.”
              ________

              Robert: “Many Christians have been tricked, have been brainwashed…”

              True. By reading the “JEWS FIRST!” (Romans 1:16) Bible.

              • Robert says:

                I agree that all Christians are one in Christ. God wanted to make a specific point, an important point, that after Jesus the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but whoever does his will and believes in his son are the chosen people. That’s why Jews hate Christ so much, he kicked them out of their own special club. I wrote an article specifically addressing this issue.

                https://knightsofthewest.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/misunderstood-verses-1/

                • Father Thyme says:

                  Jews are no longer the chosen people? Hmm…

                  “God is not human…that he should change his mind.” Numbers 23:19 “who does not change” Hebrews 13:8 “does not change like shifting shadows” James 1:17

                  It’s good to know the magical Jewbook is wrong, and Robert has shown us how: i.e., the Jewgod does change his mind! And thanks for proving Jesus wrong too.

                  “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.” -Jesus (Matthew 15:24)

                • Robert says:

                  Not sure why I can’t reply to Father Thyme, so I am replying to myself. Context does matter, and you know it does. It is clear from reading the Bible that Jesus came first for the Jew, they rejected him, then for the gentile. Everyone who reads the Bible objectively will understand this. There are a great many verses that talk about the issue, in the book of Acts this exact issue is addressed with everyone agreeing that Jesus came for the jews and the gentiles.

                  With Matthew 15:24 it is clear that he is trying to say to the woman, I am not here for you, I am here for the Jews, which he was. When I go to a birthday party I am there for the person whose birthday it is, that doesn’t mean that I can never go to any other birthday party or any other thing and be there for someone else.

                  God doesn’t change his mind. Jesus was always in the plan.

                  As a white man I bow down to the creator of the heavens and the earth. I have a king, I know where my allegiance lies, it is with the one who causes the rain to fall and the sun to rise. My king is the rock of ages, who is your king?

                  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
                  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
                  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
                  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

                • Dave says:

                  > Not sure why I can’t reply to Father Thyme,

                  Because threads get really annoying to read when replies are nested too deeply. Stuff gets indented all the way across the screen such that the actual text is three characters wide.

                • Father Thyme says:

                  Robert kisses Jewgod ass because he fears Jew power he reads in Jewbook. A proud White man wouldn’t do that. A submissive Christcuck would, and make all the excuses in the world for it, including the oft repeated “Context!” magic wand that he waves over the Jewbook to make it mean exactly whatever he wants it to mean at any given moment.

                  Pathetic.

                  >> I know where my allegiance lies…

                  We know: with (((them))).

  2. Cavalier says:

    Supposing cataclysm, are 99% of the White peoples really to perish? Is it not a still catastrophic but slightly less catastrophic percentage like 60 or 70 or 80 percent?

    Supposing cataclysm, which White peoples are likely to survive and which are likely to perish? Will the Visegrad group suffer another WWII-style catastrophe? What is the endangered status of the White and mostly-White-ish elite in Latin America?

    Does Russia not comprise more than 1% of the global White population, or do Russians suffer complete annihilation as well?

    Elucidate your vision of this collapse for us.

    • jim says:

      Failure to reproduce, military weakness, foreign conquest. I remarked earlier than the British army can only field two hundred actual fighting men. Russia is on the same path, just not so far advanced as the American empire.

      • ilkarnal says:

        Eastern Europe suffers from low birth rate but not the great eagerness to invite unlimited economic migrants from the global south. The East Asian countries are in the same boat. I don’t see why one is necessarily more doomed than the other.

        I think your analysis of the problem is too convoluted. My view is that sensible ideology and action is something like a callus. It requires certain abrasive experiences to develop. Populations lacking these experiences – those being war, disease, and starvation – simply don’t develop the values and behaviors that a ‘normal’ population would automatically develop.

        The further we get from the realities that require toughness, the less tough we get, the more we resemble blobs covered with extremely fragile skin. Increasing the effective size of the planet by a huge amount with modern farming techniques in a very short time period, and at the same time creating an infertility epidemic with modern contraceptives, leads to a very long period without some necessary stimuli.

        Just as when you lock a child up in a dark room for their formative years you get something that doesn’t act particularly human, when you sequester people from the kind of hardship that once engendered toughness you get something unbelievably soft. Things that would naturally be taken as a given become outrageous – like the idea that women should have lots of children, men should be militarily competent, etc. There are no givens, anymore. People can just float in any direction they like – but they get hedonistic rewards for sating other people’s hedonism. That’s the only guiding principle.

        I don’t ascribe to ideology any ability to fix this. You only get tough feet by exposing your feet to abrasive stimuli, and you only get tough populations be exposing them to the threats populations became tough in order to face.

        I also think exposure to war, starvation, disease, will cause populations to regain toughness very quickly, as long as they initially survive.

        The existential risk is that in our hedonistic drift we will destroy something that is very difficult to replace. The main thing that concerns me is our breeding stock. If we become blended with too high a proportion of various low IQ populations, we could face the same obliteration by higher IQ populations that they will when times get tough.

        The East Europeans and East Asians aren’t inclined to do this sort of blending because they are much more clannish than West Europeans, temperamentally less inclined to regard all populations as equivalent. This is probably good from the perspective of the human race, but bad from a West European perspective because when the population curve inevitably catches up to the food production curve our descendants will be facing more formidable opponents, comparatively speaking.

        I don’t think the East Asians will take over. They seem profoundly uncreative. Very good at copying white technological advances, but copying only limits how far behind you are, it doesn’t put you ahead. Russians are more innovative. Negative birthrates, sure, but ditto for East Asians. You can’t extrapolate these things forever. Populations adapt. Those most susceptible to contraceptive-induced infertility will boil off. Eventually the problem fixes itself. No evidence it will happen any faster for East Asians than East Europeans.

        Muslims aren’t really contenders, won’t take over. You don’t understand the importance of IQ if you think they will. The future belongs to whites, East Asians, or some blend of them.

        • jim says:

          This analysis fails to explain past leftwards movements in tougher times, and fails to explain why we are moving leftwards faster and faster despite the fact that times have stopped getting easier.

          You also propose leftism as something spontaneous that comes from within. Pretty sure our troops do not volunteer for high heeled shoes and girly hats. Similarly, the anti trump campaign demonstrates the heavy hand of the state in inculcating leftism. We teach nine year old boys how to put a condom on a banana in preparation for being sodomized, but Harvard students only understand a rather simplified version of trig.

          • ilkarnal says:

            My problem is with pacifism and antinatalism. The left is a problem insofar as it is more pacifist and antinatalist than the right (which it presently is). If the left becomes less pacificst and antinatalist than the right, I will support the left. The left is not essentially identified as pacifism and antinatalism. It is essentially identified with opposition to ‘Ancien Regime.’ If that means Emperor Napoleon instead of the old, rotten incompetents, that is fine by me. The old rotten incompetents rallying, becoming less incompetent in response, and triumphing over the upstarts is also fine by me. May the strongest win.

            I propose pacifism and antinatalism are ‘something spontaneous’ – spontaneous results of lack of war, starvation, and disease. Absent war, starvation, and disease there is nothing to combat the natural indulgent attitude towards women, and the sloth, gluttony and cowardice that lurk in every man’s heart.

            “fails to explain why we are moving leftwards faster and faster despite the fact that times have stopped getting easier”

            Times have not stopped getting easier. Disease, hunger, and war become less and less relevant in the communal memory. There are still people alive today who have gone through the Great Depression. Many more who have gone through Korean and Vietnam wars, neither cakewalks. The AIDS outbreak is still almost a fresh wound. These events of war, disease, and hunger are becoming less frequent and less severe. We’ve got a ways for nobody in the population to remember severe DH&W events, but we’re moving there and we’re moving fast.

            Same process is happening around the world, by the way. All urban areas are becoming more and more similar, and all populations becoming more and more urban. Pacifism and antinatalism thrive in these conditions. The throes of reaction are doomed until population curve catches up with food production curve. This happens locally in some places, where population was not urbanized – syria for example underwent explosive population growth. But that’s a blip. Once the population becomes urbanized, with resultant social atomization and availability of pharmaceutical services, fertility crashes. There’s no significant population that has adapted to these conditions, except perhaps some weird recluses who are only able to remain recluses as long as they are a small part of the population.

            On evolutionary timescales, however, adaptation will be blindingly fast. There are already people who are ‘baby crazy’ – that trait will rapidly become more and more emphasized until the little trick we played on biology by making sex not equal reproduction is fully corrected. Then population curve will very rapidly meet food production curve.

            I want to push back somewhat hard on your monarchist nostalgia. If the monarchs were so great why did they lose? I like winners.

            • jim says:

              I don’t think so. Some poor countries, most poor countries outside black Africa, have very low fertility rates. What those countries, peoples, and religions with high fertility rates have in common is not poverty and suffering, but patriarchy. Similarly, when MacArthur abruptly emancipated women in Japan, fertility abruptly fell.

              Urban Japan and urban Taiwan had high fertility back when women had no rights.

              It is not wealth or poverty, it is not war or peace, it is not even urban versus rural, for we have seen those things change dramatically with only minor effects on fertility. What determines fertility is patriarchy, and in particularly and especially that a husband can securely invest in his wife and children, that his authority over them is complete and secure. Urban infertility is a reflection of the progressive state finding it easier to brainwash and corrupt schoolgirls in urban areas.

              • ilkarnal says:

                “Urban Japan and urban Taiwan had high fertility back when women had no rights.”

                They also didn’t have contraceptives back then. The world was dirtier and more disease-ridden. You couldn’t just carouse around. The nature of urban places has fundamentally changed.

                If your explanation was correct and complete, wouldn’t Japanese fertility undergo a sharp decline immediately following 1947 reform, and then stabilize pretty quickly at the new level? We have a rapid reduction at first, but it is followed by a slower decline that continues into the 2000s. Patriarchy is destroyed instantly, yet fertility declines take place over many decades. We see fertility decline with or without continual changes in the status of women.

                “Some poor countries, most poor countries outside black Africa, have very low fertility rates.”

                ‘Most poor countries outside Africa’ have been undergoing spectacular gains in wealth and security over the past decades. Their fertility has declined as this happened, spectacularly. It was quite high not that long ago. Still is fairly high in some places – declining fast.

                How long does the shattering of patriarchy through women’s suffrage &c take to percolate fully through society? Years? Decades? Malaysia gave women the vote in ’57. How does that explain the fertility decline from ~3 to 2 from 2000 to 2010?

                Increased knowledge of and access to modern pharmaceuticals driven by increased wealth and urbanization seems like something that could cause this continuing collapse in fertility. Changes in gender power dynamics in the distant past seem like more of a stretch.

                “What determines fertility is patriarchy, and in particularly and especially that a husband can securely invest in his wife and children”

                The places with high fertility are precisely the places where you cannot ‘securely invest’ in anything.

                “that his authority over them is complete and secure”

                African women are extremely feisty, brash, and independent. Yet their fertility can’t be beat! Even where male authority has eroded – signaled by high proportion of out of wedlock births – fertility remains quite high, looking at Kenya for instance.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Thats because google women are highly masculized, like many wild species, and are naturally predisposed to fucking around as much as possible.

                  Really apples to oranges at that point.

                • jim says:

                  “Urban Japan and urban Taiwan had high fertility back when women had no rights.”

                  They also didn’t have contraceptives back then.

                  You kids think you invented sex.

                  The sponge was invented in the late Bronze age. Condoms were invented in the early bronze age, and pulling out and then finishing off on the boobs and mouth (which I think is way more fun than those #!^%! condoms) was known in the neolithic (New Stone Age).

                  Contraceptives are totally legal and readily available in Afghanistan and Timore Leste, and yet they have a TFR of about seven children per woman.

            • peppermint says:

              » The AIDS outbreak is still almost a fresh wound.

              the AIDS outbreak was a ((media))-driven lie. AIDS only happens to garbage that should be killed anyway.

              It is next to impossible for a woman to get AIDS through vaginal sex, and she shouldn’t be having vaginal sex with anyone other than her husband anyway. It is even more impossible for a man to get AIDS through vaginal sex, regardless of how many women he has sex with.

              The only man anyone knows about who die of AIDS and didn’t deserve it was Isaac Asimov, but actually, the commie deserved it for being a commie. Ironically his books are full of slut-shaming and rapish behavior, as well as infused with ’50s attitudes towards sexuality.

              » war… becoming less severe

              where have you been for the last two decades?

              » times have not stopped getting easier

              where have you been for the last decade?

              » urban areas are becoming more similar

              to the turd world, except for urban areas in non-White countries, which are either turd world or not planned to become turd world

              » once the population becomes urbanized… fertility crashes

              there is a correlation there, but it is mediated by cosmopolitanism

              • ilkarnal says:

                >the AIDS outbreak was a ((media))-driven lie. AIDS only happens to garbage that should be killed anyway.

                Who cares who it happens to, the question is how widespread it is, what the impact is on the public consciousness. It was a huge deal.

                >where have you been for the last two decades?

                The last two decades haven’t seen any real doozies. War is becoming less frequent and smaller in scale.

                >(urban areas are becoming more similar) to the turd world

                What the fuck are you talking about?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Detoilet.

                • peppermint says:

                  » It was a huge deal.

                  it had the lasting impact of humanizing faggots by making them vulnerable so catladies could say they don’t deserve to die for it. it was a big deal while it was being hyped by the media and now it isn’t. no one died from it that didn’t deserve it, unlike 9/11 that was not only a psyop but a false flag.

                  » The last two decades haven’t seen any real doozies. War is becoming less frequent and smaller in scale.

                  when i was born there wasn’t much war. then bush attacked iraq, then clinton attacked serbia. that was all the war in the world. then bush attacked iraq, and clinton attacked syria. much more war.

                • jim says:

                  It has been seventy one years since the last great power war. Which is roughly the typical interval between periods of great power war. So there is no reason to believe that wars are becoming less frequent. If you look at the last one hundred and two years, yes, wars are becoming much less frequent and bloody. But that is like measuring Islamic terrorism starting the day after 9/11.

                  If you start the day after, you get a rather different result than if you start the day before.

                  Similarly, if you start in 1914, you get the trend that the world is becoming more peaceful, but if instead of starting in 1914 you start exactly two centuries ago, in 1816, you get exactly the reverse trend line. Wars are getting more frequent, more total, and more destructive, and if we slap a ruler on the graph, we project thermonuclear war between Russia and America and quite likely China as well in the next few years.

                • Koanic says:

                  Right. Which only the Internet has a prayer of stopping.

                  It’s WWW III vs printing press 2.0

                • JRM says:

                  @jim: “and if we slap a ruler on the graph, we project thermonuclear war between Russia and America and quite likely China as well in the next few years.”

                  Just as we have the most convincing looking “prelude to war” type period unfolding right now.

                  For those who have read much about the ramp up to war in 1914 and 1939, the articles currently being written seem eerily familiar.

                  We have the pretext- Syria/Aleppo- we have the recent irritant- Ukraine; we have the easily digestible propaganda- Ambulance Boy- we have the power hungry personalities-Clinton; Carter; and the weak Leader-Obama.

                  The drumbeat (sorry-such a cliché’) for war seems to have that inevitable tone in it again.

        • JRM says:

          @ilkarnal: “Populations lacking these experiences – those being war, disease, and starvation – simply don’t develop the values and behaviors that a ‘normal’ population would automatically develop. ”

          Can we assume you are exempting black Africans as too low in IQ to benefit from these adversities? War, disease and starvation haven’t helped black Africans to develop much of anything.

          • ilkarnal says:

            They have benefited. They kept a feisty attitude and created a hell of a lot more black Africans, which is just about the best they could have done. I do think they are basically doomed by low IQ.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Disease is a terrible constraint to evolve under. It selects for immune systems (not terrible) and early fecundity (the worst).

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Not a lot of *organised* warfare in black Africa, even today.

      • Cavalier says:

        I’ll believe that Nonwhites are in the driver’s seat when I see them no longer shuffled around the grand chessboard like bit pawns.

        As of now it’s status games played by high-status white men.

        • jim says:

          Ethnic cleansing of whites does not convince you?

          • Cavalier says:

            Which whites?

          • Salger says:

            Even if what you say is the case, that doesn’t discount the observation that White men are the ones playing the game. It’s not like White men haven’t worked to kill of hordes of Whites before (see the Nazi targeting of Slavs or even the Roman conquest of Gaul).

        • peppermint says:

          No, that was ten years ago. Now all the White men are choosing sides between ((Yahweh)) and Kek, between PC and deplorability, between life and the other world.

          Since those little White girls were marched into integrated schools at bayonet point, Nazis in the US have wondered when Whites in the US would finally have enough and be prepared to fight for their freedom much less their race. The answer, from game theory, is in highsight obvious: when a young White man expects more from resisting than from cooperating. For the past seventy years, a young White man who cooperates gets to have a family, while resistance has been punished by loss of the ability to support a family.

          Today, a young White man who cooperates gets absolutely nothing for it, while the growing resistance offers a glimmer of hope.

          Those who choos ((Yahweh)) are soon to be deported to the other world.

          Shadilay! I will believe in you.

          • Cavalier says:

            Because I am well aware of the truth of what you’re saying, and indeed because I am vividly aware of the simple fact that my cooperation gets me absolutely nothing for it, I choose life over death, civilization over savagery, testosterone over estrogen, and I realize that we are approaching what Jim likes to call a left singularity, but in so doing I also recognize that this singularity is being driven by high-status _old_ white men jostling amongst each other for status, wealth, and power. High-status old white men driven insane, to be sure, but high-status old white men just the same. I consider progressive jews as white, though not White.

            As example, there is no force on this earth that could force Germany to accept millions of what Jim would call “black moslems slavering for white pussy” without treachery from inside, committed by white men, in the same way that a billion Moslems would like to overrun Israel, but can’t, because the ruling elite of Israel have metaphorical testicles where the ruling elite of the rest of the West have metaphorical ovaries.

            Similarly, no dusky-skinned Mexican possesses the innate capability to trespass the southern border without implicit permission granted by the treacherous, treasonous traitors who run our country.

            In all cases of immivasions of Nonwhites into White countries, the Nonwhites are used as blunt instruments to bludgeon one particular class of people by another particular class of people. On this blog, I think who and whom are obvious.

      • Joe says:

        Foreign conquest by whom?
        The blacks and latinos are useless as fighters/conquerors and will never conquer white people.
        I doubt muslims are capable of it either. Where would a large enough, cohesive enough continent of them come from to conquer America – especially considering both whites and Asians would oppose them?
        That leaves Asians. I will grant you that if the Chinese decided to invade a weakened America that they would be trouble, but as far as I know the Chinese have no history in their thousands of years of traveling across long distances to invade foreign nations. They mainly seem to want to be strong, sovereign, and respected in their own territory.
        I don’t think we can write the epitaphs of white civilization until that critical moment arrives when as many angry white men are as angry and desperate as they are going to get, in the largest numbers that are going to get angry…then we’ll see if that’s enough angry and desperate white men to hold at least a significant chunk of the West. My feeling is that it will be.
        The biggest threat of course are the deluded whites who are marching us to destruction.

        • jim says:

          Foreign conquest by whom?
          The blacks and latinos are useless as fighters/conquerors and will never conquer white people.

          History shows that whites tend to defeat other races, including East Asians. However it also shows that masculine patriarchal males tend to defeat emasculated males with emancipated women. Whites have not been doing too well in recent wars.

          The historical white advantage over other races seems to have gone away after the military re-organization that followed the Crimean war for the British, and the Spanish American war for the US. Recent British military performance has been hilariously and hopelessly bad.

          I am not necessarily suggesting that the re-organization in itself drastically undermined performance, rather the re-organization was one manifestation of a culture ever more hostile to males and masculinity.

          • Salger says:

            I point to the sucess of Israel over Muslim lands.

            • jim says:

              1. Lately Israel has not been doing too well either.

              2. Israel is considerably less degenerate than we are – partly because the less degenerate Jews tend to go to Israel while the more degenerate Jews tend to stick around.

              • Ron says:

                I would make one correction to #2

                The more degenerate Jews tend to leave Israel. There are realities on the ground that force K selection. Ironically, it is the prevalence of r-selected traitors thst holds back the K selected from properly finishing off the threat, creating an environment that constantly trains for K and encourages r to leave.

        • Robert says:

          There are other methods of conquest than the sword. Southern California has already been conquered. Many parts of America and Europe have already been, what I would consider, conquered. We are committing suicide. Not having children is suicide.

  3. Father Thyme says:

    >> avoiding the issue of whether blacks were created equal

    The President who wrote “all men are created equal” did not think Blacks were equal to Whites:

    “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” –Thomas Jefferson (Autobiography, 1821)

    The President who expressed that our nation was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” did not think Blacks were equal to Whites:

    “My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals.” –Abraham Lincoln (Speech at Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854)

    • FaggotThyme says:

      You’ve said that Thomas Jefferson was a segregationist who wanted to free the slaves. If true, he was a progressive who was 50, 100, 150 years ahead of his time. Not very impressive, to be a progressive a hundred plus years ahead of his time in Whig city America.

      • Father Thyme says:

        Jefferson expressed doubts that the US could “incorporate the blacks into the State.” If you want to twist that into being current year progressive, I’d be curious as to what you’re smoking.

        “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” -Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia)

  4. vxxc2014 says:

    “If you teach your elite to hate western civilization, whites, and modern technology, you are not going to have any of them for very much longer.”

    We’re not going to have these elites for much longer, this is true.
    They’re not “our” elites of course. Nor are they Puritans. Nor White.
    Nor Vibrant. Nor Asian except in a loose sense of the word.

    If the rest of us who can see what they are allow them to destroy us heartbreaking as it may be then we deserve destruction. They’re weak, cowardly, chief abilities deceit, lying, pimping.

    • jim says:

      Nothing Jewish about Merkel or Hillary.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        You have a point.
        But if the poison is drawn the wound will heal.
        Hillary and Merkel are infected, carriers but not the core problem.

        I’m not being completely accurate here of course and it doesn’t matter.
        I don’t want Shoah II – I want our own back in power.

        The real problem is our weakness. We must fight, we always should have been fighting. America you know is the greatest remaining treasure store of natural wealth on earth. That alone means we must defend. OTOH yes the Doctrine of Disparate Evil applies.

        Finally my own being condemned to genocide flat out IS THEM.
        So they can learn to live and perhaps even behave if the same terms are offered….this isn’t new to humanity either.

        Kill or be killed.
        Don’t kill mine I won’t kill yours.

        Rest is apparently gone.

  5. Toddy Cat says:

    Your comments on the Crimean War and interesting and, as far as I can tell, correct. Much was made over the failures of command in that war, but, as George MacDonald Fraser pointed out, it was really no more poorly run than the Boer War or World War I, which were managed by alleged “professionals”, and the British (and their French and Turkish allies) did actually manage to win a pretty creditable victory. Much of the blustering about command failures was simply an attack on the aristocratic military caste. Much the same might be said of criticism of American performance in the Spanish-American War, where the performance of the amateur US military was supposed to be a national disgrace – except for the fact that they won an overwhelming victory, one that the “professional managers” who ran our wars in Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq might have envied.

    Yes, the British Army of 1855 and the American Army of 1898 were unprofessional, slapdash affairs repugnant to any military professional. All they did was win…

  6. Oliver Cromwell says:

    An old family trinket

    http://i.imgur.com/3jbgB9p.jpg

  7. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >While Pol is always right about Jews, the trouble with Jew centric theory is that it prescribes nazism, which is just a return to nineteen thirties leftism from twentieth century leftism.

    What contemptibly disingenuous equivocation. Ill have you know killing and exiling jews is a multi-millenia old tradition enjoyed by many diverse peoples all around the world across history.

    • jim says:

      Killing Jews is still always leftism. Killing Jews operates on the secret stash theory of economics – that there are ten dollar bills lying on the pavement and the Jews got there first and scarfed them all up, and if we kill the Jews, we will find ten dollar bills lying on the pavement. Remove the element of race, and you get Marxist economics, which is even stupider.

      Jews are indeed a problem, as the link above illustrates, but the problem is not secret stash economics.

      • Salger says:

        The problem with select Jews is that they’re damn good at their niche. And no it isn’t that they’re the masters of the White man, so much as them being damn good middlemen for the mucky mucks in the Cathedral.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >Killing Jews is still always leftism. Killing Jews operates on the secret stash theory of economics

        Equivocating again. Removing matzo is the same as killing or evicting any other ethnic out group; a natural and inevitable expression and outcome of the clash of civilizations, just as god intended.

        Finding difficulty with crushing your competition in the race of races, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the tingles of their women, is finding difficulty with being Right.

        Mr Land certainly understands this, in a similar sort of subconscious sotto voce way leftists understand white superiority by ultimately defining white priviledge as simply being white, by banking on the fact that the coming Great Race will be the descendants of day trading algorithms.

        In the end, there can only be one.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          At the very least, posing as anti-human affords a last ditch measure for the blue tribe europoid to assuage his instinctual racial guilt when faced by the laws of nature or natures god; after all, he can still feel he does not discriminate between various varieties of feeble ape creatures, can still try to avoid the briar-patch that prickles his soul through a colourblind call for wholesale replacement.

        • jim says:

          I am all in favor of the gradual and orderly removal of Jews over time through a combination of exit to Israel with assets and arms and the alternative of full assimilation with an inquisition to make sure that purported full assimilation is indeed full assimilation.

          However I notice that pretty much everyone who wants the removal of Jews wants Kristallnacht – wants Jews removed without their assets, wants Jews to be separated from their secret stash, so that after smashing their windows we get to pick up the piles of ten dollar bills lying on the pavement.

          Finding difficulty with crushing your competition in the race of races, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the tingles of their women, is finding difficulty with being Right.

          I am all in favor of massacre and the enslavement of other people’s women. It is just that I have absolutely no confidence in the guys who are looking for the secret stash. If there was a movement that said “Hey, Jewish girls are hot. Let us kill their men and enslave their women”, would support that totally. (Except that Jewish girls are not hot. East Asian girls are hot.) But a movement that says “Let us kill them all and get their secret stash” is going to fail to find the secret stash and will then proceed to screw over the economy and impoverish me.

          It is not that I oppose Nazi genocide. It is that I oppose Nazi socialism, and all proposals for getting rid of Jews swiftly are based on Nazi economics, are left wing.

          By all means let us eradicate and expel other peoples and take their land, as we did the native Americans. But if we go expecting to find their secret stash, not going to find it.

          If we are going kill some alien people and take their stuff, let us go after alien peoples who have lots of land and resources but are not making effective use of them, rather than go after people who have very little land and resources, yet are making strangely effective use of them. It is simply a lot more profitable.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            >and all proposals for getting rid of Jews swiftly are based on Nazi economics.

            Can you point to these? Most of what I see nowadays is usually just generalized sentiments of googledeath and skypening tout court, without qualification attached. Ie, ‘cartago delenda est’.

            But really it would be more or less besides the point in the end anyways, since in any case the removal of aliens is preferable to the presence of aliens (the only things worse than lincoln starting the war was booth assassinating lincoln before he could start sending the rest of the nignogs to liberia), and for another, as a matter of practical reality, they would be unlikely to leave in the first place without a real and credible fear for their life or livery.

            • jim says:

              Can you point to these?

              The happy merchant with a vacuum cleaner attachment on his nose literally vacuuming up a pile of ten dollar bills literally lying on the pavement.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                Hahah yeah, those are great.

                Well, it is plainly true that skypes are covetous, miserly, and usurious; like many dank memes, they are compelling because they tap into and express broader complex realities in an adroit and interesting way. True modern art masterpieces.

                Buut i guess the question is, what of it? I feel like there is a bit of a disconnect between here and there, with a suspiciously specific interpretation in between.

          • JRM says:

            @jim: “But a movement that says “Let us kill them all and get their secret stash” is going to fail to find the secret stash and will then proceed to screw over the economy and impoverish me.”

            But….with the Croesus-figure Soros being the current poster-boy for Jewish greed (and subversion), it’s kind of hard to tell would-be Brownshirts that there aren’t going to be any stacks of ten dollar bills ready to be scooped up by a broke-ass Goy.

            In addition, the 3.5 billion a year (or has it been raised again?) we float the Israeli economy with seems like some money we might reasonably ask to have given back. Not to mention the (((bankers))) that were bailed out while “everyday Americans”, to use HRC’s least-favorite pander-phrase, were being escorted out of “their” homes.

            Would I be willing to get rid of all Jewish cultural shenanigans and let them keep their gold tooth fillings too? Yes, I would; but it’s a hard argument to make to the kind of angry men we keep hoping will show up for a SHTF party.

            “It is not that I oppose Nazi genocide. It is that I oppose Nazi socialism, and all proposals for getting rid of Jews swiftly are based on Nazi economics…”

            Serious question: Can a non-intrusive Government handle the job of shipping out a foreign loyalty population? The same kind of Government that plans economies and picks winners and losers is the kind that is willing and capable of rounding up a large group of people and escorting them out.

            You allude to a folk-based eradication ala the Manifest Destiny pushing around of Native Americans, but that kind of rough justice gets you back to the confiscation and looting of the target group.

            It seems we would have to choose: let regular guys convince large numbers of people to leave (think of the complications and potential for unpleasantness of all sorts) and put up with the ad hoc money grab; OR orchestrate a Government Removal Program that is BIG Government (and probably tends towards Socialism) but gets the Jews (or other Ethnicity) out with their wealth and health intact.

            • peppermint says:

              Do it the Ferdinand and Isabella way.

              Promulgate that any skypes and first-degree mischlinge in the country after day X that aren’t carrying a slave identification card after day with the name and cell phone number of their patron are subject to forced uninstallation with an X thousand dollar bounty paid to whoever reports them.

              Have the Inquisition search for second degree mischlinge who aren’t acting assimilated and torture them until they stop confessing.

            • jim says:

              But….with the Croesus-figure Soros being the current poster-boy for Jewish greed (and subversion), it’s kind of hard to tell would-be Brownshirts that there aren’t going to be any stacks of ten dollar bills ready to be scooped up by a broke-ass Goy.

              George Soros’ business model is that he buys worthless debt issued by broke governments, then the American taxpayer makes it worth something. In return he does favors for people in power. When George Soros overthrows some government, that is not to put his people in power. That is to put the people who made him rich in power. He is just a servant of power. If you nail one servant, those in power will employ another. The people he installed in power in the Ukraine came from the vicinity of Harvard, not Jerusalem.

              If you go after George Soros, you are missing the matador for the cape.

              If you go after the guy who owns a vodka distillery, you are missing both cape and matador.

            • jim says:

              “It is not that I oppose Nazi genocide. It is that I oppose Nazi socialism, and all proposals for getting rid of Jews swiftly are based on Nazi economics…”

              Serious question: Can a non-intrusive Government handle the job of shipping out a foreign loyalty population? The same kind of Government that plans economies and picks winners and losers is the kind that is willing and capable of rounding up a large group of people and escorting them out.

              You allude to a folk-based eradication ala the Manifest Destiny pushing around of Native Americans, but that kind of rough justice gets you back to the confiscation and looting of the target group.

              See my post “How to genocide inferior peoples in a properly Christian manner

              You mention the bailout, but the people that pissed away the money were not Goldman Sachs. Rather, Goldman Sachs were suckered by Angelo Mozillo, who was able to sucker those supposedly clever Jews because they were blinded by political correctness.

              Angelo Mozillo made million dollar mortgage loans to cat eating no-hablo-english wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets, then sold the mortgages to Goldman Sachs, who proceeded to construct terribly clever derivatives from the underlying mortgages. The original sin was not constructing terribly clever derivatives, it was making million dollar loans to cat eating no-hablo-english wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets.

              Angelo Mozillo provided Goldman Sachs with totally fraudulent paperwork showing that these cat eating no-hablo-english wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets were fine middle class citizens, and Goldman Sachs did not question the paperwork, because to do so would have been racist.

              • pdimov says:

                Hm.

                It has been my impression that Goldman Sachs knew very well that the paperwork was junk, but found a suitably convoluted way to mathematically prove that it isn’t, then resold it.

              • JRM says:

                @jim: “Angelo Mozillo made million dollar mortgage loans to cat eating no-hablo-english wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets, then sold the mortgages to Goldman Sachs…”

                True, but let’s not forget Barney Frank who pushed for lower underwriting standards in housing finance so that mortgage loans could be made to chicken eating, “sheeeeeiit”-talking coons with no income, no job, and no assets.

                In common with your example: it would have been “racist” to be against doing this.

                jim: “If you go after George Soros, you are missing the matador for the cape.
                If you go after the guy who owns a vodka distillery, you are missing both cape and matador.”

                There is truth there, though I must say Soros should be strung-up on principle alone. Nevertheless, while I’m on-board with your idea of a kinder, gentler Shoah (and have no doubt, it would be called a Shoah) these angry Goys everyone on the Right keep conjuring up images of, they may miss the nuance altogether.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                No way jim.

                Goldman 100% knew they were taking on a load of shit which is why they offset the position with bets with AIG – knowing that when everything went underwater they could use their connections to make sure that AIG could pay.

                Which is exactly what happened. GS, who didn’t take bailout money, got a stealth bailout via a 182 billion dollar check to AIG – which didn’t do anything to prevent AIG from dissolving but went directly back to GS.

                • jim says:

                  They did not know until after everyone else knew. In November 2005, everyone knew they were taking on a load of shit, but they did not know until some time in 2007.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            “However I notice that pretty much everyone who wants the removal of Jews wants Kristallnacht – wants Jews removed without their assets, wants Jews to be separated from their secret stash, so that after smashing their windows we get to pick up the piles of ten dollar bills lying on the pavement.”

            I don’t think they want Kristallnacht to take the Jew gold, but rather to see the Jews in pain.

            I don’t disagree that this is a bad idea.

  8. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >But Chernobyl is also a trap. People there turn into primitives.

    By what sense do we say they ‘turn into primitives’?

    This is pretty close to being a recapituation of Magic Dirt theory; lawyer cunt careerist virtu shredders are equivocated with hinterland retreats, but they really arnt equivalent situations.

    Keep your ordinals in mind: a people produce and reproduce the exoteric forms of civilizational window dressing, but exoteric forms of civilizational window dressing do not change or can reproduce the essential nature of pair-wise replicating carboniferous nano-gestalts, except, only, and precisely to the extent that it influences how they replicate pair-wise beyond one generation.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      If you don’t have patriarchy, your race will die out.

      If you don’t have capitalism, your race will be conquered.

      We need both simultaneously, like 18th century England.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Thats a very agreeable interpretation, but the way it was posed was much more risible and open to *mis*interpretation.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Point being again, what makes it #problematic is rhetorically assigning equal weight to different dynamics when they don’t have equal weight.

        As you point out, race matters. There are other things that matter to other people, at least abstractly; be it economy, liberty, technology, military, and so on (a basic precondition of possibility for such things of course being a certain level of insulation and disconnection from ‘the matter at hand’, ie, people think differently about things in contexts like, at leasure at home using a computer, as they do in others, like actually faced with the situation being considered [a classic example being, a women who desires emancipation in the abstract, because it appeals to the abstract desire for control, and then gleefully submitting to a dominant man in a relationship]).

        Many of these people are quite understandably attached to their pet interests, and, when faced with more basic questions such as the survival of a people and their civilizations (not thriving, but *surviving*), as present circumstances unfortunately oblige us to do, they end up having to spend a lot of energy to connect and route these interests *qua interest* to these questions, explicate them in their terms.

        And it is not that such things are necessarily bad, no, nor that it would be uninteresting, quite the opposite; but its is so to speak more along the lines of ‘thought porn’; pleasing in those abstract and disconnected contexts.

        As an aside, it would be well if many would-be priests, topically round these parts, but anywhere in general, more closely embraced a role as curators of thought porn; less doomed attempts at producing tractatus-theologico-politicus that are not ultimately more subversive than eucivic, uselessly rehashing the same grist, lowering the signal to noise ratio, giving themselves nervous breakdowns, and more ‘cool shit’ (para exemple: https://www.overthinkingit.com/ ).

        A practical example; it has often been observed that the fashion tastes amongst that cloistered community of artistes known as ‘haute couture’, ostensible fashion leaders, has become decidedly strange and alien over the years, as compared to broader fashion trends actually out in the wild. There are as always several influential dynamics contributing to this, but the pertinent one is this: most pursue little or no interests outside of their niche, and as consequence, overtime they will begin to compromise on more essential contours of beauty for the simple sake of introducing novelty to their experience. The analogy to paroxysms produced by modern academies should be obvious.

        Basically im saying get hobbies everyone (be it combat sports, shooting, fanfiction, traditional gaming, or so on, and feel free to write about it too!). You life will be better, and if or when you do detour into more ‘heady’ topics, it will benefit from it (since, presumably, you would most likely overcome inertia to comment only on such things in such a topic you are most confidently adept at, and not end up drifting outside your wheelhouse due to the drive to produce more material and more novelty).

        Now then. Back to the point. It is better as implied above to have a more elegant ‘starting point’ as a frame for such work described in the beginning (or any other work), as that then affords a more elegant use of ones limited mental powers.

        *Pointing too* is the ultimate test. How do we know what the meaning of words like ‘But Chernobyl is also a trap. People there turn into primitives.’? You *point too* an example.

        Has there ever actually been a case where a highly advanced people moved from one area to another, and as consequence of *this*, became ‘barbarians’?

        When anglo-saxons moved from the home islands to the hinterlands of the americas, they didnt magically turn into indians, they invented America.

        It strikes me that it is rather the opposite of this phenomena that tends to be the case. Race matters, a people are a nation, and a people carry their civilization (or lack thereof) with them ere they go.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          The winning strategy it to become an Amish.

          But none of us are that committed to the cause.

          • jim says:

            Amish are pacifist and non political. I seriously doubt that is a winning strategy in the long run. Before long, quite possibly within my lifetime, all Amish men will be dead and all surviving Amish women will be slaves.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              USG certainly won’t do that, because pacifism is holy. Holier than USG in fact. If USG falls they might be in trouble, but if not they will eat USG from within.

              Also, just because the Amish strategy is not perfect doesn’t mean yours is better. Having eight children is more effective than buying a gun, on an individual level.

            • Dave says:

              I read that after the Nickel Mines massacre, Amish men all bought guns and learned to shoot them. Pacifism is not central to the Amish faith, it was just a survival strategy practiced by many minorities in many times and places. Now that the English are retiring and selling their farms to the Amish, the latter are becoming a majority, and Nickel Mines put them on notice of the need to defend themselves.

              Muslims are pacifists too, in the presence of a strong non-Muslim state locked and loaded to crush any resistance.

    • jim says:

      If you avoid state and quasi state enforcement of feminism by running away to the woods and being isolated hard to maintain a high knowledge high tech lifestyle.

      If a sufficiently large group avoids state and quasi state enforcement of feminism by running away to the woods and being isolated in a large group, you can maintain a high knowledge high tech lifestyle, but the state will declare you to be damaging the environment and come after you.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Okay, but really we’re crossing somewhat tangential topics by that point.

        If on the one hand, a regrettable but ultimately necessary privation for the future.

        If on the other, more a question of socio-political jiu-jitsu in avoiding the beast.

        Enclaves seeking isolation from a broader power implies the existence of that power to begin with, which means any would-be conqueror would have to contend with that as well as a matter of course. If the former power has declined to the point a putative enclave can explicitly resist and repudiate it, that then passes a critical schelling point where it can attract exponentially more followers, and thus then can resist more opportunistic vultures from outside as well.

        Basically im saying its not really a bad idea to try in any case. But im also pretty agnostic on that front too; i think the biggest good you can do and is being done right now is cultivating ones wizardly prowess and spreading dank memes across the discourse. Such inevitably intensifies the impetus behind both restorations and exits, up and down the ladder of castes. It happens to be a lot of fun too.

        Magic is the recognition of the deeper inevitabilities of being; the lesser gods which aristotle called ‘Powers’, which are more transcendent teleologies in which more parochial teleologies participate, and of which are all ultimately expressions of Gods direct eminence in his creation (the denial of Gods eminence being the chief error of the nominalist theologians, and the natural presage of atheistic posturing). Acting in accord with divine will grants divine power to your actions. Amen.

        If you’re really raring for some sort of practical meatspace things to do, do it like you did at the birth of society (all men are exponents of their ancestral over-soul [mischlings are thus abominations of course]); join groups of men in a mannerbund centered around some common interest, which thus also can conveniently serve as means for privately enforcing the mores of sexual property, in greater or lesser part (a potential slut will have much fewer opportunities for slutdom if the other guys in the social circle of the guy shes with are all ‘in on the conspiracy’).

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Like i get there’s a sort of ocd attraction to couplings and dualism in general, but it has a tendency to lead men astray. Threes and ones are much more holy numbers, and i try to keep that in mind when crafting my rhetoric to avoid situations where i have ‘twos’, broadly speaking.

        • peppermint says:

          » acting in accord with WOTAN grants divine power to your actions

          shadilay

      • Dave says:

        An example of the latter would be Orania, a tiny whites-only enclave in South Africa. It’s defenseless against air attack, but South Africa has no air force since it replaced its white aircraft mechanics and pilots with affirmative-action hires. Any attack on Orania without air support would be another Battle of Blood River.

      • Robert says:

        You don’t have to run away to the woods to accomplish this. You can have a nation within a country. You can hide in plain site. All you need are strong social bonds. We have taken the idea of independence to ridiculous extremes, we have turned a virtue into a vice. The jews don’t run and hide in the woods, they hide in plain site. All we need to do is join together under one banner. First we need to just start getting to know each other in real life. http://www.knightsofthewest.com

  9. JRM says:

    While you are correct that social degeneration from healthy to less-healthy to dangerous formations are on-going and attempts to pin the process to a certain event or year are not entirely productive, we can probably agree on certain watershed moments.

    1919-1920 is certainly one here in the US, as the female vote was granted, and Prohibition was enacted- the latter having been a primary female objective for a few decades prior.

    The Depression of the 1930’s set up the socializing expectations of a nanny-state; if the measures were emergency ones, the failure was to re-set the model after the danger had passed. We know this wasn’t the case.

    After WWII, the critical moments in the fall of White Patriarchy comes fast and frequent.

    One problem I feel has much potential for edifying development is establishing why apparently successful, adaptation-capable systems and governments nevertheless fall. I feel like that you edged up to this topic in the main article. I would like to see further exploration of it.

    I would expect historically hostile groups to form an obvious part of the dynamic, but the internal weaknesses that are exploited (or that simply exacerbate decline) are where the real interest lies; i.e., yes, it was the Jews, or the “priests”, or the Whigs; but where were the fault lines in the system they attacked? Where was the infrastructure incapable of withstanding the stresses inflicted? Where had social capital become so weak that an entire way of life disappeared with hardly a fight (e.g. the segregated South in the 1950’s-1960’s).
    ___________________________________________________________

    Notice the Pres. debate last night: the “little Syrian boy meme” was blatantly and without apparent irony introduced as a serious “issue” for political discourse. The layers of sentimentality (selectively applied) and hypocrisy are so heavy that the current narrative is almost comically collapsing on itself.

    Post-Republic America is a phrase now regularly encountered; it would still have given a real shock even 15 years ago.

    • peppermint says:

      The men of the South watched their little girls marched into integrated schools at bayonet point.

      Before that could happen, the christcucks spent years preaching equality before the law, while their “secular” friends made stuff up in the universities, and the government took over education on the grounds that the government can give resources to the schools.

      Execute all clergy of major denominations, all humanities and social science professors of major universities, all major journalists, and all major dhimmicrat and republicuck politicians.

      “Fed”Gov also spent decades taking over major road construction before imposing the 21 drinking age.

      Populists support government takeovers because they like money. Then they don’t like what the government does with that control. Currently the government controls pretty much everything, so populists are right wing. At some point, people will need to be not educated that working and fighting is what they are here for since we can’t have the government telling people what to think but simply ignored.

  10. Alan J. Perrick says:

    No, if there was one thing wrong about the putting down of the Neo-Africa Confederate rebels, it was that the necessary military action wasn’t taken sooner, though that would have likely proved to be too unpopular because the Afro. plantation-owning Founding Fathers would have been alive and so the action would be going directly against them in some cases.

    The fewer non-whites being brought into area claimed by whites the better and those who argue against that are anti-white.

    A.J.P.

  11. Joe says:

    Off-topic, but I’ve been thinking about what the best strategy for the alt-right and red-pilled men would be going forward.

    What we need is for a critical mass of white people (especially men) to wake up.

    Our most dangerous enemies and the people we most need to convince are liberal white men.

    The most effective thing for changing the mind of a white liberal man is first-hand harsh experience with diversity. If the white guy being stripped and beaten in that recent video was a liberal, he is going to be a lot more open to red-pill thinking (once he recovers from his PTSD) than he was.

    The thing most preventing white liberal men from changing their minds is their hatred for their ideological opposition – us – and their reluctance to give us the satisfaction of seeing them change their minds.

    So as long as we are in their faces, mocking them with our dank memes, emasculating them with our biting observations, and unsettling them with our solid, fact-based arguments, they are too busy hating us and wishing us ill to notice the destruction of their way of life by the diversity. Even if they notice the destruction, even if they secretly acknowledge that some of our arguments are solid, they would rather ignore the discomfort they feel about it than give us the satisfaction of admitting that they were wrong, that progressivism is wrong.

    What this suggests to me is that perhaps the most effective strategy we on the alt-right could pursue (once it is certain that we can’t win an election any more) is to just shut up. Just shut up, and go and work on our livelihoods, making ourselves stronger, richer, more formidable men, making friendships and networks among ourselves, and completely withdraw from the political arena. Leave the white liberal men nothing to hate. Let them feel that they have won…and then leave them alone to start noticing what’s happening to their world from all the multiculturalism and diversity.

    I’m not proposing being Amish, because they are pacifists and pacifism won’t win this for us.

    But this sort of “Kung-fu” strategy. of ceasing to resist the enemy and letting them collapse by removing their “fascist, right wing” ideological boogieman from the field, seems like it would effective.

    I notice this sort of strategy works with my friends and family. When I completely shut up about politics and stop arguing with them, some time passes, and then the stupidities of progressivism that they encounter at work or in the world begin to wear at them and they will even bring up examples of stupid progressive situations on their own….as long as they don’t think I will jump down their throats and say I told them so.

    I read an anecdote recently by a guy whose progressive sister-in-law was dismayed to find that her little boy was being ostracized by the non-whites in his kindergarten class. The guy pointed out that that was the diversity she always said she wanted, and she replied, “I want diversity but I don’t want to be a minority.” That real-world threat to her child was a potent learning experience for that progressive, but it wouldn’t have the same impact if you rub her face in it and make it a matter of her losing face if she agrees with you.

    The diversity will do our work of converting liberal white men to our cause, I think, if we just shut up and let those white men see it for themselves.

    (Of course, this is really an academic argument because it’s not possible to coordinate a single strategy like that among all the red-pilled men out there. All the millions of people involved are going to do what seems best to them and the result is going to be what it is.)

    • jim says:

      Holiness spirals just go on getting ever holier. The costs of feminism and diversity just keep on mounting up. If we did not react when whites were ethnically cleansed out of Detroit and the inner cities, we are not going to react when our children get a hard time at school.

      Every divorce that I am aware of has been a woman making terribly bad decisions with terrible results for her and everyone around her, and our reaction to the observed bad consequences of female decisions to divorce is more cash and prizes for sleeping around and divorcing the father of her children, rather than the glaringly obvious conclusion that women cannot be expected to make adult decisions for adult reasons and desperately need male supervision.

      That we always lose and the holiest always win is a self fulfilling prophecy that leads to ever greater extremes of holiness.

      A regime that could fix this would erase Harvard and Yale from the face of the earth, would re-institute the public service exam so as to hire public servants on the basis of tested ability, rather than degrees issues by academia, purge the public service on the basis of ability and politics, purge the judiciary by “inviting” judges to resign and re-apply for their old jobs, and shooting judges that declined to resign.

      • Antipas says:

        Whites in Detroit and similar places had a place they could run to. Suburbs that still allowed you to be in commuting distance of employment centers. Eventually you run out of places to escape to that have reasonable access to employment.

        • Dave says:

          P.J. O’Rourke wrote in 2009:

          “But cars didn’t shape our existence; cars let us escape with our lives. We’re way the heck out here in Valley Bottom Heights and Trout Antler Estates because we were at war with the cities. We fought rotten public schools, idiot municipal bureaucracies, corrupt political machines, rampant criminality and the pointy-headed busybodies. Cars gave us our dragoons and hussars, lent us speed and mobility, let us scout the terrain and probe the enemy’s lines. And thanks to our cars, when we lost the cities we weren’t forced to surrender, we were able to retreat.”

          I live in a mostly white rural area, and there’s a factory in the next town. Fancy that, building a factory in a place where your workers can actually afford to live! Civil rights forced whites to adopt a semi-nomadic lifestyle, so like our houses, offices and factories are built cheaply in expectation of abandoning them to diversity within 20-30 years.

    • Alfred says:

      I wish shutting up would work but the enemy has infiltrated too many places.

      All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good man to stand by and do nothing.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      The biggest problem with that solution is that it requires everyone to independently figure out the problem.

      As da Vinci put it:

      “There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.”

      Needless to say category 1 is much much smaller than category 2.

      If no one ever points out how progressivism causes the problems that it does people default to the progressive narrative which is that the failure of progressivism only show the need for more progressivism.

  12. Alan J. Perrick says:

    If any papist sympathiser tries to blame Whigs, then blame the Vatican for the French Revolution and France’s part in the Republicanism which is the essence of the Cathedral. The Vatican staged the French regicide because it worried that France was going over to the Christian God, the Holy Trinity, with higher and higher appointments for Christian men in Louis XVI’s majority papist administration. It worried that France would end up like the Dutch Republic did, under a Christian monarch.

    In fact, this condition should probably be brought up even before the Vatican colonials intrude, because there is a lot to uncover with the Jesuit complicity throughout Modern history, to include the French Revolution and also the activity of the Cathedral, today.

    A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      It was not exactly the Vatican to blame for the French revolution, rather the false popes of Avignon. Just as today’s left has organizational continuity with the Puritans through Harvard all the way back to Robert Browne, the French revolutionaries had similar organizational continuity with the false popes of Avignon.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        I know you read Mr Mencken, the man who coined the term “Puritanical” in a Humanistic attack on white Americans. His motivation, tribalism, is clear to me while you apparently have a habit of overlooking it…

  13. james grey says:

    The purpose of life is moral development and Western society is the perfect teacher. Its only at the very end that men realise my wife does not love me, she doesn’t even like me. This is the nature of women. All of my material possessions are going to be given to people who are pretending to love me. This is an amazing lesson in moral development. Trump may have fucked a lot of women. But it is just an alpha pig fucking his way through the herd. In the end you are just a pig shooting your semen and then the owner of the pig comes along and turns you into a pork chop. Such is the way of Trump. But he knows that what women say is not what they do. Women are probably Trumps largest voting bloc. When these immoral females get in the voting booth they will vote Trump because they want the orange cock slapping them in the face

    • jim says:

      The fickleness of women is notorious, but the love of a parent and his child is unbreakable. It is is absolutely clear that Trump loves his numerous children, and they love him.

      • james grey says:

        Trump is worth a lot of money and that buys a lot of love and compliance. My friends who are divorced with blended families say its all sunshine and rainbows. Trump is basically a ‘3×3’ he has kids with three different mothers. If presidential candidates had to take a personality inventory test or any sort of psychological review Trump and Hillary would not be allowed anywhere near public office. Hillary is a public official with $150m in her bank account. How did that happen? The debates are as scripted as an episode of the apprentice. That exchange about Abe Lincoln. That is not a spontaneous. Trump is going to do a sneak attack. That is some kindergarten bullshit we all know what ISIS is.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          The office of U.S. president is founded on a Constitution (document), which forbids hereditary titles. How one expects stability from a system like that is incomprehensible…

          A.J.P.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          >If presidential candidates had to take a personality inventory test or any sort of psychological review Trump and Hillary would not be allowed anywhere near public office.

          If out of the entire field of political plants, only a man like trump is willing to explicitly talk about basic common sense like border security and keeping ethnic aliens out of your social fabric, then you may need to reasses your definition of ‘psychological health’.

          How crazy is it, to take a step back from time to time and simply marvel, that a simple assertion like putting the interests of your country first ahead of the interests of other countries, could possibly be considered controversial by a not-insignificant fraction of people.

      • Alfred says:

        Trump is portrayed as a rapist of his own daughter while in actuality he loves his children.
        Hilary is portrayed as a responsible adult while in actuality she is driven by hatred and greed.

  14. M says:

    I would’ve supported McCarthy and the John Birch society in the 1950s, Goldwater in the 1960s, beating hippies at Kent State in the 1970s, Buchanan in the 1990s, and now I support Trump. Looking further back I would’ve been against women’s liberation, would’ve supported the south in the civil war (for reasons of states rights, not slavery). I’m not sure if I would’ve been in favor of the American Revolution (half of colonists supported the British).

    Be honest – if you’re alt right ideologically instead of as a passing fad, you would’ve been on the same side as me.

    Leftism is disorder and entropy. It can’t be fought using the tools of the left incrementally. It has to be imposed in a single stroke, usually by a strongman or military takeover.

    • peppermint says:

      Birchers were controlled opposition. Birchers were what happens when your resistance movement is led by christcucks who don’t really disagree with the communists except regarding economic policy. If you don’t know this, read Revilo Oliver’s book America’s Decline, which is about what happened in those crucial years.

  15. peppermint says:

    Women are very emotional about sex, as well they should be, since they would otherwise be confused into it by smarter men. Men are the same way about governance, give a man a future and he’ll follow you anywhere even if you tell him his race is inferior to the Chosen of ((Yahweh)), don’t and he’ll try to kill you no matter what you say.

    Women who get carried away are called whores and sluts, similarly men are called mercenaries and cultists, the implication of both is that it’s not a likely path to having a family.

    It’s perfectly justified, of course, to call the men who work for this government mercenaries and cultists. They might be able to have a family now, but might soon be more or less legally required to care for the wife’s son contra the third amendment.

  16. Mike says:

    Jim, you may want to add Russia to that list of barren edge regions where Whites will survive:

    “Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools” (article from Zerohedge)

    If your strategy to obtain political power is to connect with elites in foreign nations, being forced to educate your kids in their own nation (where they might learn some patriotic ideas, God forbid) is akin to gene death.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Huh? The Russian state is protecting its children from being connected by Anglo elites, and Russia is large enough to have its own education system.

      Anyway, size doesn’t matter in itself, but sovereignty does. You need land and enough people to build nuclear weapons. Minimum size seems to be something like South Africa.

  17. Mike says:

    I saw a little of how logistics worked when I was in Afghanistan. It was very hard to get anything through conventional channels, and we often found we had to engage in “drug deals” by trading whatever surplus stuff we had with other units that had what we actually needed. There was some contractor guy who was supposed to handle our orders for more parts but I got the impression that he wasn’t in a real hurry to actually do anything. He pretty much just collected a paycheck and sat on his ass all day. We were still receiving parts ordered by the guys from the rotation before the guys we replaced. This at the end of MY rotation…

    At the same time, I was able to order pipe tobacco online, have it sent to my APO address and have it in my hands within two, three weeks at the latest. Maybe we should just cut out the contractor and military supply chain bullshit and let Amazon handle it.

    • jim says:

      That is roughly analogous to what they did back in the day – leading to the complaint that the camp followers also kept the troops supplied with hot and cold running women. (A complaint they somehow forgot about when it came to Florence Nightingale, who worked harder horizontally than vertically.)

      They also complained that Lord Cardigan brought his french chef along while his men had salt beef. On the other hand, Lord Cardingan, unlike present day commanders, tended be in the front when the bullets were flying. So, would you prefer a regimental commander who eats the same food as you, or a regimental commander who gets exposed to the same bullets as you?

      Well, regardless of what you might prefer, I think you are more likely to fight for a commander who gets exposed to the same bullets as you.

      • Mike says:

        I wouldn’t have minded having some decent whores around. When I got there we were under orders not to have sex with whatever passed for a woman around there, not to look at porn, and not to consume alcohol. I understand now just how bad porn is, but the puritans who write these policies aren’t doing anything good for morale. I mean, there were ways around the porn thing and you could always bang one of the few decent girls to be found on base, but I did understand the point about not having men and women in the same unit banging each other. It does affect good order and discipline. It would be much safer to have actual whores around that aren’t within the military chain-of-command. It would have made the stay there much more pleasant too. (Not that I had it all that bad, being a POG, REMF, you name it, myself.)

  18. Anon says:

    Clicked on your twitter link:

    >account suspended

    Hilarious, like clockwork.

    • Dave says:

      That’s why smart people don’t post original content on Twitter anymore, it’s not a reliable platform. They post content somewhere else and put a link to it on Twitter, and smart readers bookmark the “somewhere else”.

      “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” -John Gilmore

  19. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Some say that christianity would be difficult to reform, in one form or another.

    I disagree. In fact, it is quite easy to reform the same way you would ‘reform’ anything else; you simply loudly and repeatedly assert what you believe to already be the case, and dare anyone to contradict you.

    In the mean time you suck up sweet sweet memetic real estate, and when anyone actually does contradict you, they are the ones who do all the leg work marshaling the most relevant evident, most pertinent logic, and most compelling arguments, all into one convenient place for you to dismiss.

    Thats what you call ‘energy management’; just as with ancient trolles in days of yore, so too with ebig trolling in later days.

    • Anon says:

      You’re an idiot. I’m sick of people thinking they can pull a Lazarus on an already zombified Christianity. Progressives are wrong in the way a shotgun is wrong, but at least they hit something. Their reasons for loathing Christianity are clueless, in the same way that princess is mad at dad for making her go to bed. But unironic Christian revivalists may be even more clueless.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Oh ye of little faith! Why, just take a look at these 100% christian fellows right here https://emilysmucker.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/mormon.jpg

        How do you know they are christian? Just ask them of course and they’ll tell you themselves!

        Say what you already want and dare anyone to disagree.

        • jim says:

          I have kind of been doing that:

          Saint Paul tells us what marriage should be like, and he is simply correct. He also tells us that Bishops should be married with children and set an example of well functioning patriarchy, even though he himself was not married and failed to set such an example.

          His remarks on passion lead me to believe he knows what passion is, so probably had some deviant tendencies that he, just barely, kept under control. He clearly expressed the opinion that normally Bishops should, unlike him, be married, patriarchal, and have well behaved children.

          And then there is all that love your enemies stuff that makes Christianity so suicidal. I explain this away by Christ saying this standard is impossible, not to mention suicidal, so we need grace to be excused from it. Jesus submitted to his enemies so that you do not have to.

          And as for the good Samaritan, well if the good Samaritan is your neighbor, the other Samaritans are not, nor is the priest or the levite. And you don’t have to love your non neighbor.

          So. Keep the good stuff in Christianity, dump the bad stuff by appealing to ancient Christian tradition to justify interpreting the Gospels one way and not the other way. Any version of Christianity that lasted a long time had the suicidal stuff under control.

          Trouble is, the Cathedral is going to come down on any form of Christianity that is actually Christian like a ton of bricks. If you actually believe in girls should be virgin at marriage, then you either have to keep them chained up in a dungeon till marriage, or else marry them at a rather young age to boys old enough to have jobs. In either case the Cathedral charges you with child abuse.

          • Alfred says:

            > Jesus submitted to his enemies so that you do not have to.

            This is probably the healthier interpretation of Jesus’ submission. But I would argue that the simplest interpretation of Jesus kissing his enemies on the cheek is that his followers should also kiss their enemies on the cheek.

            • jim says:

              Pretty sure Pope Urban the first declined to go with the simplest interpretation.

              • Alfred says:

                Then pope Urban was unnecessarily hostile and not a good Christian.

                • peppermint says:

                  ((Yahweh)) is a skype egregore that blesses who blesses the skypes and curses who curses the skypes because the skypes never forget an insult and always get their revenge and plug shabbos goys into their nepotism networks.

                  A good Christian is a cuck who collaborates with ((Yahweh)).

                • Alfred says:

                  Yes but all your alternatives seem to be some variation of heil Hitler.

                • peppermint says:

                  Hitler was the first to write about NS which he elucidated by describing the praxis on the German Question in the early 20th century. He should be heiled as a philosopher and the rest of the 20th century of philosophy was attempts at undermining the obvious truth.

                  The failure to heil Hitler in academia is the principal reason academia must be executed en masse.

                  Meanwhile, asking people to heil Hitler is the best way to determine whether someone is serious about the 14w or whether they’re going to cuck out.

                  It’s like what the skype egregore ((Yahweh)) said about its rules, if the skypes are able to keep to their rules, they will be able to survive and eventually challenge the host society, while if they cuck out, they’ll melt away. If we can’t heil Hitler, we’re not actually in charge and ultimately doomed.

                  The ((Yahweh)) cultist christcucks who cucked us on being able to say nigger either didn’t understand this, or did, which is even worse.

                • jim says:

                  Not going the Heil Hitler, because
                  1. Hitler was a leftist.
                  2. He was a socialist, and although socialism worked initially “Just do whatever you were doing before, plus ten percent”, pretty soon it was all ersatz this and ersatz that.
                  3. He made numerous major war errors – notably declaring war on America when he was already up to his neck in alligators, bombing British cities while their airforce was still operational, thereby losing the battle of Britain, and, of course, invading Russia when winter was coming.
                  He fell into traps set by his enemies.

                • Alfred says:

                  Heiling Hitler is a good anti-prog test, but thats about it. Leftism that calls out the skypes is still leftism.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Hitler was a leftist.”

                  I wonder what is your estimate of the fraction of the US population that is to the right of Hitler.

                • jim says:

                  I would guess that the majority of white adult males support capitalism and a man’s authority over his wife and children, which puts them to the right of Hitler.

                • peppermint says:

                  what matters about Hitler is than he had a weltanschauung to challenge christcuckoldry, he stood up to the skypes, and as a result the christcucks, skypes, and commies destroyed him and tried to tell everyone he turned skypes into lampshades to permanently discredit the greatest philosopher, statesman, and soldier of all time. but as PEGIDA says, we love our nation, but we are not socialists, therefore we are not nazis.

                • JRM says:

                  @jim: “1. Hitler was a leftist.”

                  This has been said a thousand times before, but I don’t think it’s autism to reiterate that “Leftist” is appropriate for the Fuhrer’s economic policies, but it misrepresents his cultural and racial policies. Look at approved art under the Reich, and the battle against cultural degeneracy. There were dozens of areas in which the Reich was anything but Leftist.

                  Motherhood was celebrated with much State ceremony, and Mother’s Crosses were given to those who produced x number of kids.

                  To the extent that the Reich encouraged folk traditions and embraced conservative cultural memes it’s hard to classify as “Leftist”. The state control of the economy does fulfill the Leftist taxonomy, I grant you.

                  “2. He was a socialist, and although socialism worked initially “Just do whatever you were doing before, plus ten percent”, pretty soon it was all ersatz this and ersatz that.”

                  But wasn’t that b/c the economy was on a war footing? They really only had twelve years, and considering where they started and how far they got, they did an amazing job.

                  “3. He made numerous major war errors – notably declaring war on America when he was already up to his neck in alligators, bombing British cities while their airforce was still operational, thereby losing the battle of Britain, and, of course, invading Russia when winter was coming.”

                  Agreed, with the possible exception of war with the USA. He was obligated by treaty to do so, but there was an initial advantage in that US ships laden with supplies for Britain could now be targeted, and that supply stream reduced. Eventually, tho, his underestimation of the US as a land of racial mongrels besotted with negerkultur caught up with him.

                  Churchill baited him into switching targets from critical airfields to crumbling Victorian slums. As you say, he fell into the trap.

                  I think he rushed the Soviet invasion b/c he had a premonition he would soon die, and felt no one could wage that war as well as he could, so he moved it up on the calendar. Two-front wars not a good idea.

                • jim says:

                  But wasn’t that b/c the economy was on a war footing? They really only had twelve years, and considering where they started and how far they got, they did an amazing job.

                  Greeks were Nazis. Because the German government could not supply Germans with bread and butter, they confiscated Greek bread and butter. Whereupon Greeks became strikingly unenthusiastic about nazism. This was a massive failure of socialism. When Nazis starved the Slavics, they rationalized they were starving their enemies to feed their own people. When they starved Greeks and Dutch, they were just fucking up.

                  Obviously you should make sure that everyone who is willing to go along with you gets food and pussy, and only deny food to those who are stubbornly inclined to make trouble. Socialist economies famously fail to do this, and Nazi Germany was more of the same.

                • Alfred says:

                  The problem with Hitler was that he was crazier than he was brilliant. He invaded Russia because he wanted to prove to the world that he had a bigger napoleon-complex than Napoleon. Attributing to him a coherent weltanschaung is making him into a hero he was not.

                • pdimov says:

                  “… “Leftist” is appropriate for the Fuhrer’s economic policies…”

                  Not even that. Hitler banned unions and strikes. And capital was doing fine.

                  https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism/

                • jim says:

                  Hitler banned unions in the sense of forcing everyone into Nazi unions. It was the commies that banned unions and strikes.

                  And it is simply a lie that capitalism was doing fine. Capitalists were effectively expropriated, and apt to wind up in concentration camps.

                  Jacobin Magazine which you cite shows the stock market from 1930 to November 1933. Hang on. Hitler took power in February 1933, so your source, strangely covers what happened before Hitler took power for several years, but leaves out what happened ten months after Hitler took power.

                • pdimov says:

                  “The problem with Hitler was that he was crazier than he was brilliant.”

                  The problem with Hitler was that he lost. Churchill was crazier, but he won, so he’s the genius statesman now and Hitler is the crazy leftist.

                • pdimov says:

                  “I would guess that the majority of white adult males support capitalism and a man’s authority over his wife and children, which puts them to the right of Hitler.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  ““Leftist” is appropriate for the Fuhrer’s economic policies, but it misrepresents his cultural and racial policies. Look at approved art under the Reich, and the battle against cultural degeneracy. There were dozens of areas in which the Reich was anything but Leftist.

                  “Motherhood was celebrated with much State ceremony, and Mother’s Crosses were given to those who produced x number of kids.”

                  The Warsaw Pact countries also favoured representational art and babies. They failed to make good representational art because it was ordered by officials rather than private collectors, and they failed to make many babies because their methods for making babies were those of Western progressives (free childcare for working single mothers).

                  The Warsaw Pact countries also rhetorically favoured producing lots of goods of a high quality but they failed to do so. Old-style socialism of pro-technology eugenicists like H G Wells was pretty OK in terms of goals but sucked in its methods. Hitler was about as bad on this score as Stalin, who was pretty bad, although probably better than Noel Ignatiev.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Hitler banned unions in the sense of forcing everyone into Nazi unions.”

                  He banned unions in the sense of banning and disbanding the unions, confiscating their money and arresting and imprisoning the union leaders.

                • jim says:

                  Utter bullshit.

                  99.99% of union leaders instantly became good nazis and continued their union functions. A tiny handful of commie unionists got imprisoned. Commies were utterly dismayed about how swiftly, totally, and seemingly genuinely the union movement was nazified.

                  Far from unions being abolished, almost every business became a closed shop – to get a job you had to be or become a member of the union.

                  Four year plan, compulsory union membership, guaranteed job security, does not sound much like capitalism to me.

                  It is clear that many capitalists were very unhappy about being roped into the four year plan. There was absolutely no indication of resistance, unhappiness, or even lack of enthusiasm, by union leadership or rank and file about being roped into the DAF. Perhaps some union organizers had their doubts, but if so, they wisely kept those doubts to themselves.

                  The Nazi position on unionism was exactly that of the wobblies: One big union. I expect that if a union leader did not get with the program, police would pay him a visit, but in actual practice, everyone did get with the program. The commie story of widespread resistance and widespread coercions is a complete fiction. Suddenly, not only was every union leader a Nazi, but he always had been.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Capitalists were effectively expropriated, and apt to wind up in concentration camps.”

                  Name three.

                • jim says:

                  Offhand I can only name one – but that is because he is same one you will name when challenged to provide examples of capitalists who supported Hitler’s rise to power.

                  From 1936 onwards the Soviet Union Nazi Germany had a Soviet style four year plan. Goering exercised total control over the private sector rendering privatization meaningless.

                  Which is pretty much what capitalists expected and predicted.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Jacobin Magazine which you cite shows the stock market from 1930 to November 1933.”

                  Read on.

                  “Apparently, the first use of the word “privatization” (or “reprivatization”) in English occurred in the 1930s, in the context of explaining economic policy in the Third Reich. Indeed, the English word was formulated as a translation of the German word “Reprivatisierung,” which had itself been newly minted under the Third Reich.”

                  “In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.”

                  Leftist to the core.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Jim, and what about Kinder, Küche, Kirche? I hear those dastardly leftist National Socialists were rather serious about it.

                • jim says:

                  Not really serious about it.

                  If really serious about it, would have approved corporal punishment of wives by husbands, would have kept daughters under the eye of their fathers, and would have returned runaway wives to their husbands for punishment. “Strength through Joy” notoriously tended to wind up, Weimar style, as Joy through Fucking Around.

                • pdimov says:

                  The four year plan was not economic policy. It was preparation for war. War has its own rules.

                  It’s true that the unions were replaced with the Labour Front, and this is indeed similar to what happened in communist countries, but the communists nationalized everything. Nationalization (as opposed to privatization) is generally a fairly reliable way to tell leftists from rightists.

                  Hitler just wasn’t particularly leftist. He also wasn’t particularly rightist, at least by by our standards here. This seems to annoy everyone since they always want to group him with their political enemies.

                • jim says:

                  During total war, you grab everything and apply it to war – which causes the economy to collapse, but you can worry about that after you win the war. In this sense, total war is always totally socialist.

                  During preparation for war, you don’t grab everything and apply it to preparation for war, because if you do that, you will find there is nothing left to grab during the war, and you will suffer horrible logistic crises as Hitler did.

                  Applying socialism in preparation for war was unwise and counterproductive, and led to the disastrous outcome that Hitler was not able to feed everyone who was willing to cooperate with him and submit to his rule. Notice that Venezuela and North Korea have exactly the same problem, inability to feed all loyalists, even in the complete absence of war.

                • pdimov says:

                  You can’t prepare for war without intervening in the economy. It’s just not possible. Maybe Hitler should have intervened less. Either way, peacetime economic policies are a somewhat better indicator for whether someone is a socialist.

                • jim says:

                  On the contrary, the way to prepare for war is to pay for the stuff you need in money that is actually usable, since will result in more capacity to produce the stuff you need. If you command what you need, you will find that when you give similar commands next year, does not work so well. If next year is the actual war, you are in the soup.

                  And, in fact, Hitler found himself in the soup. Somehow, there was not enough food to go around, and feeding Germans meant starving Greeks, Danes, etc. Danes are pretty damned Aryan. Kind of a bad idea to starve them.

                  War socialism is an emergency measure. You are eating the seed corn to prevent the enemy from eating it, you are deliberately starving your peasants lest the enemy conscript them. If you are merely preparing for war, it is not yet the time for emergency measures.

                • pdimov says:

                  (for war _of this scale_)

                • pdimov says:

                  I don’t think that Germany would’ve been able to fight America, Russia and Britain and feed everyone if Hitler had been less socialist.

                • jim says:

                  But Germany was not able to feed everyone.

                  Like every other socialist, they starved large numbers of people to death. With the Slavs and the Jews, they say they meant to do it. But I am pretty sure they did not mean to starve the Greeks and the Danes.

                  Large scale famine under Nazi rule was no different from large scale famine in the Puritan settlement at Plymouth, the Cambodian autogenocide, the Russian famines, and the Chinese hungry ghosts famine. The same causes produced the same results.

  20. JRM says:

    Short Quotes and Replies to my fellow Jim’s Blog readers:

    Alfred: “He invaded Russia because he wanted to prove to the world that he had a bigger napoleon-complex than Napoleon. Attributing to him a coherent weltanschaung is making him into a hero he was not.”

    Without getting in to what makes someone a hero, would argue that he did have a coherent world-view. Racial hierarchies, the proper role of women in society, what makes for desirable art and entertainment; the role of the State in setting social and economic priorities; the role of modern media; the role of the Germans in the future Europe he was planning. The closest he came to incoherence was in his military decisions.

    pdimov: “Not even that. Hitler banned unions and strikes. And capital was doing fine.”

    This goes to the arguments about how socialist a socialist economy is. And in what ways. Socialism exists along a continuum, not as an on-off switch. Capitalists helped fund Hitler’s rise. Capitalists in modern America fund liberal socialists like Obama and HRC.

    O.Cromwell: “The Warsaw Pact countries also favoured representational art and babies. They failed to make good representational art because it was ordered by officials rather than private collectors..”

    Of course Warsaw Pact much later chronologically-ten to fifteen years. But the change from the radical art that accompanied the Revolution was one Stalin made happen during the years of the Third Reich, so a very fair point.

    The avant-garde in Soviet Union did not lose ground all at once or across the board as it did in Germany. However, eventually, modernism came to be suspect as not being a true expression of the people, but rather a bourgeois cult.

    The fact remains that the early Soviets remain associated with Supremacism and Constructivism. Many Jews in the early Soviet system. Much radical theorizing and bohemianism. Later, Stalin cracked down. So much so that by the 1950s the CIA was promoting Abstract Expressionism as a cultural weapon against retrograde Soviet Realist art.

    It’s instructive to recall that by the early 1940s, the Soviets were promoting idealized realism in art and patriotism in defense of the homeland, neither of which were the goals of the original Soviets.

    • Alfred says:

      Invading Russia was stupid. It reeks of delusion of grandeur, of a man who was more concerned with immortalising himself than he was with order and prosperity. I can not imagine him being so incoherent military yet coherent in all other aspects of life.

    • pdimov says:

      “This goes to the arguments about how socialist a socialist economy is. And in what ways.”

      Yeah.

      – Let’s have a libertarian debate.
      – OK. You’re socialist!
      – No, you’re socialist!

      Jim’s standard is “government intervention into the economy of any kind”, and by that standard, Hitler was indisputably socialist, and capitalism doesn’t exist.

      Left/right is also poorly defined. Jim says that the median American white man is to the right of Hitler. I suspect that the median American white man will punch him in the nose if he hears that though.

      I like Chris B’s recent take on left/right:

      https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/neoreaction-is-right-wing-confusion/

      • jim says:

        A four year plan and one big union is rather substantial intervention in the economy.

        Hitler was a socialist. Socialism is stupid. You want to call it right wing socialism perhaps. It is still stupid.

        • pdimov says:

          War is always a substantial intervention in the economy.

          Replacing existing unions with a government union is not necessarily a substantial intervention in the economy. It depends on what the government union actually does, compared to the unions it replaces. If it makes life easier for the employers, it’s not leftist.

          Hitler was a socialist in name only. His economic policies simply do not fit the profile of a socialist.

          “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.”

          “You want to call it right wing socialism perhaps.”

          Not particularly. This doesn’t make sense by my definition of socialism, which is always left wing, because, unlike you, I require interventions to have a specific motive (redistribution from rich to poor, from capital to labor, from privileged to oppressed) in order to classify as socialist.

          So for example confiscating the property of Soros or the Ford Foundation because they harm the nation by advancing leftism does not classify as socialism in my book, even though it is intervention, and if you do that after coming to power, I promise that I won’t call you socialist or left wing. Unless you start and lose a world war, then maybe.

          • jim says:

            Replacing existing unions with a government union is not necessarily a substantial intervention in the economy. It depends on what the government union actually does, compared to the unions it replaces. If it makes life easier for the employers, it’s not leftist.

            It is clear that at least initially the one big union made things considerably harder for the employers. They (nazis, nazi unionists, unionists who suddenly discovered that they had always been nazis) thought that the employers had a secret stash and proceeded to get themselves some of that secret stash. The initial actions of the DAF were to raise wages, increase vacation time, and make workers hard to fire.

            But regardless of which interest groups it benefits, and regardless of whether one big union is left or right, one big union is socialist and socialism is stupid. There is no secret stash. Wealth comes from entrepreneurs creating wealth. As soon as you interfere with their authority over workers and capital (and the DAF immediately set to interfering with their authority over workers) you impair the creation of wealth.

            The secret stash turns out to have been working capital, and when it is gone, it is strangely not replaced, and things fall apart.

            • pdimov says:

              “Wealth comes from entrepreneurs creating wealth.”

              Hitler said basically the same in his speeches. “Private initiative of German business” and so on.

              • jim says:

                Hitler said basically the same in his speeches. “Private initiative of German business” and so on.

                I find this very hard to believe.

                What speech? Where? When?

                Was it one of those speeches where there were only half a dozen people attending, all of them evil capitalist overlords busily grinding down the oppressed masses, and the man who tells us Hitler said those things was not one those invited, and indeed never lived in Germany? Hitler seems to have said quite a lot of improbable and out of character things at such speeches.

                • pdimov says:

                  From a cursory search, this one is probably most representative of Hitler’s economic views:

                  http://der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/35-05-21.htm

                  “We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone.

                  Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest Agrarian State in the world.

                  It would be unthinkable to transfer such a catastrophe into Germany, because, at the of the day, in Russia there are 10 city dwellers for every 90 country dwellers, but in Germany for only 25 farmers there are 75 city dwellers.”

                  “In the same proportion in that the lack of international sales obliges us to restrict the purchase, it will have to be tried so that the German labor is not left idle, to win over the lack of raw materials either by complicated procedures, or, if this is not possible, to replace them. This task can only be resolved by a planned economy. A dangerous undertaking because every planned economy is too easily followed by the bureaucratization and thus the suffocation of the ever-creative private initiative.

                  However, in the interest of our people we cannot wish that an economy, which is similar to Communism and therefore puts to sleep the energy of production, will reduce the possible total efficiency of our capacity for work. Thus the general standard of living undergoes a deterioration instead of an improvement.

                  This danger will be further increased by the fact that in my view every planned economy abolishes too easily the harsh laws of economic selection of the fittest and the extermination of the weakest, or at least limits in favor of a guarantee of the preservation of the inferior at the expense of the higher ability, of the higher diligence and value and thus to the detriment of the common good.

                  Thus, if we have taken this path in spite of such realizations, it was done under the most severe compulsion of necessity. What was achieved in the two and a half years in the areas of job creation, of market regulation, of a planned price and wage setting, was considered totally impossible a few years ago.

                  But it was only successful because we put behind these seemingly dry economic measures the living energy of the entire nation.

                  A myriad of objective and psychological conditions had first to be created with that purpose. In order to guarantee the functioning of the national economy, it was necessary first to bring an absolute quiet to the eternal movement of the wage and price formation.

                  It was further necessary to remove every intervention which were not in a higher national economic interest, its driving conditions basis, i. e. to abolish the class organizations living from the wage and price policy of both sides. The destruction of the fighting trade unions both the ones of the employers and of the workers demanded the analogous elimination of the parties sustained by these interest groups and which therefore supported them. This forced again to the introduction of a new constructive and lively constitution and to a inner reconstruction of the nation and the state!”

                • jim says:

                  You quote Hitler saying

                  “Thus, if we have taken this path in spite of such realizations, it was done under the most severe compulsion of necessity. What was achieved in the two and a half years in the areas of job creation, of market regulation, of a planned price and wage setting, was considered totally impossible a few years ago.”

                  He lists the reasons why socialism is likely to be a bad idea “such realizations”, says he went ahead with socialism despite this, and that socialism has been a big success.

                  If socialism initially seems like a big success, it is because socialists think they have found the secret stash, and everyone is happily enjoying and devouring the secret stash.

                  And that is what happened when Hitler unionized everyone. Higher wages, longer vacations, and you can no longer be fired!

                  But, it invariably turns out that they have not found the secret stash, but rather are eating the seed corn.

                • pdimov says:

                  Shorter Hitler:

                  – private initiative and private property create wealth
                  – Bolshevism is stupid
                  – planned economies are stupid
                  – we made one work though, very carefully, because Aryans
                  – other western countries should watch and learn

                  (I didn’t quote that last part but it’s in the speech.)

                  He obviously can’t go full Jim and say socialism is stupid because he had named himself one.

                • pdimov says:

                  I don’t know why you go on about the secret stash.

                • jim says:

                  If you think socialism works, you believe in the secret stash. That there is a pile of ten dollar bills on the pavement, and somehow Jews got to it first, or capitalists got to it first, or both.

                  Otherwise socialism makes no sense. Without the secret stash socialism is simply obviously self destructive, a recipe for ruin, social decay, and famine.

                  Kristallnacht was the economic theory of the secret stash, as was the DAF.

                  Similarly Venezuela. You cannot operate a gold mine in Venezuela because guys from the regime keep showing up with guns expecting to find a pile of gold, instead of a very large pile of rock containing very tiny amounts of gold.

                • pdimov says:

                  “If socialism initially seems like a big success…”

                  I can’t think of a case in which socialism has ever seemed a big success. Especially not when exiting a depression. FDR’s policies, for instance, did not seem a big success even initially. To say nothing about Venezuela.

                  I suspect that the real reason for Germany’s recovery under Hitler was the suspension of reparation payments.

                • pdimov says:

                  “If you think socialism works, you believe in the secret stash.”

                  And you’re stupid. Yes. So what?

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                In his final speech from the Berlin bunker, Joseph Goebbels states his goal as the creation of an “empire of social justice”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5-_cwzudo4&t=3m25s

            • JRM says:

              @jim: “Wealth comes from entrepreneurs creating wealth. As soon as you interfere with their authority over workers and capital (and the DAF immediately set to interfering with their authority over workers) you impair the creation of wealth.”

              But how do you reconcile this position with two of our biggest current problems, employers using cheap Mexican labor instead of White Americans for their work force, and export of operations to foreign countries?

              These kinds of policies have weakened and continue to weaken White working class and middle class families. Aren’t you on the side of White working men? Having families?

              I don’t believe in unfettered Capital. I do believe in private property and unequal outcomes. Both are natural features of the human condition.

              With zero control of Capital, too many cutthroat practices, and the elevation of greed over at least some kind of community-minded responsibility. No one needs half a dozen multi-million dollar homes as recompense for their talent in cheating the less well-off or of paying-off corrupt politicians.

              • jim says:

                But how do you reconcile this position with two of our biggest current problems, employers using cheap Mexican labor instead of White Americans for their work force, and export of operations to foreign countries?

                I don’t want employers to be able to permanently import low IQ workers to vote, receive welfare, and free medical. But I do want employers to hire and fire as they please. Dubai gets it right. Guest workers are there only temporarily unless they can achieve substantial upwards economic mobility, and are second class, almost slaves, relative to citizens. They actually do do the work that Dubai natives will not do, rather than voting themselves welfare and affirmative action jobs.

                Detroit was destroyed because employers were forced to hire blacks even though blacks were substantially less productive.

                • JRM says:

                  “Detroit was destroyed because employers were forced to hire blacks even though blacks were substantially less productive.”

                  True. Although I admire Henry Ford for many things, inviting Dindus to a once great city isn’t one of them.

                  And the first wave who were the low-productivity workers you mention sired the descendants who have zero-productivity and cost much in welfare.

                  Being forced to hire blacks and forbidden to fire them is a huge failing of the kind of socialism we have been blessed with. No wonder so many revile it.

                  If you think about it, this country was ruined by two waves of trying to exploit cheap black labor. The first in slavery, which left the South forever dysfunctional, and the second in the great migration to factories, which left the North dysfunctional as well.

                  We should not only have picked our own cotton, we should have built our own flivvers.

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  Racial caste systems never last, “Jim” and these certain An. Cap. paradises, which are cities, only last because the rest of the surrounding areas are racially homogenous.

                • jim says:

                  They last just fine if guest workers go home after a while.

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  But you can’t say that when you support the American South which fought against the North, the home of all of the colonisation socities, which came out of places like New Jersey. You’re only giving rhetoric, superficially.

                  A.J.P.

                • jim says:

                  Sure I support the South. South was Cavalier rule, North was Puritan rule. I aim for Cavalier rule.

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  You’ve come out and stated that you are against the side which was for removing those who should have “gone home”. That’s why you’re wrong, and now others can see the how you are…

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  When the Roman Catholics third-worlders of Asia start ending up in Australia, I imagine you’ll begin to resist siding with them, even against low-church Christians as you do now…

                  A.J.P.

                • Anon says:

                  AJP:

                  >But you can’t say that when you support the American South which fought against the North, the home of all of the colonisation socities, which came out of places like New Jersey. You’re only giving rhetoric, superficially.

                  Nobody with a modicum of sense supports the American South for anything other than freedom of exit. The South was, economically and otherwise, irreparably damaged from their dependence on the slave trade. I’m sure at this point it’s a secret to no one that bringing slaves over was a terrible idea but hindsight is 20/20. Shouldn’t matter and doesn’t matter. Let them leave and let nature take its course. Doing otherwise smacks of panic.

                  I keep being surprised at Jim’s need to bring up that neo-Nazism is leftism but apparently this is something non-obvious to morons, in the same way that the Civil War is non-obvious to morons.

                • Anon says:

                  AJP:

                  >[the North was] for removing those who should have “gone home”

                  Stop posting.

                  >low-church Christians

                  If your posts are in any way representative of low-church Christians
                  then low-church Christians are low-IQ Christians, low-IQ being redundant.

  21. JRM says:

    @jim: “Strength through Joy” notoriously tended to wind up, Weimar style, as Joy through Fucking Around.”

    But folk festivals always brought about a certain amount of licentiousness. Even in England. Many folk-festivals are essentially celebrations of the agrarian calendar, which always carries implicit eroticism as the wellspring of reproductive joy.

    Conflation with Weimar decadence misses the essential difference. Weimar was all about transgression- gender-bending, homosexuality, cross-dressing, some under-age prostitution and some extremely degrading sex with War widows and society women fallen on hard times. Lots of drug use tossed in.

    A Madchen getting knocked-up at a KdF camping holiday is a far different thing than an evening at the Eldorado dancing with a transvestite.

  22. TTAAC says:

    “that whore, Florence Nightingale”

    I’m a normal that sometimes reads your blog for shits and giggles. I know you live in your own reality, Jim, but how do you explain Wikipedia’s entry:

    “Some scholars of Nightingale’s life believe that she remained chaste for her entire life, perhaps because she felt a religious calling to her career.”

    • jim says:

      And some scholars think that Queen Caroline remained chaste, because, as with global warming, one is apt to get in trouble for doubting it.

      That Florence’s primary job in the military was horizontal is merely gossip and rumor. There is however overwhelming evidence that after the war she somehow wound up spending a whole lot of time in private with numerous wealthy gentlemen.

      In the case of the Queen Caroline, we have overwhelming evidence of her spectacular casual fornications and public nudity, because the faction of King George was determined to bring this evidence before the public. And despite the efforts of the King, Queen Caroline still got sainted. We may conclude that if Florence Nightingale like Queen Caroline got drunk and naked in public and unlike queen Caroline, charged for entry, we would have heard nothing about it, as we somehow hear almost nothing of the adulteries of Queen Caroline.

    • JRM says:

      Hey TT, don’t underestimate the value of subversive scholarship. One of the first things I read on this blog was a comment or post from Jim that called Florence Nightingale a whore.

      It was contrary to received wisdom, which made it interesting. I also encountered Jim’s subversive take on Victorian sexual morality in the same series of comments. We debated it back and forth a bit, and I benefitted from a new way of looking at the topic, one which isn’t commonly found (or found at all) in books on the period.

      There is a kind of satori moment to be found in the inversion of comfortable academic truisms. That’s what made me start visiting the blog regularly.

      I don’t agree with everything Jim writes, but I enjoy the alternative take on cultural consensus.

      Now confess, if Jim had called Nightingale a saint, would you have paid any attention? His remarks on Queen Caroline are however, very rooted in historical fact. It’s a he said/she said sort of story, very political. The comparison to Global Warming orthodoxy, is original, quite apt, and very insightful.

  23. […] Big-Piece-o’-The-Week®: On the current path. It ain’t […]

Leave a Reply