The Trump Aesthetic

Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion is more powerful than ideas.

Ever since Beau Brummel successfully snubbed the Regent, the Puritan aesthetic has been politically dominant. It has been the high status aesthetic, beloved by our rulers, most notoriously loved by city planners and university regents.

Trump has been challenging that aesthetic.

What is the Trump aesthetic?

The Regency aesthetic became, at the end, too much detail, too much stuff, too much obviously non functional or even dysfunctional decoration. People say that Kings lost power because of gunpowder, because of capitalism, because of the change from agricultural based sources of energy to fossil fuel based sources of energy, because of this and because of that, but if we look at King George losing power, it seems to me that the problem was in large part that he was too fat, too lazy, his taste was not good enough, and his mistresses insufficiently attractive, the reason he lost power is that Beau Brummel could snub the King and yet continue to set fashion.

Even when Beau Brummel was old, poor, broke, syphilitic, and dying, his mistress was cuter than the King’s mistress. I think if King George the Fourth had had a better tailor, a cuter mistress, and lost some weight, Kings might well still rule. It does not seem to me that gunpowder and all that had much relevance. Hence the propensity of the mainstream media to edit the color balance so as to adjust Trump’s skin tone to orange.

The Puritan aesthetic of Beau Brummel was elegant simplicity – less decoration, less stuff, and much less color. Which was good, and a proper reaction to the Regent’s propensity to excessive piles of expensive brightly colored decorations, but if simplicity is holy, more simplicity is holier, and so the puritan aesthetic became soul crushing brutalism, most glaringly evident in today’s ugly cityscapes of giant boxes.

Trump is pushing a new and distinctive aesthetic which rejects the Puritan Aesthetic.

It does not go all the way back the Regency complexity, detail and decoration, we still have Beau Brummel’s elegant simplicity and his predominantly monochrome palette, but with small splashes of much brighter, more intense colors than Beau Brummel permitted, fully saturated colors, colors that are clearly intended to invoke royalty, aristocracy, and old military dress uniforms. The Trump aesthetic somehow recalls and echoes the Regency aesthetic. It is not so much he has more details and decorations than the puritan aesthetic permits, but that the details are more ostentatious, colorful, prominent, and expensive than the Puritan aesthetic permits.

In calling back to the Regency, the last King of England who exercised real power, the Trump aesthetic is profoundly reactionary.

In deprecating the Puritan virtue of simplicity and modesty, it is mildly reactionary, and opens the door for more severe deprecation of the Puritan virtues in future.

While brutalist architecture announces its modesty with trumpets and cymbals, there is nothing humble or modest about brutalism. These unadorned boxes, because they lack small details, are larger than human scale, thus have a message, and that message is “I am mighty, I am vast, You are tiny. You are insignificant. You shall submit and I will crush you.”

Trump tower in New York, typical of Trump buildings, has a human sized entrance, which is embedded in a very similar larger than human entrance, which is embedded in a larger glass and steel box, which is part of many glass and steel boxes that make up the towers. Thus there is a hierarchy of scales connecting the human scale with the tower scale: the scale of the normal entrance, the scale of the big entrance in which it is embedded, the scale of glass and steel box in which the big entrance is embedded, and the scale of the tower in which the glass and steel box is embedded.

Brutalism is, among other things, intended to destroy the messy human street by making the roadway inhospitable – it is just a barren path beside an enormous wall. Puritanism does not want you comfortable.

Trump Tower in New York on the other hand extravagantly and ostentatiously spends a whole lot of very expensive square footage making the street adjacent to the tower comfortable for humans. The Trump aesthetic is intended to be relaxed and comfortable, hence the Trump aesthetic has a conspicuous touch of informality, without going all the way to Silicon Valley casual. Just a touch of informality, but like the touch of colorful decoration, a conspicuous and striking touch.

The Regency Aesthetic tended to extravagance and ostentation for the sake of extravagance and ostentation. The Puritan Aesthetic rejected extravagance and ostentation. The Trump Aesthetic needs some plausible excuse for extravagance and ostentation. The extravagance and ostentation has to be the outward sign of some genuine inward excellence, and be plausibly in the service of that excellence. Thus his plane has gold plated toilets, not gold plated wheel hubs. Because gold plated toilets are cleaner. Does Trump have gold plated toilets because he is germophobic, or is he germophobic to justify gold plated toilets?

Silicon valley casual is comfortable, but conspicuously egalitarian. Steve Jobs wore clothes that look very similar to the clothes that some unemployed white man purchases at Walmart using his girlfriend’s EBT card and were only subtly more expensive and better fitted than the clothes that some unemployed white man purchases at Walmart using his girlfriend’s EBT card. The Trump aesthetic is conspicuously inegalitarian.

The status markers of Silicon Valley casual are subtle and difficult to read, thus if you display them and can read them, this shows you are one of the smart people. But they are also easy to imitate. The status markers of the Trump Aesthetic are easy for masses to read, harder for the masses to imitate. Because Silicon Valley casual is so easy to imitate, it is tempting to counter signal by wearing clothes that are not merely similar, but the same as the clothes some white man bought at Walmart on his girlfriend’s EBT card. So is this silicon valley programmer subtly signaling elite, counter signaling elite, or did he actually buy clothes at Walmart with his girlfriends EBT card? It is hard to tell.

Trump’s towers are not a total break with brutalism. They still rely heavily on giant undecorated colorless boxes of glass and steel, but the giant undecorated boxes are substantially smaller, and there is decoration, the minimum necessary decoration, to connect the human scale to the giant undecorated box scale, and this colorful and ostentatious decoration is a towel snapped in the face of the Puritan Aesthetic. Trump is a status challenge to Puritanism, as Beau Brummel was a status challenge to monarchy. That is part of the reason that they are going crazy.

It is only a relatively small change to the Puritan Aesthetic. Trump’s towers are still rather brutal, relying as they do on unadorned giant boxes of glass and steel, but it is a challenge that goes right to the roots of the Puritan Aesthetic. His decoration is rather minimal, and almost conventional – but nonetheless, dramatic against the monochrome uniformity of the Puritan Aesthetic, and the unhuman scale of the Puritan Aesthetic in architecture. His decoration calls out “To hell with modesty and simplicity”, and by its immodesty, and by the saturation of its colors, calls out to the Regency Aesthetic of the last days of Kings who actually ruled.

The Trump Aesthetic sends a message that the ideas of our rulers are passé and low status. They have, like feminism, hit the wall.

291 Responses to “The Trump Aesthetic”

  1. Andrew E. says:

    I had occasion, living in NYC, to be near Trump Tower the morning after the Access Hollywood tape was released and the world was holding its breath to see whether Trump would drop out or not. I felt the need to go to the Tower to show support since I was nearby (I came and went before the spontaneous rally formed outside the entrance later that afternoon). The lobby had a distinctive feel as I explored. There were a good number of other folks milling about and taking it in. Trump draws people in, that much is certain.

  2. Mister Grumpus says:

    > Trump is a status challenge to Puritanism, as
    > Beau Brummel was a status challenge to monarchy.

    (wikipedia.com.. Beau Brummell…)

    > That is part of the reason that they are going crazy.

    Again with the Status Filter! I love this!

    > The Trump Aesthetic sends a message that the ideas
    > of our rulers are passé and low status. They have, like
    > feminism, hit the wall.

    Booya.

  3. Anonymous says:

    He is a teetotaler, though, which smacks of puritanism, notwithstanding the formal justification for it. Nobody’s perfect.

    • peppermint says:

      Look at the pledge he extracted from the kids. “I promise Donald J Trump that I will never take drugs, I don’t want to say no alcohol but go easy on the alcohol, and you know what else, no cigarettes”.

      That isn’t puritanism. Puritanism is when you say you’re Elect because you don’t do fun things, or because you do “fun” degenerate things.

      Kids need to be told that alcohol is great for parties, getting drunk sometimes is fine, but go easy on it. They need to be told to pursue the opposite sex and try to extract promised (for women) and sex (for men) but always keep in mind that the goal is marriage. Puritans, and current obligatory-permissive puritans, want to tell kids how to be holy, instead of successful. Trump wants White kids to be successful which is why White kids love Trump.

  4. Mister Grumpus says:

    I’ve NB4’ed with my friends that at some point, someday and maybe soon, the Premier of China will show up someplace wearing NOT a western business suit, but something somehow more Chinese-ish.

    Or maybe Mr. Abe of Japan.

    Or, shit why not, Vladimir Putin.

    Then you know it’s on.

    • Turtle says:

      Like Cossack Putin? Or “Jack” Ma’s tie-less, seemingly buttonless shirts? I like those. More interesting fashion will be pleasant. That’s why I hope more people buy Ivanka’s and Donald Trump’s clothing, shoes, etc. products.

  5. Mister Grumpus says:

    OK one more from my one-man peanut gallery over here:

    Since we’re on the subject, could you comment please on the National Socialists taking their uniforms so seriously, and “clean-sheeting” them with Hugo Boss, and what they ended up with? Surely both they and Mr. Boss knew what they were doing.

    What do you see in THAT aesthetic compared to its contemporary Weimar-era convention?

    Of course they only had black-and-white photography back then, so surely they had to design accordingly, but from what little I know they certainly did include the color red in places.

    Like red MAGA hats…

    And I’ve never seen Trump in a gray suit, have I?

    • jim says:

      Nazi uniforms celebrate maleness and male cohesion, with lots of extraneous, but extremely masculine, decoration. The Trump aesthetic celebrates wealth and status. As the war heats up, we will need an aesthetic that celebrates maleness and male cohesion, but calling back to the Nazis does not call back far enough. The Nazis are “right wing” because they were 1930 leftists, and the rest of the left has moved further left.

      I recommend that we shall call back to the colorful uniforms of British pre imperial colonialism, such as the colonialists of the time of the Regency, as the Trump aesthetic calls back to the Regent.

      The splashes of bright saturated color and the large colorful manly symbols on Based Stickman’s look are a good start. Based Stickman’s costume is manly in the style of superheroes, but it needs to call back to the white men that conquered the world.

      I like the fact that Nazi uniforms had internal suspenders so that you could hang a lot of external gear on them.

      • pdimov says:

        “The Nazis are “right wing” because they were 1930 leftists, and the rest of the left has moved further left.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932#Results

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          I don’t think the Nazis were right wing at all. Even during the war they could not bring themselves to stop using government money to fund blonde sluts having bastards instead of, you know, actually winning the war. If the Nazis won, I think Europe would have the same amount of fertility and economic freedom as it has now, maybe a bit higher for the former and a bit lower for the latter.

          The Japanese were way more interesting. Had the Japanese not committed suicide by attacking China and embroiling itself in a war with the Anglos, there’s no doubt in my mind that the greatest power today would be a Japanese Empire much more patriarchial and capitalist than New Deal America.

          • Lalit says:

            The Anglos were planning war with the japs as early as 1910. Japs knew it. Japan had zero resources, zero natural allies. Needed resources. Needed colonies. Hence Korea, Taiwan, Indo-China China. Not very different from the Brits who needed SriLanka, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt to secure their Indian Colony. Not different at all. In world war 2, japs hand was forced by US Naval Blockade and asset seizure. Had to attack Pearl Harbor and gamble on a quick victory or get smashed like Saddam in 2003.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

            http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Anglos were focused on crushing Germany. They could have sat it out. South Africa survived for 60 years, a Japanese empire encompassing Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan would have lasted longer and been an invaluable ally to the Red Empire against Blue and Soviet influence. Anyways, attacking China was a retarded decision.

            • BigCheese says:

              > Anyways, attacking China was a retarded decision.

              That’s what happens when you government is run by committee.

          • pdimov says:

            You also wouldn’t think Bismarck was right wing. The question then becomes whether what you think (in 2017) determines who is right wing and who isn’t (in 1932).

            Is it possible to have a magnet with two ends of the same polarity? Is it possible to have a parliament with two left wings?

            If Nazis weren’t the right wing in 1932 Germany, who was?

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Brahmin leftism versus Vaishya leftism. Do the intellectuals rule, or do strongmen rule? Leftsim as implemented by strongmen (theoretically) for the benefit of the working class is Nazism.

              Bismarck was a disaster. 19th century reactionaries like him bear a lot of responsibility for funding leftism to fight classical liberalism.

              • pdimov says:

                The left wing in the 1932 parliament were the Communist party and the Socialist party. The right wing was the NSDAP. It’s that simple.

                Jim says “NSDAP is right wing now only because leftists moved to the left and overtook it”. Not really. NSDAP was already to the right of 1932’s leftists.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Nazi takeover would result in more disorder than in status quo. Therefore they are left wing. It’s that simple.

                • jim says:

                  Not that simple. Big business did not seem to see any significant difference between commies and nazis. They certainly did not think nazis were the right wing.

                  There were the international socialists and the national socialists, and big business did not care much about the difference. (Being internationalists themselves)

                • pdimov says:

                  Which party was the right wing?

                  This is a proportional system, people. If there was a wing to the right of the NSDAP, it would have had representation. Which is it?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >and big business did not care much about the difference. (Being internationalists themselves)

                  Now we begin to see the light of the matter.

                • B says:

                  >Big business did not seem to see any significant difference between commies and nazis. They certainly did not think nazis were the right wing.

                  Big business sponsored both:

                  https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

                  https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf

                  But the fact that big business sponsored both does not mean that it couldn’t tell the difference. The Nazis were supported precisely so that they could start a war, be conquered, and Germany’s industry brought under control. The Communists were supported as a subsidiary of Wall Street, and a testbed for social engineering which would later be applied to Westerners.

            • B says:

              Bismarck was right wing compared to his peers and left wing (progressive) overall.

              Nazis were right wing in 1932 relative to the Communists, but left of Ernst von Salomon and various aristocrats.

              You can have a parliament with a left wing and a lefter wing, or a right wing and a righter wing-the country can be moving leftwards or rightwards.

              • pdimov says:

                “You can have a parliament with a left wing and a lefter wing…”

                Sure, according to some definition of left that doesn’t reflect what people in the country electing that parliament consider left.

                In a proportional system, if no party is to the right of party N, party N is generally considered to be the right wing. If the country is moving leftwards, there’ll be a conservative party that will capture the vote of those staying put.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              The people who wanted to bring back the Kaiser. They were there, and allied with the NSDAP, but small, and when the NSDAP took power they were mostly expelled from politics, not absorbed into the NSDAP.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        images.google.com…
        “nazi hugo boss”…
        “british colonial regency”…
        “czar nicholas”…

        Man they had some fly shit back then didn’t they?

        Czar Nicholas II must have had like 500 uniforms for 500 different situations/locations, many of course consisting of many layers of cloth and metal decorations, etc. Quite badass.

        But look at THIS all-black lizard-scales business that I can only find in the context of his visit to Scotland in 1896. I mean shit Darth Vader couldn’t pull this one off:

        http://time.burrowsandco.com/wp-content/gallery/1850-ad-1899-ad/55c5e199eb89ead7ae0bbf5fc0d15402.jpg

        1896!

        • jim says:

          I argue that King George the fourth lost power in substantial part because his tailor was no good, but that sure was not Czar Nicolas’ problem.

          Regency civilian clothes for men were not very masculine and were over decorated, but those uniforms were good.

      • Anonymous says:

        >The Nazis are “right wing” because they were 1930 leftists, and the rest of the left has moved further left.

        Yeah, and eugenics is also a “left wing” project of the 1930, and is only considered right-wing today because leftists (((moved forward))). Darwinism as applied to society aka “social Darwinism” is itself an originally leftist meme – so I guess we should all become evolution-denying Young-Earth-Creationists, and Luddites too while we’re at it. Hey, most Orthodox Jews are evolution-denying Young-Earth-Creationists, and it seems some people around here are totally convinced of their superiority, because of their TFR rates.

        This is silly reasoning. Instead of ideological purity, what should matter is results.

        Eugenics is originally leftist, racial purity is originally leftist, Darwinism in its “social” iteration is originally leftist, “scientific racism” is originally leftist. Meanwhile, “real” right-wingers like e.g GK Chesterton know that only FAITH can bring salvation, not material technological-scientific progress. Amirite? No, not right at all.

        The only people or insects or fish on “the right side of history” are those who adapt. Leftists fail to adapt because muh equality, muh blank slate. If rightists go muh romantic nostalgia, “Ted Kaczynski did nothing wrong”, they too will fail to adapt.

        • Cavalier says:

          Leftism isn’t about ideology. Leftism is about power. The reason eugenics became an unthinkable concept is that the lowest common denominator wants to her that everybody’s equal and that they won’t be culled from the gene pool, and Jewish leftists could take power from Anglo leftists in part by making anti-eugenics a holier-than-though crusade.

          • Cavalier says:

            *thou

          • Anonymous says:

            >The reason eugenics became an unthinkable concept is that the lowest common denominator wants to her that everybody’s equal and that they won’t be culled from the gene pool

            This is incoherent. What you should have written instead is “democracy made the lowest common denominator officially in power, and the lowest common denominator is indeed very low”.

            Why? Because the lowest common denominator doesn’t make its own decisions unless TPTB tell it what to do and what to think via the media. The lowest common denominator would support culling itself from the gene pool if instead of a “democracy of equals” there was an aristocracy or fascism in place, and TPTB used media propaganda to convince the lowest common denominator to self-cull, just as today TPTB convince white women to become sluts and fuck niggers, and white men to be cucks.

            >and Jewish leftists could take power from Anglo leftists in part by making anti-eugenics a holier-than-though crusade.

            Alternatively, the 1930s saw a worldwide Right-Wing backlash against Progressivism, and WASP leftists in America, desiring to contain this world-sweeping backlash, sided with their former enemies, the Jewish leftists, against it.

            Jewish leftists are a Golem: originally they were allowed to run amok because WASP leftists wanted to stop history from moving in a right-wing direction (history *was* moving in a right-wing direction, see: fascism in Europe, Japanese getting imperialist, etc.), but HAHAHAHA “lol irony” the Jewish leftists replaced them and ushered in a leftist madness those WASP leftists never could have imagined.

            >And also Jews just straight up identify with the weak, though that might be one of those Christian-converso-dialed-up-to-eleven things.

            Lolwut? Have you read MacDonald? They don’t identify with the weak because they are “Christian conversos”. They identify with niggers, spics, cameljockeys, thots, and faggots becaue *it serves Jewish interests* – they don’t want to be a marginalized minority, they want there to be infinite minorities to check the power of white hegemony. Jews aren’t hyper-cucks. Jews are subversives.

            “B-but Jews have drunk their own kool aid, getting high on their own supply” – irrelevant, the anti-racism and anti-sexism memes had nothing to do with Jews becoming holier than Christians after converting to prog Christianity, and everything to do with Jews proclaiming White Genocide because THEY HATE YOUR GUTS and because they are afraid you will holocaust them.

            • peppermint says:

              indeed, the ((media)) convinces most of the “cognitive elite” to self-cull or at least miscegenate

              • Cavalier says:

                Jews, for all their other faults, are disproportionately cogelite, so how does inducing cogelites to self-cull or miscegenate further Jewish interests?

                If half of all married [insert ethnic group] being married to non-[insert ethnic group] spouses and nearly three-quarters of all [insert ethnic group] married recently being married to non-[insert ethnic group] spouses is not miscegenation, what is?

            • Cavalier says:

              >This is incoherent. What you should have written instead is “democracy made the lowest common denominator officially in power, and the lowest common denominator is indeed very low”.

              With each “revolution” we see the lowest common denominator lowered. For example, with Civil Rights we see the Democratic Party permanently capturing a tenth of the population’s vote. With the mass importation of amerindios to live on the power of their vote, the lowest common denominator lowered. The fact that Power™ even bothers to go to the trouble of laundering their power through short fat brown mestizos shows that their power, though persistent, is soft; they can’t just kill their nearest power rivals (the white middle-class “legacy” Americans), so they have to go about it in a roundabout manner. Maybe you haven’t noticed because the only lefties you see are muds, but BDH-OV takes precedence over racial loyalty.

              >The lowest common denominator would support culling itself from the gene pool if instead of a “democracy of equals” there was an aristocracy or fascism in place

              You must be joking. They might be brow-beaten out of existence, but no being chooses voluntary nihilistic gene death without serious mindfuckery from external sources — it just isn’t adaptive.

              >They identify with niggers, spics, cameljockeys, thots, and faggots becaue *it serves Jewish interests*

              Preserving Jewish blood should be the prime Jewish interest, should it not? As I’ve mentioned previously, Hitler complained that the Jews guarded their blood more jealously than any other race. We should be able to see where Jewish loyalty lies by looking at Jewish mating habits. After all, as a Nazi you recognize that there is nothing more primal than the bloodline. Well, riddle me this: if “serving the Jewish interest” is so important, then why are half of all married Jews married to non-Jewish spouses? HALF. How do the tyrannical Jewish mother-in-laws feel about this? What is this but “flip a coin for your 2.6 grandchildren to betray their race and their religion”?

              • Cavalier says:

                *1.6 grandchildren, against “treading water” in the gene pool with 4.2 grandchildren.

              • Anonymous says:

                >You must be joking. They might be brow-beaten out of existence, but no being chooses voluntary nihilistic gene death without serious mindfuckery from external sources — it just isn’t adaptive.

                What external forces, other than “soft power” organs such as the media and church authorities, compel evangelicucks to adopt pitch-black niggers? Have you seen Heartiste’s “Goodbye America (in a photo)” mini-blog? Status-signalling is a potent aphrodisiac. If the media makes it high-status for functional and intellectually-superior people to reproduce, and low-status for dysfunctional and intellectually-inferior people to reproduce, the sheeple will do as they are told, will do as they are incentivized to do.

                People today have enough resources to reproduce, but choose not to due to incentives. And there can certainly be implemented a program of national voluntary sterilization of the lower-class. Get your tube tied and you won’t need a condom or birth-control pills anymore, at least under monogamous mating, which should also be incentivized. The lower-class will take it. Take it? As I said – they will actively, enthusiastically support it. People are so malleable, you wouldn’t believe.

                If you can get women to wildly, shriekingly, ferociously support abortions — let’s stop for a second and reflect on just how anti-natural it is to support the killing of your own fetus — you can get anyone to support anything. Not joking, but dead-serious. Look around you. People all-over support the most suicidal things imaginable. Intelligent people like us tend to forget just how *dumb* your average lower-class person is. I’m talking “Youtube Comments’ Section”-tier dumb. Can you convince the comments’ section of Youtube to commit literal suicide? Why not? It’s easy if you try, sang John “Lenin” Lenon.

                >Well, riddle me this: if “serving the Jewish interest” is so important, then why are half of all married Jews married to non-Jewish spouses? HALF. How do the tyrannical Jewish mother-in-laws feel about this? What is this but “flip a coin for your 2.6 grandchildren to betray their race and their religion”?

                I’ve touched on it. It’s called “drinking one’s own kool aid” and also “getting high on one’s own supply”. The original leftist Jews never intended for their memes to be used to obliterate Jewry itself. But memes have a power of their own. The Jews have summoned a demon. One hell of a hellish demon. The demon, as demons are wont to do, has proceeded to devour its summoner. Not completely – there are still Jews around, as you can see. But think of all the Jews who have either died, or not been born, as a result of this demon. Worse than the Shoah, by far.

                But is the demon not also devouring non-Jews? It definitely does. Has devoured more non-Jews than Jews, in fact. Remember what Menschious Moldberg said about memes that injure you but kill your enemy?

                And you’re forgetting something crucial. Jews are myopic. They can wear glasses, but the glasses won’t make their thinking any more long-term. In the short-term, all their revolutions and reforms have served their own interests – granted them power and influence, which power and influence they crave.

                Long term, from the Jewish non-introspective perspective, there always, for some unexplained and unexamined reason, occurs a “deus ex machina” event that forcefully brings down Jewish power. We, who don’t lack this introspection, see clearly that it is Jewish behavior itself which always elicits a furious reaction from the host population. In Jewish myopic eyes, “antisemitism” just strikes you randomly, as if everything is going okay, then suddenly the evil goyim make a lampshade out of you, for no reason.

                So what I’m getting at here is, Jews try really hard to do “what is good for the Jews”. But as with women, their hermetically-sealed solipsism makes it difficult for them to grasp the relations between “cause” and “effect”. They are like blacks. What does this cracka officah want from me? I ain’t din do nuffin. Must be racism. *attempts to grab officer’s gun* *shot dead* At the moment the nigger attempted to grab the gun, he was convinced that he was doing what is best for his interests. Seconds before passing out forever, he really did not understand why this had happened to him. Sheeeeeit. And fellow niggers are also perplexed. Must be racism.

                So it is with Jews.

                >Maybe you haven’t noticed because the only lefties you see are muds, but BDH-OV takes precedence over racial loyalty.

                The point is that eugenics did not suddenly fell out of favor with the masses. Someone told them that this is unthinkable – probably, would not have told them this, had there not been a “democracy”. The point, in other words, is that the lowest common denominator, when discussing masses of people regardless of overall or average quality, is by definition extremely low, and if you are appealing to it, if you are pandering to it, *that* in itself is the problem. The manner by which you go about pandering to the lowest common denominator may differ from the manner by which your rivals are doing it, but when it occurs at all, it occurs under some form of democracy.

                If there was no need to pander to the masses, eugenics had no reason to fall out of favor with anyone, elites or masses. Masses, they are brainless anyway – Youtube Comments’ Section. Tell them to support eugenics, they will. The elite, or the intelligentsia to be precise, as we know full well, has its own reasons to support whatever it supports, and oppose whatever it opposes. A democratic regime, among other reasons, is a negative incentive. Need pawns for your power-plays. If the idiots are sterile, where’s all the fun? (((Let’s import millions of brown idiots.))) That’s fun.

                It’s not that the lowest common denominator became lower. It’s that the highest stratum of society became lower. It became sick, or maybe, it always was sick, but modernity allowed it to implement its sickness to its full extent, nationally and globally. The problem is the Puritan Occupied World (POW), not the masses occupied within it. A fish rots from the head down.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 If you can get women to wildly, shriekingly, ferociously support abortions — let’s stop for a second and reflect on just how anti-natural it is to support the killing of your own fetus — you can get anyone to support anything. Not joking, but dead-serious.

                  do you think it’s weird for a woman to ask the man who nutted inside her the night before if she should get a morning after pill?

                • Anonymous says:

                  No. That’s not the kind of abortion I’m referring to. Quit trying to trip me over with what you imagine my “cuckstian” opinion should be.

                  If you think that a woman, or women collectively, passionately demanding access to the kind of abortion where an abortionist opens her up and chops to pieces her developing fetus with blades, is “something natural”, then you are as divorced from nature as one can be.

                  If masses of women now passionately demand the right to commit infanticide, then as I said, everyone can be persuaded to support anything, and the “lowest common denominator” is so low as to be practically non-existent.

                • jim says:

                  People today have enough resources to reproduce, but choose not to due to incentives.

                  Pretty sure that incentives are not the problem. Rather the ambience is not right. White and east asian women want to be securely owned inside a safe nest, in order to reproduce.

                • peppermint says:

                  hey numbnuts,

                  (1) life isn’t sacred. 14w is.

                  (2) woman who has the wrong baby inside of her will desperately want an abortion. The wrong baby is supposed to be one without a White father married to her to take care of it and her. To a woman, the wrong baby is one with a cringing faggot father, regardless of his income level.

                • Anonymous says:

                  So you are saying that the women demanding third-trimester abortion are not monogamously, patriarchally married women. I’ll have to think about this one. You are probably correct.

          • Anonymous says:

            Anglo leftists: “well Jews, it seems dark times are upon us. So, we will let you into our country clubs, into our halls of power, into our country. You, in turn, will help us to defeat this emergent worldwide reactionary fascism.”

            Jewish leftists: “sure thing. We are allies now. In fact, when have we ever not been allies? We’ve always been best-friends-forever. After all, America is a proposition nation, so a Polish Jew is just as American as a Mayflower Englishman. Right?”

            Anglo leftists: “yeah. So Jews, you now have permission to utilize all of your IQ points, all of your brain cells, to destroy our common enemy. You’ll surely do a fantastic job. Btw, what’s on the menu?”

            Jewish leftists: “the menu? Oh, we’ll give you race denialism, our pal Franz Boas is working on it, and we have Freudianism and the whole psychology business, and Adorno with his friends in Germany are building the Cultural Marxism movement, but don’t worry, we have not forgotten the Economical Marxism, we’ve got our Trotsky, lots of fans of his are already here, and Modern Art, and Sexual Liberation by our expert sexologists, and really, a very rich menu. You won’t be disappointed, fellow Americans.”

            *past 70 years forward*

            Jewish leftists: “WASPs are the scourge of the Earth. Abolish the white race!”

            Thanks a lot, Jews, for your loyalty.

        • Cavalier says:

          And also Jews just straight up identify with the weak, though that might be one of those Christian-converso-dialed-up-to-eleven things.

  6. Thales says:

    A Brioni suit will set you back 6 or 7 large, but his style of tie and pocket square can be had much more reasonably.

  7. Antipas says:

    Trump’s suits are pure puritan, but those cherry red ties are quite a departure. He doesn’t seem to wear the pink anymore, which isn’t too surprising.

    The fact that he does seem to wear his ties a bit too long, smacks of a certain sprezzatura.

    • Thales says:

      My guess is the ties are also Italian, and they tend to be long. Guessing trump only ties half-windsor like a plebe, hence the extra below the belt.

      • Cavalier says:

        Prep style (read: very not pleb) was half-Windsor or four-in-hand. I always tied the largest, most perfectly symmetrical full-Windsor I could pull off. Trump does the long tie thing on purpose, which just makes his tie-taping habit infinitely more egregious — _nobody_ can make that look good.

        • Thales says:

          Mayhap you can identify the knot he ties?

          • Cavalier says:

            After perusing Google Images for a bit, it looks to be a full-Windsor. I’m no expert, and I reserve the right to be wrong, but it looks exactly like the knots I used to tie. Also, Donald Jr.’s tie seems to be even larger and neater than his father’s, an excellent sign, and Eric’s tie looks even larger (I’m not sure how that’s possible), though asymmetrical and looks

          • Cavalier says:

            like a four-in-hand.

        • Antipas says:

          “Trump does the long tie thing on purpose, which just makes his tie-taping habit infinitely more egregious”

          Yes, exacrly the sort thing that triggers the urbane leftist types who will always and forever hate him

          • Cavalier says:

            One piece of tie tape negates the aesthetic value of several pounds worth of gold. Trump only comes out on top because he so much.

  8. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    So I’m guessing from you switching to aesthetics that you gave up on the Trump coup Jim? It’s May and right now it looks like Reagan 2.0, at best. Looks like Aliyah’s a smart decision.

    • jim says:

      Too soon to count Trump out yet.

      It is a standard part of any color revolution to proclaim victory. The left has proclaimed victory a lot. I expect the wall to go through, and the Muslim ban to go through, which will require measures rather resembling a self coup.

      It is hard to define what is a self coup and what is not. When Tony Abbott defeated the judges the left proclaimed that nothing had happened. But pretty easy to define what is a wall and extreme vetting. And I still expect a wall and extreme vetting, which is a fair bit more than Reagan gave us.

      • Trollercoaster says:

        We probably will get the wall but the wall is purely symbolic – a band-aid on a flesh wound at best. As long as the incentives remain, no physical impediment will stop Mexicans from coming in and getting their jobs and/or welfare.

        Besides, we need Mexicans to do the *real* work. Forget the welfare stats – whites are bigger parasites in the USA than Mexicans. Look at all the whites employed in bureaucratic makework factories in D.C. and elsewhere – they are on a hidden and much more generous form of welfare. Mexicans are the servant class needed to work for these lily white parasites so they don’t have to do anything themselves.

        And since doing real work yourself without any slaves is something most whites are wholly unprepared to accept, Trump will continue to deliver on his worthless promises and fail to deliver on the meaningful ones (ending foreign interventionism, closing borders, bringing back industry, etc.). Trump’s electorate is not comprised of self-made, hard working men, but mewling infants who want someone to take care of them. We have trashy rulers because we ourselves are trash.

        But hey at least Trump’s cheesy aesthetic is catching on. XD

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Are you trolling? Most mexicans are on welfare and have jobs as left wing voters. If Mexicans worked california wouldnt be bankrupt.

          • Trollercoaster says:

            If 60% of Mexicans are on welfare and 40% *work*, that’s enough physical labor to service the 80+% of whites who “work.”

            Welfare stats do not account for the massive number of people (e.g. government & FIRE sector employees) who merely “work” and do not *work*. Nearly all of the employed Mexicans *work*, whereas most whites who are employed merely “work” and are de facto on welfare, yet consume far more resources than the Mexicans on welfare.

            • peppermint says:

              Yes, this is a huge problem. We need to restructure the economy with subsidized status jobs like education and activism becoming low status and suppressed status jobs like rentacops and small business ownership becoming high status.

              We need to furthermore restructure to remove Whites from the non-productive sectors and reallocate them to productive sectors. That means getting the muds – spics and curry niggers – out, so there will be jobs, and getting the muds out so there aren’t resources to support the non-productive economy.

              • Anonymous says:

                Need to kick the muds out because they don’t belong in a WHITE COUNTRY, not because some uppity white bitch-cunt rejected your sexual advances because she’s not into proles since she associates them with muds and thus she associates you with muds. (are you even a real prole or only LAPRing as one?)

                Automation will soon — in 25 years — kill the vast majority of productive jobs anyway, it’s better to just institute Universal Basic Income and be done with it, rather than artificially elevating the status of anyone. Eventually only nerds will have jobs which means that either jobs will no longer be associated with high-status (ewwwww nerds, low-status spergs, better have sex with unemployed CHAD) or that nerds will become high-status due to them having jobs (even better, but less likely).

                • peppermint says:

                  》not into proles since she associates them with muds

                  this is a total misunderstanding of female sexual psychology which is sadly forgivable due to the legacy of cuckstainty

                  》it’s better to just institute Universal Basic Income and be done with it

                  retard-tier misunderstanding of economics

        • jim says:

          We probably will get the wall but the wall is purely symbolic – a band-aid on a flesh wound at best. As long as the incentives remain, no physical impediment will stop Mexicans from coming in and getting their jobs and/or welfare.

          Trump has already radically reduced illegal immigration, even though the wall has not begun, men with guns can control the border quite effectively when allowed to do so. We only need the wall so that future administrations will find it difficult to let Mexicans in without admitting that they are letting Mexicans in. He has also stopped H1Bs. I am pretty sure that not one present holder of an H1B visa would be eligible under the new rules.

          Trump has already brought back quite a bit of industry by threats, promises, and real and substantial deregulation.

          Trump’s electorate is not comprised of self-made, hard working men, but mewling infants who want someone to take care of them

          You are simply wrong. Trump’s electorate is the productive employed and their wives. Hillary’s electorate was those on welfare and employed in social justice. A typical Trump voter is someone who mines coal in flyover country. A typical Hillary voter is a highly paid cat lady in a major coastal city who works at creating trouble because you are not employing enough female engineers.

          • Joe says:

            I have to agree that as long as the incentives remain for illegals to come here, they will find a way here even if there’s a wall. They’ll start coming on boats or submarines or gliders or via Canada.

            We had no wall with Mexico for 170 years and somehow did not get flooded with Mexicans. The incentives changed somehow and we began getting flooded. Change the incentives and you won’t need a wall.

            Simplest way to change the incentives is to put a huge fine on hiring an illegal, a large reward for reporting someone employing an illegal (and allow anonymous reporting), and large rewards to the government agency and employees who catch the employer. Then no one will risk hiring an illegal, there won’t be any work here for them, and they won’t bother coming. Also need to make it a federal crime for an illegal’s child to attend any school receiving federal funds. Then illegals won’t be able to bring their children. In fact, making it impossible for illegal children to attend school here might all by itself end the problem.

            • jim says:

              I have to agree that as long as the incentives remain for illegals to come here, they will find a way here even if there’s a wall. They’ll start coming on boats or submarines or gliders or via Canada

              One hour after Tony Abbott became prime minister of Australia, the boats stopped coming. Men with guns and the will to use them are extremely effective at stopping people from crossing borders.

              Sea borders are easy to protect. Land borders are harder, so we need the wall, but Trump has already reduced to illegal immigrant inflow to a fraction of its former level by letting ICE agents off their leash.

            • jim says:

              Simplest way to change the incentives is to put a huge fine on hiring an illegal,

              That is really stupid. Mexicans do not come here to work. They come here to live on welfare, crime, and voting Democrat. You see a bunch of hard working Mexicans show up at Home Depot in the early hours to get picked up for day labor jobs, but they are outnumbered a hundred to one by Mexicans getting drunk and making trouble in the middle of the day and the middle of the week, and somehow nonetheless managing to somehow occupy rather nice houses and have cars.

              • Turtle says:

                How can there be so many parasites not contributing anything, only taking? Is America that productive, to be charitable at this scale? OR is this the source of budget deficits and the crumbling infrastructure?

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, America is productive enough for the government to be able to redirect food, housing, and medical care to the large numbers of muds through direct and indirect taxes that make White children unaffordable. Indirect taxes include taking White women and turning them into thots at 20 and social workers for niggers at 40.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Agreed. I love how WNs’ first reaction to unproductive Mexicans is to persecute productive Mexicans.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Mutt and Jeff.

                • peppermint says:

                  Unscientific professors and journalists point to productive bean niggers and say that that’s what they’re all like. If they were all like that they would be happy in their own countries.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Maybe that’s because productive Mexicans actually do take jobs those lower IQ WN guys might normally do and suppress wages on top of that

                  White people are perfectly able to do almost all oft the work immigrants do. it’ll cost a few dollars more , that’s about it

                  Ag work might be the only exception but there are ways and means .

                  Problem is the US “capital” hates paying decent wages Always has. usually has to made to do it at gunpoint and even than will cheat on very possible occasion ,

                  Taxes are a small part of it, i if we let them work children to death for a nickle a day a lot of people would still be looking to cut wages further.

                  Mostly ts about power and status,m well paid labor has more status and if you have saving s, you have freedom and power . Can’t have that.

        • B says:

          Nah, man, the Trump demographic is composed of REAL MEN like Gavin McInnes. Of course they all have jobs, carpenters and engineers and such. Only every once in a while they take the day off to MAGA by punching a hooker.

          Do you have a blog?

      • Lalit says:

        I’m a Log the wall, the Muslim ban and the coup as predictions.

        • Alrenous says:

          http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2016/06/trump-specifics.html

          I’ve been using the wall as a metonym for what Trump will do for a while now.

          I’ve been saying the bureaucracy could wait, then erode the wall over time while the official press helpfully looks the other way. Strategically, the wall is a mere inconvenince. However, the actual strategists in power have laundered responsibility too effectively, and can’t issue actual orders. Their drones are autonomous in the short term, and they’re currently programmed to fight a wall to the death. Hence, if Trump gets his wall, it means they died.

        • jim says:

          Log the wall and restrictions on Muslims as predictions, but not the coup, because the more successful the coup, the less anyone says, or even notices, that there has been a coup.

          Instead the permanent government and the judiciary will suddenly and mysteriously treat it as completely normal, expected, and entirely unsurprising that a president with a majority in both houses gets his way.

          • Cavalier says:

            >the more successful the coup, the less anyone says, or even notices, that there has been a coup

            >Instead the permanent government and the judiciary will suddenly and mysteriously treat it as completely normal, expected, and entirely unsurprising that a president with a majority in both houses gets his way.

            Yeah, and then what?

      • R7 Rocket says:

        A splendid example of a self coup that didn’t change the outward appearance of a republic is Augustus Caesar.

      • Turtle says:

        Reagan gave us a Hollywood-derived personality cult. He was from Illinois, but is considered a Californian. That’s just for status, I guess.

        Reagan is also diluted in his legacy, by the ‘conservative movement’ shifting leftwards, and getting selective amnesia. Liberals have even worse recall re: Reagan, forgetting his many liberal actions, such as amnesty for invaders. Reagan was truly conservative, as in keeping Hollywood going, but not right-wing.


        Is anyone interested in Charles C. Johnson’s book about Calvin Coolidge?

      • Kevin C. says:

        Jim in 2017: I still expect a wall and extreme vetting
        Jim in 2018: I still expect a wall and extreme vetting. Tony Abbott.
        Jim in 2019: I still expect a wall and extreme vetting. Tony Abbott!
        Jim in 2020: I still expect a wall and extreme vetting. Tony Abbott! Tony Abbott!

        I mean, is there *anything* that could change you mind on this? Any hard date you’ll commit to after which you’ll finally be convinced to change your mind?

        • B says:

          >after which you’ll finally be convinced to change your mind?

          “after which you’ll finally be convinced to retcon your original predictions, full of girlish enthusiasm, into a jaded, worldly, cautious mild optimism”

    • B says:

      1) Trump will kick out the illegals/build a wall/get out of the Middle East/MAGA

      =>

      2) Trump will take over power, start a dynasty, take the progs for helicopter rides, the God-Emperor!!!

      =>

      3) Trump will kick out the illegals and build that wall…eventually. He’s just playing 12D chess-he’ll get around to it soon!

      =>

      4) Trump, uh, he, the comics…the ties…the gold-plated bathroom. It’s more important than all that wall stuff, y’all.

      =>=>=>

      …5) At least we didn’t get President Hillary…

      Not gonna lie, for about six weeks I felt mildly bad about not having made an exception to my strict no-voting policy.

      • Cavalier says:

        That’s funny. Even I didn’t sink to participating in the democratic process.

      • Cavalier says:

        You have a point though. The Trump Effect has worn off. Even the TV prog bishops have calmed down as they realized that Trump got BTFO’d on every one of his campaign promises. Fortunately if a shark stops swimming it dies, so now get to sit with our dicks in our hands and wait.

  9. Alrenous says:

    How pwned are folk?
    Folk think adopting the redneck aesthetic is in any way seditious.

  10. Karl says:

    Jim, I like this post, but it would have benefitted greatly from a picture of the Trump tower entrance that you described.

  11. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    What was the coolest period in contemporary architecture and why is it Art Deco?

  12. Pepe minion says:

    For the last King who ruled as well as reigned, a better case can I think be made for George III than for his son. He managed to hold the line against Catholic emancipation against the wishes of most of the prominent politicians. It’s interesting that in this, the King was much more in sympathy with the bulk of his subjects, who had no regard for Papism.

    Progressivism really got its start in England during the 1790s; then as now virtuous sympathies went to the alien and far away in preference to fellow countrymen. Wilberforce campaigned for Negroes but didn’t care about hungry hand-loom weavers in England. By the time of George IV, the cucking was too strong so the King surrendered on Catholic emancipation. A few years later his brother William surrendered on the Reform Act and the great signalling spiral was under way.

  13. ” Thus there is a hierarchy of scales connecting the human scale with the tower scale”

    That is textbook Cristopher Alexander. Read it. Reference it. Use it: http://caper.ws/patterns/

    He got it right. He just got THE thing. The most important part: spaces that protect you. A somewhat extreme example illustrating it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sala_House#/media/File:Sala_House_Marriage_Bed.jpg yeah maybe I don’t want that, to crawl over the wife when I have to take a leak at 1 AM but get the general idea? Space that protects you: http://www.katarxis3.com/Gallery/community/walkwaysmall.jpg

    And where he rips a new one to an “intellectual” architect it is glorious: http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm

    “CA: The thing that strikes me about your friend’s building — if I understood you correctly — is that somehow in some intentional way it is not harmonious. That is, Moneo intentionally wants to produce an effect of disharmony. Maybe even of incongruity.

    PE: That is correct.

    CA: I find that incomprehensible. I find it very irresponsible. I find it nutty. I feel sorry for the man. I also feel incredibly angry because he is fucking up the world.”

    And, Jim, that man gets his philosophy SO right:

    http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Architecture_Science.htm

    “Throughout my career I have pushed very hard — virtually alone, it has often seemed — to put architecture onto a track which is deeply involved with science, new or otherwise, and is also concerned with a way of understanding value as something real, not merely a matter of opinion. Perhaps better put, though it is more or less the same thing, I have pushed to put architecture onto a track which is rooted in empirical reality – with attention to what is real, and factual, about human beings, buildings, and the way we feel, deeply or not, in the buildings that are made, and the way that buildings serve us. This has inevitably put me at odds with a crippled architectural world-view that is unable to conceive of common human value outside of “personal preference.” ”

    And also: http://www.katarxis3.com/Review_Nature_Order.htm also http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_%20Sober_Relections.htm

    And the absolutely best part is this: http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander.htm

    “Around the time of Descartes and Newton, something else happens – the authority that comes from things is the observations of our own senses. We’re going to pay attention to what we can see and what we can identify and what we can know. And the criterion for knowing it is, that whatever we hold to be true can be put in some kind of experimental form, that another person can then be convinced of. And that unless something meets the standard of being sharable in that kind of sense, it isn’t going to pass muster.

    Now that’s an incredibly powerful thing that’s been running now for about 400 years. It’s really swept the world. And it has made the world what we know it to be today. But the thing is, value has not been included in this approach.

    So you’ve got all this stuff which has this wonderful way of being shared, by observation, experiment, you own eyes, your own fingers, and so forth. But all the matters of value that we’re fundamentally concerned with as architects – they slip through the net, they’re just not dealt with. They’re all seen as arbitrary.

    Now, if we successfully put forth the idea that value can be discovered through an experimental procedure which gets results, which helps people to reach agreement, and therefore is sharable, this suddenly puts value in and among that huge movement that began around 1600. Where suddenly, we’re looking at an understanding of things that can come from fairly simple experiments that we do by examining ourselves, and our reactions to things, but in a very special way. ”

    He avoids political statements and fighting with progs, but deep down he is so one of us, and gets it so right, it is unreal.

  14. The most important theory I am mulling today is that the reason people today feel unhappy and lacking meaning is that humans tend to get most of their happiness and meaning out of the dopamine hits coming from competing for status. And there are two reasons the average middle class dude cannot compete for status now.

    One reason is that status is in the eye of the beholder, people need to be sort of interested in each other in order to have any sort of status, and the lack of community today, alienation, front porches turning into back decks, inherently stops any kind of status competition. The modern attitude is “I don’t really care about you, I just do my own things” and that means you have no status in the eyes of that person.

    The second reason is that while there are many avenues to compete for status, for the average middle class dude the most convenient way has always been money. Nice car, nice home, nice clothes, similar status symbols. It stopped working due to Progs – now an expensive and powerful looking sports car does not buy you status, a pious Prius buys you status, or a bicycle. This just does not work for the average dude.

    The second most convenient way was symbols of power. Not political power. Just power in the most mundane sense, even a powerful, high HP car, the idea of having or doing anything brutal, dangerous, badass, manly. This too is out due to feminism low-statusing “toxic masculinity”.

    Solutions I don’t really see. We may feel all warm and fuzzy about tightly knit communities but entropy, laziness, comfort tend to prevent them from happening unless people have a really serious need to get help from each other, to borrow the neighbors lawn mower. It is need, the need for cooperation, is what makes community, not the feeling that we would kinda like it. And without community no status exists, if you are uninterested in me, I have NaN (not a number) status in your eyes.

    As for the second, we need to make money and power matter on the middle class level. Make it useful. It is useful and it matters when there is a lot of them, but moderate amounts of money and moderate amounts of power lost their uses. We need to make somehow a few tens of thousands matter. We need to make the power of fathers or small town mayors matter.

    Challenging Puritan status may be cool, but that is how we build a different status system.

    • Cavalier says:

      What would you say to the defraying of the social fabric being due to deracination caused by the inherent impermanence of middle-class and suburban life? By this I mean that people used to live in the same neighborhood as their parents and their parents’ parents, or on a nearby farm or a nearby city block, and if you left your community to move to somewhere new you likely were moving to the neighborhood of your spouse (usually male or usually female?) and plugging in with his (hers?) social network. I think this tied in with something I’ll call “pussy velocity”, that is, the ability of local males (both fathers and possible mates) to retain local females in their community, which now that I think of it is probably closely related to monogamy, hypergamy, “going away to college”, and the availability of employment of sufficient status and remuneration which doesn’t require you to move halfway across the country.

      God, my text walls are beginning to resemble Viking’s.

      • Part of it. But if you move from one place to another but keep interacting with people of your culture and they all have the same status ladder that is perhaps a smaller issue. When you mix various cultures with different status ladders…

        As for female retention, Jim will probably call me crazy for proposing it, but I think while the status drive clearly evolved for sex, I think it took a life on their own – similar to the evolved instict for eating sugar and fat – and for modern humans the status drive matters clearly more than sex. My argument for this is that I see men using their girlfriend to gain status in the eyes of their male friends, not the other way around, instead of getting a girl THEY are really into they try to get a girl their mates will envy or respect them for. Specifically I saw many cases of going for the overweight but really elegantly dressed girl. She is less good in sex, but better at gaining status in a classy restaurant dinner with friends. They call it a woman you can “represent” with. It is because they have crap self esteem and need to boost it.

        So I think while the desire for status originally evolved for getting sex, the modern male would have rather top status and no sex than good sex and no status.

        Bad female retention still can hurt. For example if your local girls want to fuck immigrants that really humiliates you, that hurts like hell. Not because you get less sex, that is less important, but it kills your self esteem, not necessarily your personal one, but your group level, local, ethnic pride. Your own girls acting as if you were less worthy than some camel jockey. This is a good example how status matters more than sex. This shit hurts more through your pride than through just not having enough sex.

        • Cavalier says:

          Please excuse me while I fisk you.

          >and for modern humans the status drive matters clearly more than sex

          If high-status persons reproduce consistently more than low-status persons, then mate selection for status will become predominant over looks. The higher the fitness of high-status persons (which, by the way, is basically inseperable from wealth and power, i.e the security of that wealth and its reliability to foster the next generation), the stronger the selection of mates for status. And yes, because sons receive roughly half of their competence from their mothers, in monogamous mating systems we would expect females also to be selected for status. Intergenerational status is not entirely unlike a damping system for regression to the mean.

          >instead of getting a girl THEY are really into they try to get a girl their mates will envy or respect them for

          Why is it bad to crowdsource appraisal of mate value?

          >would have rather top status and no sex than good sex and no status

          Sure, but consider the ancestral environment: you maximize your status AND THEN you get the girl (sexual reproductive potential). This strategy makes great sense when status corresponds to Darwinian fitness.

          >For example if your local girls want to fuck immigrants

          If the immigrants are higher status, sure, because high-status immigration is prime-time conquistador gene pool.

          >that hurts

          Who cares what women want? If marriage is hegemonic (no sex without marriage, all sex within marriage) then your local girls aren’t going to be fucking the intruders. You have female retention. You have patriarchal gravity. Your pussy is nice and controlled and isn’t reaching escape velocity.

          >but it kills your self esteem

          No, being conquered kills your self-esteem. Because, you know, it kills your self-appraisal of genetic futures and all that.

          • jim says:

            > > for example if your local girls want to fuck immigrants that really humiliates you, that hurts like hell. Not because you get less sex, that is less important, but it kills your self esteem,

            > No, being conquered kills your self-esteem. Because, you know, it kills your self-appraisal of genetic futures and all that.

            What he said.

          • This is a tad more complex than getting conquered. When immigrants take the toilet cleaner type of jobs, and hardly any white person picks cucumbers anymore, in a certain sense white status goes up and that is hardly a conquest. And it is real, headhunters telling totally uneducated white Brits telling them they are too good for a factory job. Because the factory is full of foreigners and thus they think they are above that.

            Importing servants is in itself not a conquest and people assuming anyone white is too good for picking cucumbers does not sound like a bad thing to whites.

            The conquest part is that due to police impotence, political PC pressure and similar reasons immigrants began to exhibit more conquistador like, socially dominant, violent, bullying or generally alpha male traits. Certainly not at the cucumber picking jobs. At schools, youth culture, youth gangs, night clubs, and then finally in general in the ghetto parts of town.

            The result is that the whites in the ghetto feel conquered. At the corporate job where the immigrant is the cleaner, not. Maybe in the public school their kids, yes.

            Girls fucking immigrants tends to happen amongst the young. 40 years old white men still okay at picking up 30 years old white women (in Europe). Amongst the 20, the situation is different as in the youth culture immigrants gangs are the socially dominant alpha dogs and girls generally want to fuck them. That is a conquest like situation.

            Anyway I agree with you that in 20 everybody will feel conquered. Just want to say as of now the guy in the corporate office feels they just imported servants, cleaners, cucumber pickers and the white factory guy feels higher status than them to the extent that he does not want to be a factory guy anymore. But this is probably temporary.

            • jim says:

              This is a tad more complex than getting conquered. When immigrants take the toilet cleaner type of jobs, and hardly any white person picks cucumbers anymore, in a certain sense white status goes up and that is hardly a conquest.

              Not really seeing that the immigrants are taking the toilet cleaner jobs. The migrant underclass is not taking any jobs at all, viewing toilet cleaning as chump change.

              • Cavalier says:

                …dissolution of the Soviet Union, but nothing compared to the truly stupendous deluge today. Look at the immigration numbers; they EXPLODE with just a short delay. Also, NAFTA (and more aspirations toward the so-called “North America Union”) happened at exactly this time as well.

              • Turtle says:

                My invader-migrant neighbors do work, in general. I’m not sure why you think most of them do not, based on your own locale’s situation. Many of them, being underpaid because they flood the market with an oversupply of labor, rely on welfare wealth transfers, yes. But that’s not enough for them to have nice houses and cars.

                I can’t imagine them getting more than $45k in welfare per year. And there’s competition on the black market/ crime business, from others, such as the mafia. Why would illegal immigrants get a monopoly on crime? And how is this economically possible? And how does voting left help them, besides welfare, getting to stay here, and affirmative action?

                • jim says:

                  In California, we see highly selective law enforcement. Anarcho tyrannical laws are applied to whites, not to Mexicans. If a drunken Mexican with no license gets in a traffic accident with you, which tends to happen a lot, you are shit out of luck.

                  They don’t have nice cars, they drive beaters, but they have cars. They do have reasonably nice houses, built by whites for whites, which they legitimately purchased on affirmative action mortgages which they do not pay.

                  The financial crisis was primarily a crisis of affirmative action mortgages. As long as housing prices were rising fast, the houses kept being flipped, and every time a house was flipped, the mortgage was paid. When housing prices stopped rising, suddenly the scam was revealed.

                  It certainly true that a lot of low pay low status jobs are exclusively brown, but it does not appear to me that most browns work in low pay low status jobs. Or work at all in any job that requires you to show up from nine to five five days a week.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Or work at all in any job that requires you to show up from nine to five five days a week.

                  Why should they? If I were invited by some benevolent aliens to leave this mortal, stupid, backwards planet and come live in their smart, clean, virtually crime-free world with endless feasts, incredible luxuries, enormous comfort, and amazing gadgetry which I can utilize to derive immense enjoyment but which neither I nor any of my race could invent or even imagine… and once I arrived and settled in the aliens said, “you can work grueling, backbreaking in the hot sun for peanuts and won’t be able to afford any of this, and, oh yeah, we’ll enforce our incredibly complicated, sophisticated law on you to induce you to behave in ways totally against your natural instincts… OR we’ll just give you every material good you could ever dream of for free and we’ll let you do whatever you want: piss on us, beat up our children, fuck our by-your-standards-incredibly-unbelievably-sexy working-class daughters, and terrorize entire neighborhoods in our wealthiest, highest-status cities”… well, then, every month I’d grab my welfare check and laugh all the way to the bank.

            • Cavalier says:

              Well, it isn’t _really_ conquest. The muds haven’t broken through the gate, put the king’s head on a spike, and fucked the queen nine ways to Sunday. They’re clients, not masters.

              So it’s more like: “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.” (And we’re going to suck your wallet dry and defile your neighborhood and hopefully your daughters to do so, naïve middle-class whitey man.)

              Our benevolent masters have, at long last, crushed every truly competitive power center. So now the white middle class is going to be smashed — impoverished and browned. I don’t see why this is such a revelation. There were a few Mexicans in America preceding the

              • jim says:

                > Well, it isn’t _really_ conquest. The muds haven’t broken through the gate, put the king’s head on a spike, and fucked the queen nine ways to Sunday. They’re clients, not masters

                They are clients of those who rule and we are not.

        • jim says:

          So I think while the desire for status originally evolved for getting sex, the modern male would have rather top status and no sex than good sex and no status.

          But status gets you sex, and sex gets you status, so this is not a choice that people make, therefore your claim is unverifiable, since we cannot accurately discern even our own values, absent real choices that force us to trade off one value for another.

          But while introspection is notoriously unreliable, my introspection tells me the opposite of what your introspection tells you. I seek status as a tool for getting sex. When I interact with women I am a dancing monkey performing the role of arrogant violent dangerous psychopathic asshole. Performing to entertain another is inherently low status, even though the role I perform is inherently high status, so this behavior suggests that I prefer sex to status.

          When I go for a run, I run further and harder if there are fertile age females around.

          • Alrenous says:

            Introspection being unreliable is a Jedi mind control meme. It just needs training, the same way a two-year-old will learn to speak instinctively, but will still need to train to properly understand grammar etc.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              It will contingently be unreliable or n/a if the subject in question is a conditional solipsist (like a woman).

            • peppermint says:

              proper grammar is what 0 sigma iq White men produce effortlessly. Not splitting infinitives or starting sentences with conjunctions or ending them with prepositions is a mental gymnastics game for 2 sigma iq people

          • Garr says:

            Maybe your success with women is partly due to the fact that they think it’s sweet and cute of you to put so much effort into pretending to be an “arrogant violent dangerous psychopathic asshole.”

            • peppermint says:

              maybe the fact that that’s what women say doesn’t make it true

              • Garr says:

                Well, I’m assuming that (1) neither Jim nor you is really an arrogant violent etc., and (2) both you and Jim like smart women more than you like stupid women, and (3) smart women are good at noticing that someone’s putting some effort into playing a role, and (4) a nice smart woman will play along with you rather than saying “It’s sweet and cute of you to put so much effort into playing this role,” but she’ll still think that it’s sweet and cute of you to do so.

                • jim says:

                  Women are eagerly complicit in being fooled, and will work very hard to fool themselves.

                  Just as a man is inclined to believe that any woman who smiles at him might well fuck him, regardless of evidence to the contrary, a woman is inclined to believe that any man is manly.

                • Garr says:

                  I think that the women you charm are suspending disbelief rather than fooling themselves, and remain on some level aware that they’re suspending disbelief, because they’re smart as well as nice. It’s also nice of you to play with them in this way. (I’m guessing, though, that you’re playing “domineeringly affectionate fatherly boss” rather than “scary psychopathic captor”, except insofar as the latter is a sub-game fitting into the former.) This is a mutually satisfying game; both of you get what you need. But when my female “students” manipulate me with smiles this is merely manipulation; I’ll never get anything out of it.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, on some level they are suspending disbelief.

    • Cavalier says:

      “the ability of local males to retain local females”

      Patriarchal gravity? Manly magnetism? We need a punchy phrase for this.

    • Cavalier says:

      >but entropy, laziness, comfort tend to prevent them from happening

      So the counterpoint would be: no, you just need a community in which the people who hang out with each other are the same people who grew up together parented by the same parents who hung out with each other and grew up together, and so on. And for that you need everybody in the same school or church or coffee shop or wherever day after year after decade after generation.

      Frankly, that isn’t for me, but probably that’s the problem.

      • Anonymous says:

        Tight community structures usually crumble under the onslaught of urban living. Crowded city life is deleterious to your ideal society, and the Prussian School System, which forces 25-30 random non-related boys (and girls) whose only thing in common is being in the same age bracket to sit in a “classroom” for 8 or so hours, listening to some mediocre 110-IQ pedagogue (more like pedo-gogue) blabbering about some irrelevant bullshit and then being home-worked and tested on said irrelevant bullshit, for 12 fucking years of their youth and young adulthood, probably the best 12 years of their life, which like a Jew’s foreskin will never come back, is a crap system for which the vast majority of humans are not fit. I mean, you can “fit” them into it, in a literal sense, but it’s not to their bene-fit, if you pardon another pun.

        In MPC-lingo, what you’re proposing perforce necessitates the reduction of societal SCALE. But this cannot be achieved under the current conditions, because the more complex a civilization grows, the more centralization is required to sustain it. And besides, where is the regime physically located, if not in the center(s) of the empire? Well, it’s in the regime’s best interest to have all its facilities located in close proximity to each other, in order to facilitate communication and so on – which means allowing all the people who man these facilities, who drone in the offices and the departments, to live in the center, perhaps not in the same neighborhood as the elite itself, but not too far off. The metropolis, no matter how many nogs and wogs its “inner city” is filled with, only ever grows, never shrinks. This is not a coincidence.

        So, sadly, to get your ideal, it’s either civilizational collapse, or fundamental civilizational transformation brought about by the incentivizing of rural living. But who is going to incentivize rural living? Only an elite that actually has the interests of the nation in mind, some basic noblesse oblige. Not a rootless cosmopolitan elite. Thus, need elite-replacement, and in 2017, anyone who so much as hints at elite-replacement is branded the incarnation of Adolf “the” Hitler. Of course – the elite will desperately cling to its seat of power as long as it is allowed to do so. And who is going to stop it? Not the “voters”, I assure you, and not the corrupt bureaucratic-political class aka “the swamp”.

        So we want the restructuring of society by de-SCALING its urban centers, the abolition of the Prussian School System, and the incentiving of rural living – all of which will furnish the environment, or the preliminary conditions necessary for establishing the environment, where a small-scale, tight-community-structure, organic-interpersonal-relations society can develop. Well, we won’t achieve that by going on the internet telling people to send their kids to work (“child labor” = illegal) or to abandon the city and run to the hills. The rotten, poison-pumping heart of the American Empire, which is the World Empire, has to be taken out for good. We’re living under ZOG, yes, but also, we’ve been conquered and taken as POWs into the POW (Puritan Occupied World). (I’m on a roll today)

        The POW Empire is cramming kids into rooms to be supervised by useless pedophiles for 12 years, so they can “mature” (die inside completely) and work in soul-crushing cubicles providing services for an elite of callous managerialists – and it does it all over the world. Wanna see some change? Change the elites of all Western and Western-ruled countries, and first and foremost America. Remove this whole globalist class of crooks and scoundrels from power, and foster local elites that have a radically different worldview encompassing anything from sex-roles to urban planning.

        I don’t have a concrete plan to get there. Something must be done about this Puritan Occupied World, but if Trump can’t do it — blackpill alert: he can’t do it — then we are in for some “eventful” transition process, short of collapse. Or will things just stay the same? Dissatisfaction and discontent *are* growing.

        • Cavalier says:

          Urban living works just fine as long so long as the urbanites aren’t rootless cosmopolitans adrift in a soulless world bereft of real, meaningful, lifelong contact and cut loose of the intergenerational reproductive continuum, as is well evidenced by a long history of thriving ethnic enclaves.

          • Anonymous says:

            Take a good look at those “ethnic enclaves”. Is that how you want to live? It’s disgusting.

            • Cavalier says:

              There aren’t any ethnic enclaves anymore; they were smashed by Civil Rights.

              • Anonymous says:

                Ethnic enclaves means isolated ghettos within a multi-racial empire. Not my cup of tea. It is the dominant, reigning culture that has to be won over, rather than having a generic-white implementation of muh Benedict Option. Scrap that: survival in the teeth of calamity may be good, but triumph is even better.

            • Because they are the wrong ethnics, d’uh. When you have it the other way around, and a more advanced culture forms an enclave in a less advanced one, that is called a colony or charter city.

          • I think it only works from the ground up. We cannot just say look you like me or you speak my language so you are of my own race or ethnicity. Rather quite literally it must be a step or two up from actually known family relations and also friendship relations. Suppose now a hierarchical society, where there are nobles who have on the average two dozens of clientes in the Roman sense as it cuts down on the numbers. Essentially a realistic size of a nation is where every two nobles can find out their actual relatedness or at least friends in common. This creates trust.

            I am not not making it up, it is sort of how I saw it in the corporate world. People try to find out stuff like you went to the same uni, know Prof X? And when yes they are instantly close to each other, trusting, friendly. And I came up with this nobles and clients stuff because we cannot do this with everybody, but if the two department heads have this sort of relationship then the people they lead can cooperate through them better.

            And when they are blood relatives it is usually even better.

            The problem is that this blood stuff became overly mythical already in Nazi times, blood and soil. While it is true that members of a race or larger nation are more closely related than otherwise, a random German dude being 8th cousing to another random German dude and 11th cousin to a random Polish dude makes no difference so it was basically mythology.

            Nations need to be based on actual, not mythical blood at least among the elites, like your nephew marrying my second cousin’s daughter.

            The difference between blood and friendship is inheritance. I will be honest I like my friends much more than most of my relatives and I think you seem to be the similar type of guy. But if I help my friend get richer, great, maybe he repays the favor maybe not, but if I help my cousin get richer the money stays inside the family when he dies. That sort of matters. This is why blood matters a rich cousin is more helpful than a rich friend, despite the fact that friends are usually easier to like (because we get to actually choose them).

  15. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Occasional historical anecdote; late in the civil war the yankee navy laid out plans for two large ocean going monitors that were never fully commissioned. The lead ship was named USS Puritan, and its battery of four 20 inch smooth-bores were named Satan, Lucifer, Moloch, and Beelzebub.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      You can’t make this shit up.

      • Anonymous says:

        As much as Jews deserve being despised by everyone, sometimes one does have to ponder whether or not True Evil, maliciousness not intended to further some ethnocentric or religious goal, but for its own sake, is something only Anglos are capable of. Just throwing this out there.

        • peppermint says:

          and why is that called pure evil?

          because you’re implicitly a utilitarian

          meaning you implicitly want White men enslaved and tortured to death for not sharing White privilege with niggers

          • Cavalier says:

            Presumably “true evil” as hate for the sake of hate itself, not hate in the service of some goal.

            I don’t think that’s a characteristic of Anglos, though.

            • peppermint says:

              we need to avoid thinking in such solipsistic terms as the emotion of hatred being evil, or evil being anything other than what is bad for the Aryan race

            • Anonymous says:

              It’s not hate for hate’s sake. I don’t care about hate. It’s something else.

              Everywhere you look, you find leftism and puritanism running amok. Also everywhere you look, Anglos have the power to stop these from wreaking their havoc. Yet, not only are they not doing anything to stop this madness, they are actively promoting it.

              How do Jews influence the world? By sitting on the backs of Anglos, whispering in the Anglos’ ears what to do next. However, just because there is an imperious Jew sitting on your back, doesn’t mean you must to neigh like a horse. Do you catch my drift?

              • peppermint says:

                Maybe you count try talking to boomers – you may have some in your family – to find out why they cuck so hard.

                The answer is cuckstainty, both remembered bibble verses about loving everyone especially niggers, and utilitarianism which is the logical consequence of soul theory.

                Don’t forget, following WWII rightists had to pretend to be cuckstains to avoid being hunted down for being fascists.

              • Cavalier says:

                Nazism has lobotomized key loci of your otherwise bright mind.

                • Anonymous says:

                  What exactly do you disagree with? Anglos rule the world, Jews rule (“disproportionately influence”) the Anglos, and look how the world is actually run.

                  But Anglos don’t do anything to mitigate the Jewish poison. On the contrary, they seem intent on making the Jewish poison that much more deadly. That’s my complaint. Also, unlike Jews, Anglos live in the real world, not the world of sophistic too-clever-by-half abstractions, so they can see vividly and lucidly the effects of their policies, and have a heart that is human enough to empathize with their sufferers. Yet, continue unfazed with the madness. Isn’t that a rather accurate description of reality?

                  The Jews have an excuse for their vicious wickedness – Jews are insane, and insane people are wont to do insane things. This is not to diminish their blame. They should be made to suffer that which was inflicted by them on humanity. An eye for an eye.

                  What’s the excuse of Anglos?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Oh, I see your comment was addressed at Peppe, not me. Well now I feel silly!

                • Cavalier says:

                  No, it was directed at you.

                  >imperious Jew sitting on your back

                  lol

                  The Jews don’t tell the elites what to do except to the extent that they are the elites. The Jews’ great power is in the degeneracy of the media, the crack cocaine of the masses. Financial power is disproportionately, but less characteristically, Jewish; white bankers tend to act much the same way as Jewish ones.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Wait… never mind. At any rate, Jews should not be disproportionately influencing Anglos (or other whites), but likewise, Anglos should not pour tons of gasoline on the fire started by the Jews. When you go around promoting puritan memes AND Jewish memes all over the world, that’s gasoline to the fire. Jews have sick brains, and deserve having their brains smashed with hammers, at least until they stop spreading their mass-murdering memes. Anglos are of sound mind, yet look where we are.

                • Cavalier says:

                  It isn’t about ideology and it isn’t about insanity; it’s about power. The reason “we” spread “our” memes is so that the affected populations respond to the Cathedral status system, i.e. Progressive soft power.

                  Progressivism and its predecessors won because they shed the Christian moralizing while keeping the Semitic will-to-power. You could do with a bit less moralizing yourself.

                • Anonymous says:

                  So, there’s no imperious Jew sitting on the backs of WASPs?

                  What’s the Cathedral? Academia-bureaucracy-media. That’s the real permanent USG. Who built those institutions? Englishmen. Who directs or “disproportionately influences” their policies today? Jews.

                  Jim is looking at Antifa leadership, seeing few Jews, concludes that Jews aren’t as big a problem as Nazis make them to be. Look above Antifa at the Cathedral itself, not at the useful idiots with the balaclavas.

                  The Communists who brawled with Nazis in the streets during Weimar were not Jews. The Red Army thugs who implemented Bolshevism were not primarily Jews. But look at the leadership of the Party itself. Tel Aviv phonebook, as they say.

                  Eventually, both Germans and Russians got rid of the imperious Jew sitting on their back. Have Anglos? If not, why not? Do I hear neighing sounds?

                • peppermint says:

                  what the ruling elite is now discovering is that they can influence people into doing some things but not other things, and what they can influence people into doing depends on those people’s social context and ideas.

                  Cuckstains raised in a cuckstain social context can be influenced into adopting niglets as embryos to save the precious life.

                  Milennials raised by hippies who order them not to in any way imply that gays aren’t normal while bamboozling each other into viewing a photograph of a man’s distended anus can’t be influenced into adopting niglets as embryos.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >So, there’s no imperious Jew sitting on the backs of WASPs?

                  Correct. That would imply some sort of adversarial relationship.

                  >Milennials raised by hippies who order them not to in any way imply that gays aren’t normal while bamboozling each other into viewing a photograph of a man’s distended anus can’t be influenced into adopting niglets as embryos.

                  lol

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Correct. That would imply some sort of adversarial relationship.

                  You don’t get it. The elites throughout the Anglophone world exhibit exceptional tolerance for Jewish influence. The root cause is the Cathedral memeplex of America, where the old legacy WASP elite imported the Jews and let them into its halls of power to subvert global rivals. Worked like a charm. To put it another way:

                  In Moldbug’s analysis, there are 3 sovereign powers on Earth: US, Russia, and China. The strongest of these powers, the “World Empire”, is Anglo. This Anglo entity is seeking to poz everyone else. Partly it’s ideological true-belief, partly because “he who controls the memes, control the planet”, and by the promulgation of toxic memes such as, say, “human rights democracy”, the Cathedral manages and subverts the entire world. So far, nothing controversial has been proposed here. This is basic NRx 101.

                  Where the controversy begins is the junction where we attempt to overview and determine the origin, cladistically, of the Cathedralite memes. And what I’m saying is that for far too long, the WASPs have been losing control of their “meme-dominance”, in that the toxic ideologies spread globally by the media, the NGOs, and the Foundations, do not constitute a purely WASPs cocktail – not even close. Into the mix were added, intentionally or otherwise, memes of Jewish origin, which memes we’re all familiar with.

                  Why, then, did I call out Anglos for being evil? Because of the neighing. When I describe the Jew as an imperious individual sitting on top of the back of the Anglo, this is not so much an indictment of the Jew, as much as it is an indictment of the Anglo. Because unlike the Jew, who is myopic and self-interested, and shouldn’t be expected to care about the welfare of gentiles, the Anglo does see, and does care for, what’s happening to his subjects. And what’s happening to his subjects is that they are dying, and everything they love, is being replaced with everything they hate.

                  Does the Anglo not realize it? And if he realizes it and does nothing to stop it, what does it say about him? That he’s a coward. A coward for not telling the Jew sitting on his back to get out, in much the same way the Russians and the Chinese are blocking, or desperately trying to block lest it be too late, Jewish influence from their own turf. The Anglo can (and needless to say, should) assert his own memetic sovereignty, but has relinquished memetic sovereignty to someone else. The mad giant has taken his own poison, mixed it with cladistically/biologically Jewish poison, and goes around berserk, shoving it down everyone’s throats.

                  That’s your “adversarial relationship” right there, Cavalier.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Ultimately, if you hold a position similar to Jim’s – that living under an elite that is chock-full of mischlings and happas is a-okay, then you couldn’t care less about “memetic sovereignty”. Asian memes, Jew memes, who cares. Surely, however, you can understand the discomfort felt by people who see things differently..?

                • jim says:

                  Memetic sovereignty does not require racial purity, nor does racial purity produce memetic sovereignty. The connection between memes and race is weak.

                  Our problem is not Jewish memes – meaning Marxism and cultural Marxism. Our big problem is anglo memes. As I said before. It is not evil Jewish mind rays that are harming us, it is our evil mind rays that are harming them.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “Memetic sovereignty” is not a concept I came up with. Credit where due, Bryce Laliberte, before his ragequit, had defined the purpose of NRx as the achievement of memetic sovereignty independent of Cathedral mind control rays. Which means logically, that if Cathedral is heavily X, it is freedom from X that ought to be sought. If the contention that Cathedral is heavily Jewish is accepted, then need liberty from Jewish memes. If that’s “nazism”, then NRx is nazi.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The connection between memes and race is weak.

                  I think that’s where our main difference/disagreement lies. I am pretty much a “genetical determinist”, as one commenter here put it, so it’s my firm conviction that memes flow directly from biological entities (such as race, sex, personality type, etc.), and as such, if the intelligentsia is, for instance, heavily Arab, then we’ll perforce have Arab memes. To not have Arab memes, need different intelligentsia.

                  And so, if I observe Jewish memes directly flowing from a Jewish intelligentsia, just as was previously the case with Anglos, then I must conclude that, if you’re dissatisfied with the nature of the memes, change the elite. Look at the Soviet Union and the heavily Jewish intelligentsia that reigned there, which replaced the ethnic Russian nobility. In America, WASPs were replaced. Similar results, wouldn’t you say? AIACC.

                • jim says:

                  Jewish Memes are Marxism and cultural Marxism. Progressivism is an anglo memetic system, deriving ultimately from puritanism, via abolitionism and female emancipation. Look at the abolitionists and the first wave feminists. Not a Jew in sight.

                  “We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men were created equal” There is your race denialism right there. Lord Howe was an abolitionist.

                  People who are Jew obsessed think that Mead was a puppet, and Boaz was pulling her strings, but you can tell who had the power by who she had sex with, and she had sex with people who, like herself, were memetically, culturally, and biologically descended from Puritans.

                  We are not succumbing to evil Jewish mind rays. Jews are succumbing to evil anglo mind rays.

              • jim says:

                If all Jews do is whisper in our ears, not very powerful.

                Jewish over representation in the left is now diminishing, as the Democratic Party turns brown.

                Jews really are a problem, but no more so than any alien group, and less so since we now have some alarmingly large and militant alien groups, in particular Muslims. Obsessing about the Jewish problem will drive you nuts.

                The solution to the Jewish problem is assimilation and return to Israel, both of which are under way already. As Muslims become more of a problem due to immigration, Jews become less of a problem due to emigration.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >If all Jews do is whisper in our ears, not very powerful.

                  This I disagree with. As you yourself say, ideas are more powerful than guns.

                • jim says:

                  So, we meme right back at them.

                  And what happens?

                  Purges, censorship, and no platforming.

                  OK, who is implementing the purges, censorship, and no platforming?

                  A group in which Jews are not all that overrepresented.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The Jews are less the ideological commissars and more the principle purveyors of sub-African-savage-tier degeneracy.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Antifa is not ruling USG. USG is ruling Antifa.

                  Antifa is mostly non-Jews. USG is disproportionately Jewish. Conversos or not conversos, the memes produced by biological Jews are Jewish memes. Anglos have horrible memes of their own, to be sure. So what do they do? Take their own horrible memes, combine them with the horrible memes of biological Jews, and force the entire world to dance to this nauseating, seizure-inducing tune.

                  Jews can’t see you dying, and when they do see you dying, clap their hands with joy, cackling with typical high-pitched nasal voices like the demons they are. Anglos, in sharp contrast, see clearly what’s happening, and have enough of a “soul” to feel internal discomfort for it. Then, for whatever inexplicable reason, pour gasoline on the fire.

                  Some men just want to watch the world burn!

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The solution to the Jewish problem is assimilation and return to Israel, both of which are under way already.

                  Despite assimilation and aliyah, absolute number projected to grow, not shrink.

                  Assimilation in the US creates some 20 or 25 million 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, and full Jews counted together. No more of a solution than breeding with blacks.

                  Orthodox Jews in the US don’t make aliyah, and with their high TFR, more than replenish the numbers of the secular.

                  Assimilation creates more Mischlings, that’s all. Problem: not solved. Actually exacerbated.

                • jim says:

                  Breeding with blacks lowers our IQ and diminishes our ability to cooperate. Portugal is an example of a small fully assimilated black admixture having a very large detrimental effect.

                  Breeding with Jews raises our IQ. Pretty sure the adverse effect of Jews on our ability to cooperate is cultural rather than biological and genetic – that Jews diminish our ability to cooperate the way any alien culture does.

                  The Aryan race has always had two groups of rulers, warriors and priests, and when one gets the upper hand over the other, things go bad. At present, priests have far too much power, warriors far too little, and Jews, being naturally priests, are prominent among those making this problem worse, but this problem is cultural and political, rather than biological and genetic. Warriors need to cultivate an in-house priesthood that is more supportive of the warrior caste – which means that the most important parts of academia to be purged are the military academies. Gassing the Jews is almost orthogonal to this problem. Like the matador’s cape, it is just a distraction. We need to purge the academies, not gas the Jews.

                  If we lose, it is likely that surviving whites will flee to Asia, and the surviving high IQ white population will, in a few centuries, be half East Asian.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Miscegenation is child abuse, and crossing with yids in particular perpetuates the exact sort of low imagination high calculation superficial clever silly autistetitude that reliably leads to worthless signal hacking singularities in the first place.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >If we lose, it is likely that surviving whites will flee to Asia, and the surviving high IQ white population will, in a few centuries, be half East Asian.

                  That’s a wholly undesirable outcome. True, it is better to have some minimal civilization going, run by white-ashkenazi-asian hybrids, than total darkness. But it’s still much better if whites have their own civilization going, and to have their own civilization, there must not occur race-mixing on a grand scale. Some happas (half eastasians) here, a few mischlings there, not much to worry about.

                  When you should start worrying is the moment your elite has been biologically compromised via mongrelization. The issue is biology, because social cohesion or assabiyah can be artificially produced, like if you’re not allowed to notice that your elite has slant-eyes and silky-hair; but if your elite actually has slant-eyes and silky-hair, or a hooked nose for that matter, it is no longer a white elite; and if whites cease to be an elite, you can say that the race-war has been formally lost, and the white race will degenerate, falter, and ultimately become extinct. It has happened before to great peoples.

                  Which is why it’s essential that we are allowed to notice if our elite has become slant-eyed or hook-nosed. I believe the growing consciousness we’re witnessing regarding this very issue — what does the elite look like? who are they? — is a good sign.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          Anon, read Mishima’s Temple of the Golden Pavilion and tell me Japs aren’t capable of pure evil for its own sake.

          There’s a kernel of truth to what you’re saying: true evil is impossible for people without souls, but open your eyes and you’ll see that Anglos aren’t the only ensouled beings around.

          • Anonymous says:

            Anglo-evil is as pungent as it is precisely because Anglos are sadists-masochists, rather than mere sadists. Someone who doesn’t ever empathize, and therefore inflicts pain, is an animal. Someone who is capable of tremendous empathy — indeed, probably more than anyone else on Earth — and yet inflicts pain, is a whole ‘nother level of evil than mere bestiality.

            Coloreds and kikes don’t have too much empathy, so are like animals: they are driven purely by their survival instincts. Whites are something else, but I don’t notice too much of this sadistic-masochistic evil, where you know exactly the extent of the suffering you inflict, and even empathize with your victim emotionally, but inflict it anyway, among non-Anglo whites. For some reason, the most emphatic ethnicity happens to be mighty cruel. This is startling.

            You can call Germans — who I think we all agree are ensouled beings — “callous barbaric murderers”, but once the German empathizes with someone emotionally, he stops hurting him. Now compare to the Anglos. The Anglos surely have enough brains to see what their actions lead to, and definitely enough empathy in their relatively-warm hearts to feel at least a mild discomfort for it, yet they persist.

            An enigma.

            • peppermint says:

              herp derp souls and masochism it’s like we’re monks from 500 years ago now

              let’s replace all the humans with niggers to reduce the amount of evil in the world, that’s surely what the deity that created our souls would want

              or maybe it wants us to teach our children to act more like niggers

              • Anonymous says:

                This has nothing to do with niggers. Niggers have it better than the rest of us. I’m talking about the international-evangelism of puritan memes, and about Anglos concluding that: “if a Jew is sitting on my back, I may as well neigh.”

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              Seriously, read Mishima. The dude was on a first name basis with both sadism and masochism. Maybe he was an exception, a one-in-a-million Jap capable of both? Nah, his work wouldn’t be such a hit over there if there wasn’t a significant fraction of Japs that got where he was coming from.

              p-mint: Genuinely sorry to disappoint you with talk about souls. The soul is a fiction, but I’ve been marinating cuckstain slave-morality for my whole life and unthinkingly use the soul as shorthand or metaphor. What we need is not more “soul” but more of the inner beast. Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed.

              • Garr says:

                Souls might look like ethereal squids with various individuating weird shape-varieties; they’d be a pale cream-color, undulating through the rainbow-waves of the Metaverse, from which they “descend” into fleshly vehicles and into which they eventually re-“ascend”.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Neurology disproved the existence of souls. God works through flesh and matter.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Far out, maaaaaan.

                • Seer says:

                  >Neurology disproved the existence of souls. God works through flesh and matter.

                  This dude has got to be a Jew. He has all of the hallmarks. A vague, crass, and histrionic argumentative style. Appeals to science when, and only when, it suits him. An inability to see the big picture. The relentless desire to ruin every meaningful conversation.

                  How much y’all want to bet that he’s a Jewish plant? He’s like B’s mirror image.

                • Anonymous says:

                  When have I ever not appealed to science? What big picture do I miss? Provide examples.

                  You sound triggered, Seer. Besides, if I’m a kike, like a full kike sans foreskin and all that, that makes everything here truly hilarious. Alas for you, I have no plan to reveal my background. I will tell you this:

                  Haplogroups
                  M: J1b1a
                  P: E-M123 (E1b1b)

                  Go ahead, call me a kike for my paternal haplo. You know who else had it? … 😉

                • Anonymous says:

                  Btw, was Thomas Henry Huxley also a filthy kike, in your opinion? You couldn’t spot a real Jew even if one were to choke you with his Tefillin.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >You know who else had it? … 😉

                  Yes, and he didn’t much resemble the local population either. It’s funny how that works, isn’t it?

                • pdimov says:

                  Your mtDNA also doesn’t rule out your being Ashkenazi.

                  “Haplogroup J comprises 7% of the Ashkenazi control-region database. Around 72% of these can be assigned to J1c, now thought to have arisen within Late Glacial Europe, and 19% belong to J1b1a1, also restricted to Europe.”

                • Anonymous says:

                  No haplotype can rule out anything. But it’s not common among Ashkenazim. 1.33% according to your figure. In Scotland it’s 4%.

                • pdimov says:

                  Conditional on J, J1b1a is a good sign.

                  I’m not bored enough to find a way to cross-reference Y-DNA against mtDNA. 🙂

                • Anonymous says:

                  Yes, if you know that a) someone is a Jew and b) he is maternal J, then this one is a good bet.

                  If you don’t know a) and b), but do know that it’s someone’s haplo, it’s not an indication of Jewishness. More likely to be Aryan.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Actually, if you know the haplo, you necessarily know b). But it doesn’t change anything, because maternal J itself is not very common among Jews.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Or to be precise, more common among Scandinavians and Brits than Jews.

                • pdimov says:

                  Brits, yes, Scandinavians, maybe not.

                  “J* = Ireland — 12%, England-Wales — 11%, Scotland — 9%, Orkney — 8%, Germany — 7%, Russia (European) — 7%, Iceland — 7%, Austria-Switzerland — 5%, Finland-Estonia — 5%, Spain-Portugal — 4%, France-Italy — 3%”

                  Ahskenazim – 7% J

                  E-M123 is not very common in Britain though.

                • Anonymous says:

                  23andme says “Example Populations: British, Scandinavians”

                • Anonymous says:

                  Also:

                  “The most common J1b subclade in Europe, and the one most strongly associated with Y-haplogroup R1b, is J1b1, and particularly J1b1a in Europe, which also happen to be the subclade identified in the Urnfield culture. Other subclades of J1b are restricted to the Middle East or the eastern Mediterranean.

                  The highest frequencies of J1b1a in Europe are consistantly observed the regions with high percentages of Y-haplogroup R1b, such as Iceland (5.5%), Scotland (3.5%), Wales (3.5%), and south-west France (2.5%).”

                • Alrenous says:

                  >You’re triggered

                  >I’m posting my genetic data

                  Sure faggot.

                  Neurology hasn’t proven shit regarding souls. Plz into logic more and being pwned by the narrative less.

                • Seer says:

                  >Muh neuroscience
                  >Muh J haplotype

                  Your rants about how literally everything is the fault of the Jews are as hysterical as Moishe whining about anudda shoah. You sound like a Jewish chauvinist, come to remind us of how the world revolves around your disgusting people. You sound just like B, writing from the extreme opposite perspective.

                  I’d be very surprised if you weren’t Jewish, and I don’t think I’m alone in this view. I’d even be surprised if you weren’t B. But on the off chance you’re 100% Aryan and serious about what you’re saying, when Peppermint (of all people!) repeatedly tells you to chill out, you need to take the hint, or risk looking like a Jewish caricature or sock-puppet. Monomania is never a positive trait.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You have provided exactly 0 examples for my “hysteria”, because you’re lying through your teeth, trying to manufacture a false sense of consensus about someone who triggered you on the internet.

                  (In reality, half of the time I’m trolling, and the other half I’m drunk)

                  I assume you have Jewish relatives, which made you lose your sense of humor. I have successfully raised your blood pressure with my banter (aka “sick bantz”), so you are left projecting your own emotional pain unto the person who triggered it.

                  I will address one thing:

                  >when Peppermint (of all people!) repeatedly tells you to chill out, you need to take the hint

                  Never happened. On the contrary, Peppe only tells me, “repeatedly”, that I’m not hardcore enough about the 14 words. And he is correct – I am not hardcore enough.

                  Why are you lying, Seer? Did the bad Nazi on the internet… did he hurt you?

                • Anonymous says:

                  I mean, come on shlomo. I said it’s not *just* the jews several times. In fact, in this very thread I named the Anglo and wrote about the deleterious effect of urban living. None of your claims are true.

                  >you’re a Jewish plant
                  >you’re B’s sock puppet

                  Get a grip, chaim.

                • seer says:

                  Exhibit a: you’re awfully familiar with Hebrew names.
                  Exhibit b: your long posts on that “it’s not the Jews” thread were book-length, and betrayed a close familiarity with Jewish society. Looked to me like you know more about Israel than most of that country’s citizens.
                  Exhibit c: 99% of your posts here on this blog are about Jews. Almost all of them are histrionic in some way, like “trust me, fellow goys, it’s the Jews who are behind everything! Sometimes they ride Anglos like horses!!!”
                  Exhibit d: your writing style, and your methods of argumentation, are awfully similar to the Jews who post here regularly.

                  It doesn’t take much to connect the dots. Besides, you’re triggered like crazy right now. You even gave us some sort of half-assed look into your genetic background, which was funny as hell. You’re probably familiar with this: “call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: ‘I’ve been found out!'” and, “quickly the Jew turns the attacker’s charges back on him and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist.”

                  Verdict: you’re definitely a kike faggot. Possibly a Jew neuroscientist, seeing as you seem to have access to neuroscientific information that we’re not privy to. Tell me again where neuroscience proves that souls don’t exist? There is no white race without the faith, “Chaim”. We have souls. I’m not so sure about you and your people.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Alrenous, I’m posting the haplozlzlzl because it’s funny and like, random. You wouldn’t understand because you have legitimate non-ironic asperger’s, which is why all your posts are boring & unreadable, here and at xenosystems and at your own blog.

                  But boy, I never knew it was so easy to trigger people with “neurology disproved the existence of souls”. 6 words to send all the ‘tards into tailspin. lel.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >you’re awfully familiar with Hebrew names.

                  have you heard of /pol/

                  >trust me, fellow goys, it’s the Jews who are behind everything!

                  never said that, quit lying

                  >your writing style, and your methods of argumentation, are awfully similar to the Jews who post here regularly.

                  you are jealous because I’m more persuasive than you’ll ever be

                  >which was funny as hell

                  that was the purpose

                  >Possibly a Jew neuroscientist, seeing as you seem to have access to neuroscientific information that we’re not privy to. Tell me again where neuroscience proves that souls don’t exist?

                  6 words to trigger the ‘tards. butthurt confirmed.

                • Anonymous says:

                  for the protocol I’ll spend 2 minutes refuting your baseless calumnies and projections, sha’ul

                  >A vague, crass, and histrionic argumentative style.

                  you’re the only histrionic here, tardo

                  >Appeals to science when, and only when, it suits him.

                  neurology disproved the existence of souls. stop being so butthurt about it

                  >The relentless desire to ruin every meaningful conversation.

                  why have you interjected yourself here again

                  >He’s like B’s mirror image.

                  I hate B, but he is a terrific commenter, every blog should have a B

                  >Your rants about how literally everything is the fault of the Jews

                  show me one, like with a link or a citation

                  >are as hysterical as Moishe whining about anudda shoah.

                  notice you’re the first in this convo to use “moishe”. familiar with jewish names, aren’t you

                  >You sound just like B, writing from the extreme opposite perspective.

                  muh false equivalency

                  >I’d even be surprised if you weren’t B.

                  in that case, B would be one hell of a legendary troll

                  >But on the off chance you’re 100% Aryan

                  which I never claimed I was, because I refuse to divulge personal details that can identify me irl (haplozlzlz don’t count)

                  >risk looking like a Jewish caricature or sock-puppet.

                  yeah, sure. also, neurology disproved the existence of souls

                  >Monomania is never a positive trait.

                  i agree, btw neurology disproved the existence of souls

                  >“quickly the Jew turns the attacker’s charges back on him and the attacker becomes the liar,

                  yes, but you are a confirmed liar, you even lied about peppermint, claiming that he said the exact opposite of what he actually said to me, like, itt. you’ve lied about 2 people in 3 posts, you know that’s a sin, right

                  >There is no white race without the faith

                  if you had a wife, she’d fuck nigger christians

                • Anonymous says:

                  also, eliezer, you seem awfully familiar with antisemitic terminology and memes

                  you are being dishonest because the non-existence of souls as 100% proven by the science of neurology is too painful a thought for you to contemplate

                  but that’s okay, herschel, the alt-right is a safe space for triggered cucks like you to bask in their delusions, oh wait it isn’t, gtfo

                • Seer says:

                  Holy shit, what a meltdown.

                  Your kike status is confirmed.

                  “Neurology disproved the existence of souls” is possibly the most Jewish sentence I’ve ever seen. Hard to come back from that one, ain’t it? But hey, flail around some more, won’t ya? It’s amusing.

                • Anonymous says:

                  that’s my writing style, watcha gonna do

                  “kike status confirmed”

                  sure thing shlomo, btw you didn’t answer my question about th huxley, was th huxley also a “confirmed kike”

                  man, i love me some internet shitstorms. but i have other business to do, so in the meanwhile ill let you amuse yourself like you’re used to. gday cuck

                • jim says:

                  The race of someone called “anonymous” is not a question that can be readily resolved, so the issue has become boring, and I am shutting down further discussion of it.

                  That said, some aspects of his style somewhat resemble those of a certain Jewish supremacist that regularly comments on my blog.

                • B says:

                  This is so awesome.

                  I think that if tomorrow the Jews all went to Israel, you Nazi morons would exterminate each other in a decade.

                  It’s like watching MEMRI with you people.

                  “By Allah-you are the Jew! You Zionist scum!”

                  “No, by the Prophet, it is you who are the Jew! I slap you with my shoe!”

                  (throws shoe, pulls AK-47 out from under djellaba, awkwardly fumbles with safety lever for 30 seconds until tackled by security guards)

                  You guys got those dents in your foreheads, or what?

                • pdimov says:

                  “… some aspects of his style somewhat resemble…”

                  Is everyone here (besides me) using Tor?

                • jim says:

                  I cannot be bothered to check out his IP. As I said, bored. Also, bothering to investigate such matters raises his status and lowers mine, analogous to Streisand effect. If I had checked out his IP, which I have not, I would say I have not.

                • pdimov says:

                  “It’s like watching MEMRI…”

                  ‘Cept that Jews are indeed thoroughly overrepresented in both ironic internet Nazism and unironic internet Nazism.

                  Must be that verbal IQ we hear so much about.

                • Anonymous says:

                  If xir only said “this guy sounds jewish”, I’d simply retort with “yeah, a rosh yeshivah from brooklyn”. The problem is the manner by which he made his false accusations, such as claiming that peppermind told me literally the opposite of what he had told me, in this very thread, lol. What a brazen liar. Likewise, I constantly say that while jews are a problem, there are indeed other problems. Meanwhile, xir claims that I accuse only the jews for everything.

                  I hate being lied about, that’s all.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Btw, for those who don’t know what the reference to TH Huxley is doing here, there you go:

                  http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/Mss/FROG.html

                  (Has a frog a soul?)

                  I’m bringing this up because xir, ever a dishonest liar, claimed that I “appeal to science only when it suits” me, in response to me writing the 6-word-sequence which never fails to deliver.

                  Of course, it’s a meaningless accusation, because a) I bring up science whenever it’s relevant to bring it up, obviously if the discussion is on the whole non-science-related, no point in bringing up science into it; b) I don’t recall ever writing here in contradiction or in opposition to science, and no examples were provided by xir, just as no examples were provided by xir for any of his other false accusations, such as “not seeing the big picture” etcetera etcetera.

                  In fact, it is nutters like him who ignore science when its conclusions contradict their preconceived notions. But you see – for every curt lie of his, I need, in order to refute the steaming pile of horseshit, to spend my energy into explaining the dishonesty involved on his part. Well played, psychopath. But the truth does win out, eventually.

                  Back on point: Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous, was by no means “a ratfaced filthy kike”. He was, to the dismay of many a nutjob, the purely-Anglo father of modern agnosticism, and as a Fellow of the Royal Society, and “Darwin’s Bulldog”, he has ripped apart to the tiniest shreds all the futile attempts which were made during the 19th century by Creationists and other evolution-deniers (or to be more accurate: natural-selection-deniers) to suppress and disprove Darwinian theory. There have been, to be sure, some religious individuals who supported him.

                  If you go to the link I have attached above, you’ll see him articulating exquisitely the position I hold regarding “souls”. Well worth a read, you guys will find it much edifying.

                  (Oh, btw xir, you cuck: neurology disproved the existence of souls)

                • pdimov says:

                  “… thoroughly overrepresented…”

                  Aaaand there we go:

                  https://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs

                  “… provided by xir for any of his other false accusations…”

                  *xis

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Aaaand there we go:

                  That’s, like, old.

                  The thing about Jewish involvement in nazism is that in itself it substantiates the veracity of nazi arguments. When you find out that the nazi troll/theoretician you look up to is Jewish, it makes you more, not less, enraged at the Jews for pulling off such a stunt.

                  So either way, the cause of nazism is promoted, first by convincing you of nazism being correct and also “cool”, secondly by proving the duplicitous nature of Jews. Fun paradox.

  16. Truthteller9 says:

    As someone said, he’s “Ba’ath Party chic”….

    The man is a buffon, but a blunt instrument for needed ends.

  17. Turtle says:

    2 cool articles

    (from a wannabe-nato source tht sounds like porn- will they go from
    https://www.newsdeeply.com/womenandgirls
    to “fucking deeply”?)

    about how Assad is winning:

    https://www.newsdeeply.com/syria/articles/2017/04/25/the-business-of-smuggling-supplies-in-besieged-eastern-ghouta

    Assad seems to be building a lastign coalition, not just defeating his enemies. he needs to keep a capable elite on his side, at least willing to cooperate and negotiate with him. That’s easy if he can import Russians, Iranians, and others, but relying on immigration is risky.

    “Rebel factions are fighting each other in the last rebel enclave outside the capital, according to the United Kingdom-based monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

    The major factions in Eastern Ghouta are clashing intensely with each other as government forces continue to besiege the enclave and advance within rebel territory. The powerful Jaish al-Islam faction is attacking facilities belonging to the Rahman Legion and the Hayaat Tahrir al-Sham, al-Qaida’s former affiliate in Syria. At least eight fighters are confirmed dead and another 40 are injured, according to SOHR.

    These clashes come almost a year after the last major rebel infighting, during which government forces were able to seize control of the rebels’ only agricultural territory, further tightening the siege.”

    https://www.newsdeeply.com/syria/executive-summaries/2017/04/28

    So, any new predictions? I think Assad’s Syria will declare victory this year, perhaps for Christmas. Russia might escalate their participation, and this will be to secure their win, including both oil and a grateful ally. The sooner this mess is over, the better.

    I want to focus on domestic issues here, not the mid-east so far away. The only bridges are refugees, terrorism, and the national budget. It’s funny that Trump might actually be secretly supporting Assad, in some way. If so, well played. If not, it’s never too late to apologize for Obama’s red line fiasco and meddling.

    Obama’s legacy is fragile- once Assad wins, the foreign policy part, the Arab Spring and Ukraine’s maidan, is broken. So if Assad wins soon, it doesn’t matter when RBG retires, how many S.C. justices are replaced in Trump’s first term, or how long we wait for Trump to fulfill his promises. War is greater than politics, and soon I expect Russian and Persian to be popular languages in Western college courses. I’m interested- Rumi is cool.

    Palestine v. Israel is next, and Trump is clearly choosing the people he can negotiate with over the terrorists. Palestine might be kicked out of the U.N., including defunding the ‘refugees’, and lose some territory by the end of 2018. I really think Trump is focused on jobs and prosperity to prevent a coup against him, so that he can win foreign wars and redo the federal courts.

    All these loci are connected- the insane courts want to end the constitution and American government, the people who thank Trump for their new jobs will protect him from said courts, and foreign wars tend to be civil wars of Trump supporters on opposing sides, so Trump will protect his American people from military adventures. That way, his auto-coup is gradual, natural, and logical. Jobs-wars-courts: beta wealth, alpha victory, and arbitrating who gets what, including status and personal identity.

    I’m oversimplifying, just for the meme.

    I think most Trump supporters are risk-averse, and going to wait until his reign is fully secure before coming out as fans-all-along. I’d rather not accept them as full members at that point, because they need to pass some test of allegiance, not just announcing themselves via rhetoric. All the negative neds saying Trump is a cuck, trump lost, etc. are going to keep despairing, I expect. They really like being negative for its own sake, because it, as in goth and emo culture, is high status. If we were like Iraq, and banned being emo, the emo guys would not be so cool or popular.

    Any other predictions on Syria and related events?

    • Turtle says:

      Trump is hosting the PA’s terrorist-president Abbas today. Their speeches were boilerplate, about deals, peace, and acting like they somehow will actually get a lasting peace deal. Abbas lied a bunch. This might be a way to make Abbas look bad- he claims Palestinian children are raised to love peace, but that’s like saying ISIS is peaceful. I think Trump intends to embarrass Abbas.

      • B says:

        Would be nice if he was trying to embarrass Abbas (though you can’t embarrass a whore, so the attempt would be futile.)

        I think he’s going to do what every other President has done, and try to push a peace deal, where we give the Arabs land and they pinky swear to stop trying to kill us. Maybe under an “only Nixon could go to China” type of rationale. Kushner and Ivanka seem to be the kind of NYC ModOx Jews to whom that would appeal.

        Wouldn’t bet a bottle of whiskey on it, but would bet a six pack of good beer.

        • jim says:

          Muslims appeal to each president’s vanity “You could bring peace to the middle east”. And humility is not one of Trump’s greatest strong points.

          The neoreactionary solution for peace anywhere is: First victory, then peace, then order, then law, then freedom.

          First you defeat your enemies, then you make them so afraid that they stop fighting, then you establish police authority in place of military authority, make it possible to buy and sell, transport goods, hold goods for long periods, then you establish clear and simple laws, enforced by whatever means it takes. Then you can start considering freedom of (non hostile) speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom of association (for non hostile purposes).

  18. Turtle says:

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/04/19251/
    “Pleasure, Consent, and Dignity: Peter Singer Is Wrong About the Sexual Assault of a Disabled Man”

    I think the left is becoming totalitarian, not further left. It’s a separate axis, on the ‘political compass’- anarchy-authority is what I mean, not left-right. It’s (surprsingly for me) no longer considered as bad as the white teens who raped (really, penetrated, but as a sick game, not penilely) a retarded girl with whom they grew up to ‘just have loving relationship sex with’ a man who has cerebral palsy.

    Somehow, the left has flip-flopped. I know they would treat this case totally differently if the defendant were not a female ethics professor. But they’re still weirding me out. They might not realize Professor Perversa was torturing the disabled guy, as an ethics experiment. But I’ll assme the worst about this case, knowing ethics professors crave ‘badass’ status.

    Is this Italian political theorist interesting?

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/04/19076/

    “At a time when Western academic culture was starting to be dominated by schools of thought that favoured prepolitical explanations—by which I mean . . . approaches based on methods borrowed from the human sciences: economics, sociology, psychology, socio-biology, etc.—Del Noce advocated . . . a transpolitical interpretation of contemporary history, in which people’s conceptions of the world and of themselves play a significant role.”
    ” he shows that the history of philosophy doesn’t *have to* be a secular drift terminating in inchoate nihilism.”

    Del Noce writes in the essay “Violence and Modern Gnosticism” that the modern process of secularization is as much a secularization of gnosticism as anything else: the “‘totally other’ reality . . . which for a gnostic lay beyond the empirical word, for the revolutionary lies instead in the future.”

    “At that point violence is no longer accepted as necessary, or revolutionary violence exalted as divine. Rather, it is accepted as normal because ethics comes to an end.”

    Doesn’t this happen before and during every war?

    Del Noce was, I think, a right conservative, which is rare, but without reading his newly translated book, this review in not enough to decide whether his ideas are really good.

    • jim says:

      The left is a group organized for seizing power. Having seized power already, they continue to seize it.

      Leftism as an ideology has no coherent defining principle, it simply today’s political line of the left coalition. Since the left is continually seizing power, the line continually changes.

      The libertartian two dimensional analysis of politics is incorrect, and the disappearance of libertarianism, as libertarians either become leftists (“fining people a hundred million dollars for failing to bake a gay wedding cake does not violate freedom of speech, but rather protects personal freedom”) or they become alt rightists, is a reflection of this failure.

      The line contains a thousand points and deviation on any one point of a thousand, or merely being left behind as the line continues to move, makes you a rightist.

      • Turtle says:

        “The left is a group organized for seizing power. Having seized power already, they continue to seize it.”

        There is much power they cannot seize- they cannot do most important work themselves. I see the alt-right as a nerd-slave uprising against their overseers.

        “Leftism as an ideology has no coherent defining principle, it simply today’s political line of the left coalition. Since the left is continually seizing power, the line continually changes.”

        Yes, but they lose power to each other, too. Like Syrian factions against Assad fighting each other. There are multiple lines, one for each party/ player. I think leftism’s biggest principle is lying.

        “The libertartian two dimensional analysis of politics is incorrect, and the disappearance of libertarianism, as libertarians either become leftists (“fining people a hundred million dollars for failing to bake a gay wedding cake does not violate freedom of speech, but rather protects personal freedom”) or they become alt rightists, is a reflection of this failure.”

        2D analysis is liberal, I thought, while committed libertarians ignore left-right, because an oppressive or lenient government is mostly the same whether left or right. Leftists are becoming libertarians too, it’s what happens when a left or right position loses power. It’s a way to cope with disempowerment.

        “The line contains a thousand points and deviation on any one point of a thousand, or merely being left behind as the line continues to move, makes you a rightist.”

        Yeah, I’m a leftist on some points, but that doesn’t count. There is some tolerance for deviation- Cory Booker loudly supported Romney’s firm in 2012, and that was allowed. And leftists usually pick a niche in which to specialize. That’s another big leftist principle: that one person cannot handle too much citizenship or power, and needs a coalition to manage everything together. It’s an oligarchical ideology, so it is far less diverse in the range of power structures it allows than rightism. There is no leftist king or nobility, only a few leftist key players manipulating the ochlocratic masses, and this is how they do sociological analysis, with small circles, like obsessing over the early Nazi Party’s key players, or Trump’s cabinet, but not the surrounding context.

      • I, too, have a certain gut feeling that libertarianism is _so_ 20th century, which is kinda sad as it was around 2004 or so when I first discovered it to begin with. My impression is that if politics and the culture war is like a soccer match libertarians want to play the role of the referee who does not really care who wins but he just wants to ensure that people play by the civilized rules and kick the ball, not each other. This works only as long as they don’t hate each other too much, beyond a certain level of mutual hatred all bets are off. Libertarianism sounds a lot like the essence of civilization, but it must be defended by non-libertarian and not-civilized means. I am a visual thinker and for me an actually functional civilized state now looks like a hard authoritarian shell with a soft libertarian core inside.

    • peppermint says:

      He sounds really boring with his words and words. How can ethics come to an end? This is reminiscent of Locke’s theory of war.

      Philosophy doesn’t end in nihilism. The next step is fascism.

      Nietzsche said when you gaze into the abyss it also gazes into you. This is best illustrated by guy opens ass to show everyone.

  19. EdensThaw says:

    “You look at the rules for the Senate…it’s a really bad thing for the country. They’re archaic rules…Maybe at some point we’re going to have to take those rules on for the good of the nation.”

    – Trump on Friday

    • jim says:

      The senate is about to filibuster the wall, thereby “shutting down the government”.

      The major effect of “shutting down the government” is that salary payments to government employees, which is to say, Democratic party members and activists, get delayed.

      • Mackus says:

        Can Trump preempt them and declare: “because of congress being uncooperative, I am hereby shutting down the government”?

        • jim says:

          Not exactly, but close to it. He can declare “I will not sign this funding bill because it does not provide bridging finance for the wall, therefore I am shutting down the government.” He can also unilaterally declare the wall to be national security, which it obviously is, therefore wall related activities are not subject to full shutdown and can in some respects be funded by executive order.”

          But to him to get away with funding the wall by executive order probably requires something very like a self coup, even though there is ample precedent of Obama funding stuff by executive order.

          The correct strategy to implement his election promises is to sign a series of bills that fund the government for a week at a time without funding the wall, and after the drama has gone on for long enough, refuse to sign the next one unless it funds the wall. Then just “shut down the government” and hang tough. The ensuing crisis, if it goes on long enough, provides cover for extra constitutional acts.

          • Turtle says:

            Trump’s billionaire friends could fund the wall. Just give the federal land to a private trust, by executive order. It could be like one of Obama’s ‘national monuments,’ reversed. He could also call it all sorts of things, like “MAGA Wall.” The Wall is too plain for my taste.

  20. Jim, I wish that I had half your wit.

    I’ve no idea whether your article is right or wrong, but one finds it strangely compelling.

  21. M says:

    See this link for a timeline on Trump’s slide into globalism and a refutation of the campaign promises that got him elected: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=3600599&mc=15&forum_id=2#33199897

    • jim says:

      Premature Cathedral triumphalism. Trump has tweeted that the Muslim ban and sanctuary city defunding is headed for the supreme court, and he is also signaled a willingness to go Jackson on the supreme court if they do not bend to his will.

      Under these circumstances, he needs the military, therefore cannot openly abandon the imperial project.

      He has three power struggles on his hands. Some in the military want to go to war with Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China, and he has to promise them World War 3, without actually delivering on World War 3.

      He needs to get bridge funding for the wall, and Democrats are threatening to filibuster government funding rather than accept funding for the wall or defunding for Obamacare.

      And the courts are blocking him on Sanctuary Cities and Muslim immigration, and will at any moment block him on H1Bs.

      Rational strategy is to deal with one power struggle at a time, putting the others on the back burner. It is premature Cathedral triumphalism to suppose that Trump will accept losing on all three, or indeed losing on any of them.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Dream world time – Trump strikes a deal with the military – they’re allowed to conquer Saudia Arabia and a military governor is installed. The justification is that they funded the 9/11 attackers and fund Sunni terrorism world-wide. Why do this now? Ah, here’s the fun part – the subverted and bribed members of the political class – who will, unfortunately have to be executed for treason (unless they confess and live in exile). Wrap everything up in a nice neat package.

    • jim says:

      Recall similar Cathedral Triumphalism on Soviet victory over Reagan in the cold war.

  22. Turtle says:

    “… thoroughly overrepresented…”

    Aaaand there we go:

    https://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs

    Great article, pdimov. You’ve convinced me that Anonymous is not honest, whoever he is.

    He doesn’t seem real, in that he flip flops on asperger’s, but that’s only the most obvious tell:

    “you have legitimate non-ironic asperger’s, which is why all your posts are boring & unreadable”
    http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-trump-aesthetic/#comment-1588506

    “I may be an autistic OCD-crippled nerd, but at least I’m serious about my stuff.”
    http://blog.jim.com/war/the-enemy-within/#comment-1582007

    Which is it, are you better than spergs or one of them? Or both, because your autism is ironic, and your OCD is white, and your boring unreadable posts are inspired by Hitler?

    Second, he always cites boring nazi sources, like Hitler’s books nobody cares about.
    Third, he assimilates what others say in an effort to flatter them.

    And fourth, his comments have way changed too much since he first showed up here. Trying too hard…leaving dozens of comments, which must take hours… clearly not an ordinary nazi. It’s sad that we waste so much time on this crap.

    Jim, I propose a ‘5 comments max’ cap on Jew/Zionism/race relations-related topics per post. That would be nice.

    • Turtle says:

      Further evidence:

      “Daily reminder that most alt-righters read Mein Kampf, if even that, but not –

      *Zweites Buch (authentic Hitler)
      *Table Talk (secondary, edited, occasionally twisted account of authentic Hitler)
      *Hitler’s Last Will and Testament (short text, authentic Hitler)
      *Hitler’s Speeches (authentic Hitler)
      *The Testament of Hitler (forgery by Francis Genoud, but it’s awesome)
      *Young Hitler (Kubizek)
      *Hitler and I (Strasser)
      *Into the Darkness (Stoddard)

      And then they go on to call themselves “Hitlerists”. ”

      Repeating the first key quote: “most alt-righters read Mein Kampf,”

      Fuck no. It’s boring and out-dated.

      Second quote: “And then they go on to call themselves “Hitlerists”. ”

      Again, fuck no, that sounds lame, and nobody does that. Either you’re deluded, or lying. The alt-right is more about Pepe than Hitler, more about Trump than Nazism. You can’t even define national socialism, can you?

      Third quote: “*The Testament of Hitler (forgery by Francis Genoud, but it’s awesome)”

      Forgeries are awesome? Nice meme, why not reference the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

      He’s shilling somehow. It’s not working though, so no worries. Anonymous referred to himself not shilling for ISIS anymore, because there’s no need to defeat them, which is suspiciously stupid too- they do terrorism in our country, so they brought the war to us. We can’t just leave them alone, they want to kill us. Only a total sociopath says ISIS is ok, after they’ve killed many Westerners. Somebody who is ok with ISIS does not care about whites/Europeans/Aryans, just like somebody who claims he is autistic does not insult others on grounds of their ‘autistic’ commenting. Boring comments are not autistic, unless they are actually autistic, as in train schedules and random technical info.

      Anonymous is a bad liar. I thought some of these things earlier, but did not want to embarrass him. I’m polite, usually.

      • B says:

        Man, this is a tragedy.

        A Jew who could have done any number of good deeds with his time spent it trolling Nazis online. I guess that was his angle?

        On the other hand, it’s nice to see that Naziism is such an unappealing ideology to Americans that half the prominent American Nazis are actually Jewish trolls.

        • pdimov says:

          Another way to look at it is that Jews are just ordinary people; they, too, develop anti-Semitism when surrounded by Jews.

          • B says:

            Since most of the people who deal with American Jews on a regular basis are not Jews, you’d expect American Nazis to mostly be not Jewish as well,

            • Anonymous says:

              The “Goy Polloi” of Nazism are indeed Goyim. If Jews tend to be overrepresented among the higher echelons of political movements due to high verbal IQ, it stands to reason that, with the relatively-newfound liberty vouchsafed by internet anonymity, Jewish higher-echelon-overrepresentation will migrate to the Nazi movement too.

              It will be hilarious if the future Aryan ethno-state expels Weev to Israel for being a Mischling. He’s a real master of kosher-disaster. Don’t be so sad, B; unless there will be mass-gassing, you’re also getting Moldbug. He’ll even do the giyur, probably.

          • Turtle says:

            Then why does anyone develop pro-semitism or philosemitism? It’s a logical question.

            • jim says:

              Philosemitism and antisemitism are equally mental illness.

              One should not care all that much about an outroup.

              • Koanic says:

                You are wrong, and the deathtoll from Communism proves it, as does the Jews’ instrumental part in the 1965 immigration act.

                As if killing Christ and persecuting the Church weren’t enough! And they’re prophesied to bring apocalypse in Revelations.

                The Synagogue of Satan are the children of the Prince of the Air, and will remain relevant until the end.

              • pdimov says:

                The Jew-obsessed anti-Semite is a Jewish meme. Jews are obsessed with Jews, so they project. And of course they have a history of labeling their opponents as mentally ill.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You need to define “obsessed”. Is Kevin MacDonald, who’s written several books about Jews, and has been blogging about Jews for over a decade or so, a crypto in your estimation?

                • Anonymous says:

                  In fact, there are plenty of alt-right essayists writing almost exclusively on Jews, year after year. Andrew Joyce, Karl Radl, even David Duke, and many others. All Jews?

                • pdimov says:

                  Studying bacteria doesn’t make one a bacterium.

                  I said that “anti-Semitism is evidence of obsession and therefore a mental illness” is a Jewish meme, not that anti-Semitism is evidence of one being Jewish.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You seem to be implying that Jews benefit from “Jew-obsessed” writers. They don’t. They benefit from the image of the antisemite as a violent skinhead junkie.

                  If “antisemite” is now defined as someone who writes a lot about Jews, that means that the old Jewish meme, the false stereotype, is dying.

                • pdimov says:

                  No, I’m not implying that. I’m saying that Jews project their obsession with everything Jewish onto anti-Semites. This is not intentional or calculated. What is intentional and calculated is the further implication that this is evidence of mental illness.

            • Anonymous says:

              >Then why does anyone develop pro-semitism or philosemitism?

              Jews are a well-oiled public-relations machine. Notice it’s never firsthand experience with Jews that leads to philosemitism, but detached idealization.

              Detached idealization can be leftist-victimological, evangelicuck, or IQ-uber-ales-fetishism. The former is fast disappearing because of the Palestinians and because Jews have “white privilege”, but the other two are still going strong.

              After a Jew cuts you in line and rips you off, you are instantly “cured”.

        • Turtle says:

          I don’t think we know Anonymous is a Jew. He might be an Inuit 😉 . What we do know is that he trolls, knows way too much about Jewish culture, and obsesses over Nazism. And yes, it’s nice that Nazism is so philosophically outdated that wannabe Nazis, whether sincere or not, rarely realize fascism is neo-socialism, with or without ethno-nationalism.

          In other news, this art is nice: http://www.germanartgallery.eu/m/Webshop/0/product/info/Willy_Kriegel,_Waldst%C3%BCck&id=166

          So nice, that it was in Hitler’s personal collection. This surprised me, Willy doesn’t sound like a Nazi name. Pretty paintings…

          • Anonymous says:

            B didn’t claim that a person named anonymous is Jewish. B claimed that it’s a tragedy that someone like the guy you linked above, who was Jewish, spent his time trolling online. Seriously dude, read more carefully.

            >And yes, it’s nice that Nazism is so philosophically outdated that wannabe Nazis, whether sincere or not, rarely realize fascism is neo-socialism, with or without ethno-nationalism

            You have Dunning-Kruger if you think that you understand Nazism better than devoted hardcore Hitlerists, or others for that matter, who are “completists”, having read the entire canon of/about Hitler.

            Oh noes, you called fascism “neo socialism”. Did you expect it to shatter anyone’s worldview? Did you think it had been some grand revelation that your unique insight had provided you with?

            Next thing, you’ll call the Nazis “modernists”, thinking to yourself “that will show them, haha!” Yeah, tell me something I haven’t heard like thousands of times by now, by ignoramuses who think everyone else is at least as ignorant as they are.

            • Turtle says:

              The link ( https://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs )
              was from pdimov, not me.
              http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-trump-aesthetic/#comment-1589113

              I responded to pdimov, and quoted his link. I agree with pdimov that you are a fake Nazi, for many reasons. The funniest reason is that an actual Nazi does not read all of Hitler’s books. “Completists” are not Nazis, they are nerds. My point about national socialism is the same as Jim’s – socialism is the problem with it. Nobody here, except maybe you, likes socialism. I consider the Nazis Anglo-Americanists, anyway. They lost the war because they did not want to win. You don’t really do anything for your cause, either.

              I mostly find you annoyingly profuse, commenting too much. You only cite boring stuff, because you are either obsessed, or think this propaganda is persuasive, likely both. Nobody has been converted by your bullying of B. B gets bullied by almost everyone here, so you’re fitting right in.

              The dictator-worship of hitlerists is not much relevant to national socialism, just like communism is not about stalin or mao.

              Someone obsessing over X is not an expert in X unless X requires much study and learning. X can be physics or computer science, but not a political ideology. Nazism is simple, so your obsession with it makes you stupid. There’s no point in reading about Hitler as if he is a deity. That you want us to waste time being like you is the problem.

              My concern is that you waste time, not that you actually promote nazi policies. You don’t mention Gypsies, gays, or any other Nazi targets, only Jews. Muslims cooperated with Hitler, so you should adore ISIS. You should also be anti-Slav, but pro-Anglo, because Hitler was pro-Anglo. and anti-Slav Having an Anglo sister-in-law indicates Hitler was very Anglophilic.

              You are not much of a Nazi. You just do whatever you want, and fetishize a long-dead man. This fetishism would be the same for Marx, Stalin, Mao, or any other socialst/ communist. The nationalist part of nazism is minor- actual German nationalists don’t need more living room, realizing that Japan was just fine with cramped conditions back then. Japan did need more room, which is very different.

              Now, what B said:
              “A Jew who could have done any number of good deeds with his time spent it trolling Nazis online.”

              The commondreams.org/hambaconeggs troll did also troll pseudo-Nazis on a forum, but the link was about commondreams being trolled. They are pro-Palestinian anti-Zionists, and got trolled for that. They are not Nazis at all.

              Your trolling appears to be what B referred to, because he replied to my own reply to pdimov, not pdimov’s original comment. But we can ask B instead of just looking at where he replied. And he is the only person who regularly replies to your trolling, so have fun talking to Jews all day.

              I’ve had fun at your expense, but I did not mean to. You just replied hilariously, which is fun. Thanks.

              • jim says:

                “I agree with pdimov that you are a fake Nazi, for many reasons. The funniest reason is that an actual Nazi does not read all of Hitler’s books.”

                Commies are Marxists, or Maoists, or Trotskyites, or some such, so they mistakenly think that nazis are Hitlerists.

              • Anonymous says:

                You’re truly a genius for figuring out that I’m not really a nazi, after I’ve said it several times in different threads. Look, my nazism is fake, but the antisemitism is genuine. Nazism is theatrics, it’s fun entertainment. When we get to the “serious business”, yes there is a Jewish Problem. There really is. It needs solving. Whether or not the solution is extermination or something else, we’ll see. But the problem exists.

                Glad you’re having fun. This isn’t sarcasm btw. I’m having a great time here, trolling and being trolled. I’m a lil drunk so that must be connected.

                Oh, but you are wrong about Germany not needing lebensraum. The expansionist ambitions of both Nazis and Nips were entirety justified. Large, rich territory is indispensable for a prosperous, large population. When your living-space becomes insufficient, it’s in the collective interest of your race to acquire more territory.

                Hitler was awesome. Finally, there came upon the scene of history a true leader to resist international Jewry. Gave ’em a good fight. He lost taking 1/3 of them down. It’s not fetishism. If you want to defeat the Jews, learn from predecessors. If we learn from Hitler’s successes and mistakes, we may devise the ultimate strategy to crush the parasite.

                I don’t mention the gypsies because the struggle is not about them. It’s about Jews. It’s not these low functioning parasites who poison the water supply. It’s the high functioning ones – Jews.

                Don’t get me wrong. I agree with Jim about the problem of anglo memes. But why can’t I play advocatus diaboli and focalize the Jewish Problem for those who would rather gloss over it? That’s what I’m doing here. Pretty sure, have already succeeded.

              • pdimov says:

                “I agree with pdimov that you are a fake Nazi, for many reasons.”

                For the record, I don’t say, don’t know, and don’t care whether Anonymous is a fake Nazi and/or Jewish.

                I like his posts.

          • Anonymous says:

            >This surprised me, Willy doesn’t sound like a Nazi name. Pretty paintings…

            Wow, you are truly lost.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Stuart-Houston

            Not a Nazi, but still, you are looooost.

            • Turtle says:

              I like learning that Hitler’s own nephew betrayed him for worldly gain, besides both Hitler brothers dodging the draft in England. Hitler go caught, and was forced to fight in WWI, and got gassed by the British, but still liked them. These are interesting stories.

              And these stories are great propaganda material. Philosemites should use them 😉 .

      • Anonymous says:

        Autism manifests in one’s manner of speech or manner of writing. Alrenous, whom I called an autistic writer, has the typical hallmarks. I don’t think my own writing is usually autistic. Now to the substance:

        >Anonymous referred to himself not shilling for ISIS anymore,

        Not “anymore”, as I’ve never shilled for them. When I wrote “now”, it meant literally as in “right now”. You lack reading comprehension.

        >they do terrorism in our country, so they brought the war to us. We can’t just leave them alone, they want to kill us.

        Lol, can you read? I want all the f-ing Muslims, “moderate” or “extremist”, out of the West. My point was, and remains, that there is no need to worry too much about what Wahhabists/Salafists/AQ/ISIS — that is, radicalized Sunnis — do *to each other* when *in their own countries*. Do you understand the difference?

        >Only a total sociopath says ISIS is ok

        Did I say that ISIS is “okay”? You can’t read properly, can you? I explicitly called them morally repugnant. And explained that it doesn’t matter, from the perspective of foreign policy, whether or not they are morally repugnant, as long as they keep to themselves, and don’t bother Western countries – which, if all the Muslims were expelled (back) to the Middle East, they most likely would not, seeing as ISIS’ ambition is more local-oriented than global, at this stage.

        America is not Global Morality Police, or rather, shouldn’t be. What muds do in their own territory is not my or your business. Even if they are very, very horrible. Here is the original post, and scroll downwards for additional convo:

        https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/trump-the-chess-master-or-trump-the-cuckold/#comment-1578626

        >Boring comments are not autistic, unless they are actually autistic, as in train schedules and random technical info.

        No, autism, or asperger’s, is clearly evident in someone’s writing. Both content-wise, or through irregular sentence structure. If you don’t see it, perhaps you’re one of the spergs yourself.

        >Anonymous is a bad liar.

        Give example of 1 lie, not 5, just 1, that I’ve written.

        On the other hand, right here you’ve spread falsehoods about me, which anyone who clicks that link can see are obvious falsehoods. Perhaps it’s because your reading comprehension is severely lacking – let me give you the benefit of the doubt. But it doesn’t look good.

        I hope you JIDFers receive ample remuneration for the stuff that you do.

      • Anonymous says:

        >You can’t even define national socialism, can you?

        This is what Dunning-Kruger looks like. Someone who hasn’t read anything Hitler-related telling a Hitler-Completist how to define NS. Fuck off.

        >The alt-right is more about Pepe than Hitler, more about Trump than Nazism.

        The alt-right is a tad bit broader than you imagine.

        >Forgeries are awesome? Nice meme, why not reference the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

        Why don’t you go read it, you lazy ass, and *then* write whether or not Genoud’s work in “Testament Of Hitler” is high-quality, instead of rambling ignorantly about it? As for the Protocols, recall what Henry Ford said:

        “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.”

        In other words: if the shoe fits…

    • Anonymous says:

      >Which is it, are you better than spergs or one of them?

      When I write spegtastically, I do so self-consciously – yes, ironically. Hence, I can laugh about it by calling myself a sperg. The person I was responding to seems unaware of his absolute unreadability, hence the mockery of this kind. Generally, accusations of autism should be taken lightly, not very seriously, unless you’re autistic and so find it very offensive.

      >Second, he always cites boring nazi sources, like Hitler’s books nobody cares about.

      A few times isn’t “always”. I’ve written God knows how many comments here, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with Hitler. Have I ruffled your feathers somehow, that you are lying?

      >Third, he assimilates what others say in an effort to flatter them.

      Of course I assimilate what others say. Everyone does that, to some degree. Otherwise, no point having any discussion at all. It has nothing to do with flattery.

      It also goes the other way – people assimilate my own arguments. While it is indeed flattering, it is not “flattery”, because it’s not done deliberately to gain my favor. People change their views, believe it or not. If you want one-sided monologues, you won’t find them in a comments’ section.

      >And fourth, his comments have way changed too much since he first showed up here.

      How long have you been following me, and how closely?

      This is getting weird, frankly. First “seer”, now you. It’s like there’s an organized effort by the Defenders of Jewry over the Internet (“JIDF”) to silence those few voices that calmly, dispassionately criticize Jewry. Out of nowhere, people come out attacking you personally, without actually refuting anything you’ve said. I used to belittle /pol/ for calling every single person they disagree with “JIDF”, but I guess… /pol/ was right again. Creepy stuff.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Blue tribesman: “the outsiders are not our real enemy, racists (others whites) are!”

      Right leaning blue tribesman: “the outsiders are not our real enemy, leftists (other whites) are!”

      Rly makes u think.

      • jim says:

        Of all the races, whites have been by far the most formidable in war. And thus whites have always been the enemies of whites, with whites fighting other whites over other races, rather than fighting other races. Maybe we are fractious because so good at war, maybe good at war because fractious.

        • pdimov says:

          Turks, Arabs, Mongols, Huns have also been occasionally good, which is probably why we here in Eastern Europe do not reflexively consider other whites our primary enemy.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Just as the industrious can create conditions that allow the shiftless to reproduce, so can the skilled at arm create conditions for the traitorous to reproduce.

          You no more condone defection through traitorous backbiting then you condone defection through shiftless freeriding.

        • Alrenous says:

          Lots of infighting in Africa. Not terribly good at war.

          It’s not whites that are good at war. Though they’re pretty okay. It’s philosophical civilization. Greeks. Romans. Post 1100 Europe.

          Philosophy is inherently anarchic and anti-authoritarian. It grants the ability to create a grand sovereign, through strategy and technology, and simultaneously grants the tools to show sovereigns are parasitic and sovereign authority is empty. (See VDH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson#Carnage_and_Culture)

          The bigger the sovereign, the stronger the pressure to understand they’re parasitic. The smaller the largest sovereign, the stronger the pressure to conquer it and start ‘unifying.’ Hence, cycles.

          • Cavalier says:

            Lots of infighting in Africa because existence is all against all and everyone everywhere in engaged in a full-spectrum struggle for dominance on every plane of his existence. Thus, the Cathedral dominates memetically because it has long been selected to be the most ideologically virulent with the greatest history of the free exchange of ideas selecting the most fit… while Africa, the continent least susceptible to ideas of any kind, is dominating in terms of raw biological expansion. And of course many other planes. The nation-state as the basic unit of political struggle is dead and power competition has become impossibly byzantine.

          • peppermint says:

            bullshit faggot

            africans have different cultures without White sharia, which is the only way to produce beautiful girls and thoughtful, cooperative men

            thoughtful, cooperative men win wars. for your theory of lots of infighting leading to the exolution of super soldiers to come true you need group selection. group selection is slow and weak, most selective pressure in africa is towards what is seen in africans

            cuckoldry is the philosopher’s fetish. philosophers are so enamored of their iq and ego that they would literally cuck themselves and their race for their mental definitions

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Do you think WWI / WWII / War of Northern Aggression didn’t happen or something?

        Felt like if you were a conscript in 1914 you’d walk smiling towards the machine gun nest, waving a sign saying “blue eye blonde hair, don’t shoot”, and carrying flowers for those other spiritual comrades who’d never kill you right?

        • Anonymous says:

          White nationalism means that when your country is flooded with infinity muds, you resist by uniting with fellow whites. If Jews/Globalists were unleashing the whole of Africa and the Middle-East into East-Asia, you’d see the rise of East-Asian Nationalism, which was a thing in the past.

          • jim says:

            It is the nature of whites to always war with whites. Pan white nationalism is not in our nature.

          • Cavalier says:

            Your country is flooded with infinity muds because of the whites who deliberately and systematically imported them in order to neuter you as a competing power, not because the muds… destroyed USG’s blue-water Navy? warred and won against the US Army? exact tribute from their conquests in the form of welfare, free healthcare, free housing, food stamps, and the anarcho half of your tyranny?

            Please.

            White nationalism is retarded because it in-groups the whites who are doing this to you. White nationalism is just conservatism’s conservatism; just as conservatism captures the malcontents who defect from liberalism and repurposes them to serve liberalism, white nationalism captures the malcontents who defect from conservatism and induces them to in-group white liberals (all the liberals who really matter), serve as a boogeyman and warning to those who might otherwise defect, and self-identify with a hilariously low-status group.

            Liberalism is a series of Russian dolls starting with limited monarchy (Magna Carta) and ending with unlimited franchise democracy, and whichever doll you choose, you’re either supporting the current incarnation of liberalism or consumed by the effort of shadow-boxing its used and discarded husks, those ghastly phantoms of yesteryear.

            • peppermint says:

              White sharia is the future of our people and White nationalism is going to be implicit in whatever form of government is chosen, which will probably be military dictatorship of a God-Emperor.

            • Anonymous says:

              >White nationalism is retarded because it in-groups the whites who are doing this to you.

              “White nationalism” of the kind advocated by intelligent alt-righters, the way I understand it, means the following two axioms:

              1) Whiteness isn’t the solution to every problem, rather, it’s a *preliminary condition* for civilized society. A 100% white society may still be total crap. But a 100% mud society is guaranteed to be total crap.

              2) Eugenic breeding is an unalloyed good. Corollary: dysgenic breeding is an undiluted evil.

              “WNism” (ethnically-European racially-informed eugenicism) doesn’t mean anything more than the synthesis of these two premises.

              Somehow the people opposing WN always construct strawmans of WN. Case in point, this thread in MPC:

              https://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/9554-racial-obsession-on-the-alt-right/

              Pman here thinks that WN means White-American-Muttism, where you a) believe that whiteness is the solution to everything and b) consider Russians and Portuguese to be the same “nation”. This is absolutely retarded, and I doubt many WNists believe this.

              Such white-assimilationist-solidarity (sorry for the barrage of neologisms) is indeed something a Jew would promote, because for Jews there’s no difference between varying shades of goyim, and also, under white-assimilationist-solidarity Jews can declare themselves “white” and ask to be accepted into the project.

              Ovbiously, not what I’m proposing when I write about “WN”.

              Conceived in terms of ethnically-European racially-informed eugenicism, or “EERIE”, WNism makes perfect sense. It doesn’t absolve whites of anything, nor does it ignore intra-white differences — on the contrary, racial eugenicism implies a hierarchy, where for instance pure Nordics are on top, and you can figure out the rest — rather, it merely and simply states:

              The muds need to get out; eugenic breeding needs to get in.

              That’s literally it. What’s the problem? Please, no attacking it by way of the strawman. For instance, saying “oh, you think that whiteness and eugenic breeding are the solutions to everything” is obviously a strawman, since you are explicitly and in no-uncertain-terms told that this is how white civilization may begin its journey – it’s not the final destination, and anyone who claims that it’s the final destination clearly doesn’t “get it”.

              We want to reach new heights. To reach new heights, must stop sliding downwards. The EERIE (ethnically-European racially-informed eugenicism) idea is *not* supposed to instantaneously teleport you to the heights. It’s supposed to stop your falling downwards, and to set you back on track.

              So again, as a white man, which I presume you are, what issue exactly do you take with this quite simple (well, elaborately-worded, but uncomplicated in essence) proposition?

              • pdimov says:

                +1

                This isn’t rocket science. If you want a white country, populate it with white people.

              • Cavalier says:

                >Pman here thinks that WN means White-American-Muttism, where you a) believe that whiteness is the solution to everything

                Not everything, but most things.

                >and b) consider Russians and Portuguese to be the same “nation”. This is absolutely retarded, and I doubt many WNists believe this

                If Russians are white and the Portuguese are white, then “white nationalists” believe them to belong to the “white nation”. Or are there multiple white nations? How many? Where do you draw the lines? Where do the other white nationalists draw the lines? Is everybody drawing the same lines? (lol)

                >1) Whiteness isn’t the solution to every problem, rather, it’s a *preliminary condition* for civilized society. A 100% white society may still be total crap. But a 100% mud society is guaranteed to be total crap.

                You’re right, but for the wrong reasons. The right reasons are that the genetic components of “whiteness”, the “whiteness quotient”, if you will, of a person or people, is the cumulative result of strong natural selection for the suite of traits that make societies great.

                Additionally, we may suppose alternate universes in which some peoples of pure African descent underwent the exact same behavioral selection as whites generally and so behave exactly as, say, the Polish do. I give this example to illustrate the fact that you, an adherent of National Socialism, a derivative of Lutheranism, an ancient strain of Protestantism, are a carrier of liberal, universalistic principles. We must do what is best for SOCIETY. We want a good SOCIETY. This is how we touch the face of GOD. Through our idealism, or whatever. Because natural selection is RACIAL. (lol)

                No, if you’re an eugenicist whose epistemic foundation really is natural selection, “good” genes are defined as those genes you have and “bad” genes are defined as those genes you don’t have, and your “favor” of the people around you goes down in accordance with your genetic interrelatedness.

                On the other hand, if you’re an “idealist” eugenicist (which you are) you just define whatever ideals you want and then select based on those criteria. For example, there are some Jews who are more stereotypically “German” in all of your enumerated 20th-century criteria than the stereotypical German, so by your standard they would become part of the German community. (This has already happened — the whiter Jews have all already assimilated, leaving the more-Semitic Jews behind — but let’s just ignore that for now.)

                Natural selection is all against all, each individual and group at each wavelength of the full-spectrum existential struggle taking on its nearest competitor, the greatest threat to its continued existence. You talk about races as though they were in any way cohesive, while a pregnant mother is waging a full-on battle against her unborn child, the child wanting to suck the mother dry, the mother wanting to produce more than one child. Sure, it’s weaker in the white and NE Asian races, but not that much weaker.

                >racial eugenicism implies a hierarchy

                Not where it matters.

                >where for instance pure Nordics are on top

                Baseless assertion.

                Different white races are “on top” in different fields. Aesthetically, maybe. In terms of social trust, they have the most — but what happens when social trust becomes a handicap, a handicap not entirely unlike what happened when the free-range Galapagos tortoises, free of natural predators for millions of years, encountered the Portuguese sailors? Hah. What about politics, the business of power? Nope; Anglos or Jews, the Chinese get an honorable mention. Warmaking? The Continentals have them beat. Art? Don’t make me laugh; that’s North Italians all that way. Industry? The Germans are the industrial giants.

                Basically, your racial hierarchy is retarded. Natural selection selects (from above) based on _performance_, the actual manifestation of the actual genes. We select (from the side) based on relatedness. If you try to select for mere proxies of performance, you’re not really selecting for performance, but for rough proxies of performance, what you ultimately get is a car that looks like a Ferrari but drives like a Toyota.

                >which I presume you are [a white man]

                Whiter than you.

                • peppermint says:

                  In America there is one White nation, or maybe more than one if the Southerners are a nation. In Europe there are many.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Or are there multiple white nations?”

                  Yes of course.

                  “How many?”

                  Consult a map.

                  “Where do you draw the lines?”

                  Consult a map.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Ordinals of conflict; you can start worrying about ethnic rivals once all your racial rivals have been extirpated, and the vacuums filled with your own. Otherwise, you’re just scoring own goals.

                  >but the FUCKING WHITE MALE-, i mean, WHITE LEFTISTS!

                  I absolutely agree, hwhite leftists are absolutely a problem, and their chief pathology is… the extent to which they undermine the ordinals of conflict. Funny how that works out, eh?

                  The easiest way to smoke out a white leftist is to talk about white racial consciousness for the sake of physically removing non-whites.

                  The easiest dog-whistle for telling if someone is a hysterical blue-tribe minded person is by how time they spend talking about the evils of their neighbors rather than their glorious destiny of triumph over aliens (or rather than not talking about such things altogether).

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The easiest way to smoke out a white leftist is to talk about white racial consciousness for the sake of physically removing non-whites.”

                  Following that metric is what led white vaishyas to put progressives in power in the first place. Nobody yelled later about white racial superiority in the late 1800s than progressives. How’d that work out for you guys? Enjoying that $15,000 house?

                  What you are trying to do here is yelling at your master, hoping he’ll stop letting the other slaves beat you and go back to the arrangement where you beat them. But in your heart you still love and revere your master. It’s pretty pathetic the lengths you’re going to here to defend white leftists.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “yelled louder”

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Not everything, but most things.

                  This is not what WNists believe. Rank-and-file, maybe, but certainly not the intellectuals. A white society where you needn’t worry about outside racial influence is a “step towards” solving all the problems – it’s not a panacea and it’s misleading to present it as such.

                  >If Russians are white and the Portuguese are white, then “white nationalists” believe them to belong to the “white nation”. Or are there multiple white nations?

                  Personally, I dislike the term white-“nationalist” exactly for this reason. To answer your question and dispel the ambiguities, there is one white race, divided into several clusters (sub-races) of proximate-ethnicities, made-up of distinct ethnicities. For instance: white –> Slav –> Belorussian. I’ve no desire to split-hairs autistically about definitions and categories, but this is generally a useful division. We can say that, if the white race means indigenous Europeans, broadly speaking, then Sardinians and Don Cossacks are the same race. Obviously, not the same ethnicity or nation.

                  At this point the interlocutor usually pulls out a dumb strawman in the likeness of “well then, you support having Cossacks in Sardinia, ergo you’re a retard”. No, I don’t support having Cossacks in Sardinia. Globalism is abhorrent. Because I’m such a big fan of diversity, which is not only “good”, but is also a “strength”, I believe that different European ethnicities should have their own separated territories free of foreigners. That’s real diversity.

                  However, let’s not go full-retard in the other direction. While Spaniards belong in Spain and *not* in Britain, it’s not Spaniards who pose the greatest racial-genetic threat to Britain. It’s the non-white darkies. Therefore, we’re treading a thin line between European inter-ethnic solidarity (against muds) and local ethno-nationalist patriotism.

                  >Where do you draw the lines? Where do the other white nationalists draw the lines? Is everybody drawing the same lines? (lol)

                  I won’t give you clearly-delineated demarcations; if you can’t live with a certain degree of arbitrariness, if not murkiness, then you should check your autism levels, which are so high, that shouldn’t even be possible. Or to put it with less bombast: the Portuguese knows that he isn’t a Greek, but whether or not both belong to “the Mediterranean race” is not something either of them are particularly interested in debating, until something happens which awakens them to this reality. When they see a tall blond Scandinavian, the Portuguese and the Greek sense that they have something in common. And when the 3 of them see a feral nigger – likewise.

                  >The right reasons are that the genetic components of “whiteness”, the “whiteness quotient”, if you will, of a person or people, is the cumulative result of strong natural selection for the suite of traits that make societies great.

                  Okay. Well, the selection has already occurred, right? I mean, it’s still happening, evolution never ceases, but the European race, the white race, has already acquired its distinct features and aspects, having been shaped by millennia of glaciation and glacial retreat in Europe, so this “suite of traits that make societies great” is already engraved into the DNA of whites. Logically, then, what has accumulated for so long, eventually allowing whites to build great societies, should not be disposed-of nonchalantly. Thus, whiteness must not be compromised, because whiteness has endured 50,000 years so it could become truly great, which it did.

                  >No, if you’re an eugenicist whose epistemic foundation really is natural selection, “good” genes are defined as those genes you have and “bad” genes are defined as those genes you don’t have, and your “favor” of the people around you goes down in accordance with your genetic interrelatedness.

                  Peppermind is more hardcore than I am. He sees whiteness as intrinsically holy. I see whiteness as matter-of-factly superior. Hence, I want to locate and delete the gay genes, while he doesn’t.

                  Anyway, when you climb down to the local scale, interrelatedness-based-favor makes sense, and a German, for instance, is perfectly justified in his ethno-nationalist patriotism, not because Germans are objectively superior, but because “that’s what I am, so that’s what I like” (just as you don’t need to believe that your own family is objectively superior in order to always side with it vis-a-vis other families – you see it as intrinsically dearer than other families, and that’s that).

                  You can apply the same thinking to the entire race, and love, even worship, whiteness for whiteness’ sake – not due to civilizational supremacy. There is some merit to this approach, but as you say, I am “a carrier of liberal, universalistic principles”, so, to borrow from Nick Land’s twitter: I’d rather admire England for having produced Shakespeare, than admire Shakespeare because he was English. Tribe-wide collective narcissism makes sense, to a certain degree. Race-wide collective narcissism is “too much” for my tastes. In practice, the differences between the two approaches herein outlined aren’t that great. Both agree that whiteness is essential, but for different reasons.

                  My “mild” approach is close to Jim’s, though he is obviously much more of “a carrier of liberal, universalistic principles”, see his pronouncements regarding Asians and Jews. Okay, you want autistic hair-splitting, got it:

                  -Peppe: whiteness for whiteness’ sake. Period.
                  -Me: whiteness, because it’s matter-of-factly superior in terms of civilization-building.
                  -Jim: whiteness isn’t all that important, Asians too are great civilization builders, and Ashkenazim are also fine.

                  It’s good to put in print our differences.

                  >On the other hand, if you’re an “idealist” eugenicist (which you are) you just define whatever ideals you want and then select based on those criteria.

                  See the above paragraphs. I take an intermediate approach between Jim’s almost pure “idealistic” conception of the “whiteness quotient” and peppermint’s pure interrelatedness-based-epistemology, to use your terminology. Or perhaps I’m just a more white-supremacist version of Jim – dunno.

                  >Natural selection is all against all, each individual and group at each wavelength of the full-spectrum existential struggle taking on its nearest competitor, the greatest threat to its continued existence…
                  >a pregnant mother is waging a full-on battle against her unborn child

                  You can’t discount shared genes and genetic proximity. Yes, the mother and the fetus are in a temporary state of struggle – but ending it by a successful parturition is in the interest of both parties. Or, I may want to receive a larger share of the lunch meal than my dear brother, but it’s still in my interest, genetically and otherwise, that there’s enough fare for both of us. Hobbesianism will only get you so far.

                  Taken to its logical extreme, everyone must die of atomization – literal partition of everyone’s bodies into atoms, because otherwise the cells of your hand are compelled to compete with the cells of your leg for blood-supply in a vicious winner-takes-all zero-sum game. Yeah, no. Competition is set aside when there’s a shared interest of cooperation. Mother and baby, my brother and I, your hand and your leg – none of those relations is a zero-sum game; to succeed, all of them require setting aside, at least to some degree, the “ruthless competition”, and adopting instead a modus-operandi of cooperation.

                  >For example, there are some Jews who are more stereotypically “German” in all of your enumerated 20th-century criteria than the stereotypical German, so by your standard they would become part of the German community.

                  It could’ve been my standard if you were right. You’re wrong – these German Jews were overcompensating for not actually being Germans by LARPing too hard. Actual Germans could, and did, instantly recognize this crypsis for what it was.

                  Furthermore, on the local level I don’t mind ethno-narcissism, so if the Germans want to cleanse themselves of Jewish blood “just because they are different from us”, they have every right to do so. In fact, I don’t even consider Jews to be white, so not only Germans acting locally, but all whites, the white race as a collective, acting across the entire white-dominated continents, have a justification to shun them, just as other groups of non-whites should be shunned.

                  This is not a question of strong principle, but of particulars – some people think that Jews are assimilable, others don’t. But it’s also a question of principle – Jews aren’t Germans or Englishmen or Frenchmen (or, if you accept my position, Jews aren’t even whites at all), so a purely “universalistic principle” — you may call it “European Exclusivism” — can be applied in order to not accept them. If I see whites as the only race capable of creating a civilization that I can admire, and I see Jews as non-whites, it logically follows that I want Jews excluded from white lands.

                  Bad example you’ve given here.

                  >Not where it matters.

                  No. Exactly where it matters. Viewed through the empirical ladder of racially-informed hierarchy, Scots are indisputably superior to Albanians. Applying this assessment to eugenics, in a country like America where, regardless of historical background, you may have both the Scots and the Albanians, you’d want the former to out-reproduce the latter.

                  >Different white races are “on top” in different fields.

                  By Nordics, did not mean Scandinavians, but everyone from the Russian nobility to some 1/3 of ethnic Frenchmen and even blue-blooded Spaniards. Using the Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean classification. No doubt, the artistic genius of Italians can hardly be surpassed, and they are very substantially Mediterranean. I agree with your point.

                  >Basically, your racial hierarchy is retarded. Natural selection selects (from above) based on _performance_, the actual manifestation of the actual genes. We select (from the side) based on relatedness.

                  You can go full-Peppermint and select entirely based on relatedness. I take into account *both* performance as measured according to what seems to be pretty objective — relatively free from particularist bias, non-ethnocentric — metrics (inb4 “everything is fundamentally subjective, blah blah blah”) *and* the relatedness quotient. Violent crimes rates seem like a pretty objective metric – you’ve got to be a dumb nigger to argue that perhaps a lil’ bit more violent crime is actually a good thing. Yeah, well, I’m no nigger.

                  If Poles and Swiss agree that violent crime rates are “objectively” bad and should be as low as possible, then, if they can emotionally-detach themselves from the data, they can measure which group is superior/inferior in this regard. Of course, that rarely happens, because y’know, normies gonna normie. Anyway, it’s an objective fact that whites build the best civilization (“selection from above”), and it’s also an objective fact that gooks and muds aren’t white (“selection from the side”), so taken together, these two facts perforce lead to gook- and mud-exclusion.

                  I take both views into account, relatedness _and_ performance according to my ideal. To ignore relatedness (whiteness), or to ignore the ideal (civilizational performance) – now *that’s* pretty unwise, TBH fam. But I can understand the respective views of both Peppe — whose position you share — and Jim. Both positions have merit, and you’ve gotta be slightly autistic to disregard one or the other completely. But then, aren’t we all?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >In America there is one White nation, or maybe more than one if the Southerners are a nation. In Europe there are many.

                  You say this, and yet in I can visually estimate approximately where in America one’s ancestry resided. I can distinguish the Scandis of Minnesota from the Scots-Irish of the South and the Polish of the Midwest from the Englishmen of Maine. I also seem to recall you once quoting a figure of something on the order of 900 years for the coalescence of a “nation”.

                  >Consult a map.

                  Geopolitical maps reveal some but not very much of the underlying genetics. In this sense, political bodies are a convenience rather than a true affiliation. And, I would note, irrelevant so long as America looms Europe. Sovereign entities, remember.

                  >Ordinals of conflict; you can start worrying about ethnic rivals once all your racial rivals have been extirpated, and the vacuums filled with your own. Otherwise, you’re just scoring own goals.

                  All peer-level rivals of white people are other white people. Nonwhites are clients at best, and irrelevant at worst. Yes, the muds don’t really like you, white man. No, they would be able to do you no harm without white support.

                  >The easiest way to smoke out a white leftist is to talk about white racial consciousness for the sake of physically removing non-whites.

                  Because the nonwhites are the white leftist’s clients, or because you’re talking to a not-particularly-elite white leftist (which let’s face it, is probably the case), and he delusionally believes that he is sufficiently high-status to have mud clients.

                  >What you are trying to do here is yelling at your master, hoping he’ll stop letting the other slaves beat you and go back to the arrangement where you beat them. But in your heart you still love and revere your master. It’s pretty pathetic the lengths you’re going to here to defend white leftists.

                  Precisely.

                  >This is not what WNists believe. Rank-and-file, maybe, but certainly not the intellectuals. A white society where you needn’t worry about outside racial influence is a “step towards” solving all the problems – it’s not a panacea and it’s misleading to present it as such.

                  I’m not aware of any White Nationalist intellectuals. Nationalism in general is catastrophically left-wing and fatally liberal, a kind of proto-universalism vulnerable to most of the usual suspects of universalism proper. Who are you talking about? MacDonald? I mean, Hitler was an intellectual, but he was in many important aspects riding the left edge of the liberal wave of his day. He came to power in large part by being more democratic than his rivals; his feat couldn’t be replicated today, as no one is more democratic than our benevolent rulers.

                  >there is one white race, divided into several clusters (sub-races) of proximate-ethnicities

                  Which is fine, but it doesn’t affect political organization or, to put it more properly, power.

                  >I believe that different European ethnicities should have their own separated territories free of foreigners.

                  Proto-universalism of the colonial type. When one state rules hegemonic, as America does, all are Americans because America is the great force looming over everyone and judging them by its standards. If you truly want this, you must necessarily desire the devolution of power from America to various truly independent, not just “Harvard independent” political bodies. This is a problem because technology is that which utilizes energy and the advancement of technology is what drives the centralization of power; we have seen this trend continue with little interruption since man first mastered agriculture and living density, among other markers of this trend, has been increasing more-or-less steadily every since, conglomerating into greater and greater power “globs” ruling over larger and larger spaces, culminating in the Internet, a shared consciousness transcending all obstacles of city, nation-state, and mortal speed of communiqué.

                  You advocate nationalism, so you should necessarily desire a homogenized genetic polity. Your desire for “diversity” gives away the uncomfortable truth that you subscribe to an earlier incarnation of liberalism.

                  >it’s not Spaniards who pose the greatest racial-genetic threat to Britain, it’s the muds

                  What is Britain? Who are its elite?

                  >so this “suite of traits that make societies great” is already engraved into the DNA of whites

                  Not all whites equally.

                  >Thus, whiteness must not be compromised, because whiteness has endured 50,000 years so it could become truly great, which it did.

                  All whites are great relative to nonwhites, but that isn’t exactly a high bar. The truly outstanding whites come from within the Hajnal line, and in that Hajnal line overwhelmingly from a few select “hotspot” places and specific ethnic “blends”.

                  >I absolutely agree, hwhite leftists are absolutely a problem, and their chief pathology is… the extent to which they undermine the ordinals of conflict.

                  Oh, when did it become a pathology to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women?

                  >Because I’m such a big fan of diversity, which is not only “good”, but is also a “strength”, I believe that different European ethnicities should have their own separated territories free of foreigners. That’s real diversity.

                  “I’m the REAL progressive.”

                  >Peppermint is more hardcore than I am. He sees whiteness as intrinsically holy. I see whiteness as matter-of-factly superior.

                  Some whites are more civilized than others.

                  >-Me: whiteness, because it’s matter-of-factly superior in terms of civilization-building.

                  Whites are matter-of-factly superior, but is it the whiteness that makes them matter-of-factly superior or the matter-of-fact superiority that makes them white? Put another way, if you select for matter-of-fact superiority, you are going to be overwhelmingly selecting for whiteness, but if you select for whiteness, are you going to be overwhelmingly selecting for matter-of-fact-superiority?

                  > Or, I may want to receive a larger share of the lunch meal than my dear brother, but it’s still in my interest, genetically and otherwise, that there’s enough fare for both of us. Hobbesianism will only get you so far.

                  It’s in your interest to share if it doesn’t cost you very much. If you can get your brother a job, you get him that job. If _you’re_ hiring, and you know he’s going to be a useless layabout, do you hire him? If you have more than enough food for both of you, you share. If you have to choose between your brother and your children, or even your wife…?

                  > Taken to its logical extreme, everyone must die of atomization – literal partition of everyone’s bodies into atoms, because otherwise the cells of your hand are compelled to compete with the cells of your leg for blood-supply in a vicious winner-takes-all zero-sum game. Yeah, no.

                  The basic unit of selection is the gene. The cells in your hand and the cells in your leg don’t compete (and “defect”) because they share the same genes, _even though they themselves will not be transmitting any genes into the next generation_, rather, the genes in your testicles will be doing so… but because they’re the same genes, it doesn’t matter. This is literally the only thing that makes complex multicellular organisms such as ourselves possible, and in fact this imperative is so strong that it’s been hundreds of millions of years since the first eukaryote and sometimes things still go wrong — cancer.

                  >these German Jews were overcompensating for not actually being Germans by LARPing too hard

                  LARPing so hard that Hitler’s army and staff were overflowing with mischlings, apparently.

                  >some people think that Jews are assimilable

                  Assimilation is biological. For the past decade or so roughly three-quarters of marriages involving Jews were between a Jew and a non-Jew. Presto, assimilation.

                  >Applying this assessment to eugenics, in a country like America where, regardless of historical background, you may have both the Scots and the Albanians, you’d want the former to out-reproduce the latter.

                  If you had the power to do this you would also have the power to further YOUR OWN genes at the expense of either Scots or Albanians, regardless of their “idealistic” superiority or inferiority.

                  >Violent crimes rates seem like a pretty objective metric – you’ve got to be a dumb nigger to argue that perhaps a lil’ bit more violent crime is actually a good thing. Yeah, well, I’m no nigger.

                  You keep attaching these moral principles to your ideas. I posit that “violent crime” is neither objectively (“rationally”) good nor objectively (“rationally”) bad — such a statement is inherently Christian with Society serving a reified God. Rather, “violent crime” is good for the perpetrator and bad for the victim. If you want to make “violent crime” morally bad, then you must have the power to do so. I am, of course, referring to the state (and its owners), for whom property destruction is bad and, more importantly, are intensely interested in maintaining their grip on the monopoly of the legitimate use of force. Over time, we come to view (moralize) “violent crime” as “objectively” bad because the morality of our rulers, that which profited them most, is most fit, and so becomes etched in our DNA. Gnon, or something.

                  >If Poles and Swiss agree that violent crime rates are “objectively” bad and should be as low as possible, then, if they can emotionally-detach themselves from the data, they can measure which group is superior/inferior in this regard.

                  If the 20th century taught us anything, is it not that relying on the General Will is a Very Bad Thing?

                  >To ignore relatedness (whiteness), or to ignore the ideal (civilizational performance) – now *that’s* pretty unwise, TBH fam.

                  Which you want to select for is dependent on the specific power dynamic — whether you’re selecting “from above” or “from the side”.

                • peppermint says:

                  If after G generations, 2^G is approximately the starting population size, everyone will more or less share ancestors. In the nations of Europe, where low aristocracy would marry top peasant daughters and high aristocracy would marry low aristocracy, there would still be enough blanda upp.

                  The settler nations of North America were founded by small populations. The immigrants will take longer to amalgamate.

                  It is clear that White populations can stay White-behaving even with several generations of not having White sharia, for example the communists and the Mormon polygamists. Any substantial mud admixture ruins White behavior.

                  The Aryans who took over India (whose existence is now officially doubted by Indian nationalists) set up a caste system to prevent mixing so everyone would eventually have the same ancestors, only permitting the most “eugenic” pairings of Aryan and non-Aryan. How did that work out for them?

                  The exact specifics of how White genes lead to White behavior and how it is superior are as yet unknown. Consequently, do not fuck with it.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Geopolitical maps reveal some but not very much of the underlying genetics. In this sense, political bodies are a convenience rather than a true affiliation. And, I would note, irrelevant so long as America looms Europe. Sovereign entities, remember.”

                  How does all of this matter?

                  The simple point is still that you’re making up something stupid, calling it “White Nationalism”, then using that as a proof that White Nationalism is stupid.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >I’m not aware of any White Nationalist intellectuals.

                  “Nationalist” here is a misnomer. The intellectuals I admire were not “white nationalists”, just scientific racists: Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant. Today, there are intellectuals, or at least pseudo-intellectuals, who are sorta-kinda “White Nationalists”, such as Guillaume Durocher and yes, Kevin MacDonald.

                  >You advocate nationalism, so you should necessarily desire a homogenized genetic polity.

                  What I desire is for a thousand flowers to actually bloom. That means diversity-through-separation, where the greatest white ethnicities, and heck, even the lesser white ethnicities, get to do their own thing, as was the case (broadly speaking) during the Renaissance, minus the bloody wars.

                  The bloody wars may be prevented by a World Power telling the Europeans to behave “or else”, or if the European elites themselves become, in a sense, “white nationalists”, and opt to end the fratricidal bloodbaths for good, because it’s bad for the white race to have incessant wars amongst itself. That means that either this World Power or the European elites stop being anti-white and anti-civilization and become pro-white and pro-civilization.

                  Homogenity? Of course – England should be English, Germany German, etc. But continent-wide: Europe, the US, and Australia, should all be “white”, that is, no darkies. Some places can be generic nondescript mutt-white, whereas others should belong to a specific ethnicity that has historical-territorial claim to such places.

                  >Your desire for “diversity” gives away the uncomfortable truth that you subscribe to an earlier incarnation of liberalism.

                  The issue isn’t liberalism of the dogma, but the practicality in realizing that different white ethnicities doing their own thing in their own country is better than some retarded strawman-y globalism which calls for Cossacks to settle in Spain “because both are white”. If this practicality makes me a liberal, fine, brownie points go to you, you’ve successfully purity-signaled your reactionaryism.

                  Intra-white diversity means that either we (or, as you’d have it, “power”) decide which white ethnicity is better than the rest of them, and let the best white ethnicity exterminate all the rest, or we recognize that while a hierarchy definitely exists, if the Latvians aren’t bothering you, no reason why you should bother them. And I don’t care if you think this argument is “moralist” or “utilitarian”, all that matters here is that white civilization grows.

                  >What is Britain? Who are its elite?

                  What’s the purpose of these rhetorical questions? To tell me that the Brits are PWNED by the Americans? That’s not the issue. My perspective as someone-who-wants-civilization-to-prosper is that, in general, Spaniards belong in Spain, and Britons in Britain. Different whites in different white countries.

                  >Not all whites equally.

                  Right, some whites are better than others. Hence, diversity-through-separation. As Land says: resolution through space, not through time.

                  >All whites are great relative to nonwhites, but that isn’t exactly a high bar.

                  Right…. now you get it. It’s not a high-bar. It’s the most minimal and preliminary bar. Thus, darkies out as “first step” towards civilizational revival, not as a panacea for everything. Once the darkies are out of the way, then higher bars could be passed. If Sweden becomes Somalia, this very low bar won’t be passed.

                  >“I’m the REAL progressive.”

                  Tongue-in-cheek, but yeah, different white cultures are beautiful in their own unique ways, and should IMO all be preserved, therefore different white races should be preserved.

                  >Some whites are more civilized than others.

                  Yes, we’ve been over this already. It sounds like you’re trying to exclude someone, indirectly. If you hate some white ethnicity, we can discuss its merits and demerits, but otherwise, not clear why you think we’re in disagreement.

                  >but if you select for whiteness, are you going to be overwhelmingly selecting for matter-of-fact-superiority?

                  Yes. And of course, shouldn’t select *only* for whiteness. As I explained, select for whiteness, also select for civilizational competence. The best whites should be in charge, and out-reproduce the others. But that is primarily true in a multi-white-ethnic society like the US; in Europe, let a thousand flowers boom. Now, whether or not Europe should become an imperium is a question for another day; currently, need to get the darkies out.

                  >If _you’re_ hiring, and you know he’s going to be a useless layabout, do you hire him? If you have more than enough food for both of you, you share. If you have to choose between your brother and your children, or even your wife…?

                  Strawman. I said that “shared genes matter”, not that shared genes matter to the exclusion of all other considerations. Of course other considerations exist. Still, generosity towards genetic kin makes perfect evolutionary sense, and even today, when we’re not subject to the same life-conditions as those of our ancestral environment, it’s usually quite beneficial.

                  >LARPing so hard that Hitler’s army and staff were overflowing with mischlings, apparently.

                  Mischlings are not identical to full Jews. Also, it’s indeed very possible that Hitler was not hardcore enough!

                  >Assimilation is biological. For the past decade or so roughly three-quarters of marriages involving Jews were between a Jew and a non-Jew. Presto, assimilation.

                  I meant “assimilable” as in: we squint our eyes, and a full Jew, 85%+ Ashkenazi-DNA Jew, becomes “white”. Which AFAIC isn’t happening, hence, in my opinion, Jews — full biological Jews — are not assimilable. Again, others don’t necessarily share my view, and when those others squint their eyes, Ashkenazim look white to them, thus assimilable.

                  >If you had the power to do this you would also have the power to further YOUR OWN genes at the expense of either Scots or Albanians, regardless of their “idealistic” superiority or inferiority.

                  To put it absurdly: the Monarch ain’t gonna replace all his subjects with clones of himself. General eugenics are good, regardless of one’s vested interest in the game.

                  >You keep attaching these moral principles to your ideas. I posit that “violent crime” is neither objectively (“rationally”) good nor objectively (“rationally”) bad — such a statement is inherently Christian with Society serving a reified God.

                  My “moral principle” is the desire for society (my actual society, not some galaxy-far-away society) to function well, for me personally to function well within it, and for civilization to bloom. With these aims in mind, and assuming most other people can at least grasp these notions mentally, if not sympathize with them wholeheartedly, the “moral” imperatives I espouse become clear.

                  >Rather, “violent crime” is good for the perpetrator and bad for the victim.

                  Violent crime is immoral in my view because my subjective sense of morality tells me so, obviously I’m far from the only person who feels this way, that is, it’s pretty “normal” to feel this way, and it’s inborn. And not-unrelatedly, my family and myself are statistically considerably more likely to fall victims to violent crime, than to become its perpetrators. So, even from a strictly amoral stance, violent-crime is still objectively bad. I’m not a nigger.

                  >If the 20th century taught us anything, is it not that relying on the General Will is a Very Bad Thing?

                  I meant one random Pole and one random Swiss, agreeing upon definitions of the positive and the negative, and proceeding to categorize one another accordingly. The “General Will” of some collective is impertinent to the issue I have posed, since in this thought-experiment, the collective is the object (of inquiry), not the subject (it’s not a decision-maker).

                  >Which you want to select for is dependent on the specific power dynamic — whether you’re selecting “from above” or “from the side”.

                  Not power dynamics, but aims. My aim is the progress of civilization along healthy lines. A king may have his own reasons to align his policies with my aim, but be that as it may, the issue is not who selects and how he selects, but *what* is being selected. That’s the real issue.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Rather, “violent crime” is good for the perpetrator and bad for the victim.”

                  Even that’s not true. Were it true you’d expect violent criminals to migrate into countries that have more violent crime, but they don’t. They migrate out of them.

                • peppermint says:

                  Predators want to be where the prey is. Which is countries with low crime rates and high social trust.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 it’s bad for the white race to have incessant wars amongst itself

                  * as long as they’re not too destructive, wars are fine. Let the aristocrats of different White nations fight over stuff. Don’t call up the conscripts unless there’s a real enemy though

                  * avoiding conflict through unity is what the EU wanted. Hitler complained in Mein Kampfy Chair about how the Austrian emperors were giving extra cookies to Czechs and Serbs to bribe them to stay. Then he invaded Poland and took over the Sudentenland to protect Germans

                • peppermint says:

                  what I meant by there is one or maybe two White nations in America is the recognition of others as “us”, and willingness to marry. Every White pretty much recognizes every other White and considers Whites marrying into the family acceptable, including Whites who claim not to know what White means.

                  It is possible to require people to claim to recognize others. It is impossible to know what Whites really think about their friends and family marrying Jews in the US.

                  Canada has Canadians and Quebecois.

                  In the future, if marrying out isn’t strongly restricted in Europe, the Aryn nations will eventually merge. By that time, space colonies of individual nationalities will be Abe to preserve the distinctiveness of the nations with the high cost of travel.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >How did that work out for them [the Indians]?

                  Indian castes have been endogamous for three thousand years. In other words, the originated as different races and they have stayed that way.

                  Thing is, there was some admixture in the beginning. Who knows how much, probably not all that much, but after that small bit of admixture, even completely stopping inter-caste gene flow, as the Indians did in fact successfully manage to do, wasn’t enough to stop the ravages of natural selection. As I’m sure you well know, whites evolved in various climes of bitter cold and harsh conditions, and those white magic genes simply aren’t as fit in warm environments. Just as our ancestors “gene stole” from the Neanderthal natives of Europe and northern Asia, completely short-circuiting the long, laborious trial-and-error adaptation process, the Aryan conquerors of India “gene stole” from the natives of India, and what followed was the the selection to fixation of those mud genes in the once-white (upper-caste) Indian gene pool.

                  >The simple point is still that you’re making up something stupid, calling it “White Nationalism”, then using that as a proof that White Nationalism is stupid.

                  White Nationalism in-groups whites, all whites everywhere irrespective of geopolitical borders. That’s what it does. All whites, irrespective of ability, and for the most part irrespective of political affiliation. When I make the mistake of reading the writings of White Nationalists I find their logic riddled with errors and their loyalties suspect. Riddled with errors, I might add, suspiciously resembling late 19th-century mainstream liberalism.

                  In addition, White Nationalists often, if not always, have an obsession with The Jews, attributing virtually everything wrong in the world to The Jews, making them the physical incarnation of the Devil himself. That might have been an effective strategy in the early 20th century, but it isn’t today.

                  Furthermore, White Nationalists generally evoke the imagery of Nazism, a defeated and discredited ideology held by foreigners the better part of a century ago.

                  These are facts, not strawmen.

                  Finally, NATIONALISM is stupid. Nationalism of any kind. You may not be able to think about them directly (they’re crafty little buggers!) but you should be able to tell that you still have liberal-progressive lobotomy slugs nestled in the juicy recesses of your brain if you subscribe to a kind of nationalism (any nationalism!) and you go to nationalism’s Wikipedia page — the official digital reference of the Cathedral itself — and find your eyes just absolutely ASSAULTED by such phrases as:

                  >”Nationalism” is the term historians used to characterize the modern sense of national political autonomy and self-determination from the late 18th century onwards

                  “national political autonomy”, “self-determination”

                  >Typically historians of nationalism in Europe begin with the French Revolution (1789), not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals.

                  !!!

                  >With the emergence of a national public sphereand an integrated, country-wide economy in the 18th-century the British people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their family, town or province.

                  Industrialization and horizontal memetic transmission driving leftism? Say it ain’t so!

                  >The political development of nationalism and the push for popular sovereignty culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe. During the 19th century nationalism became one of the most significant political and social forces in history; it is typically listed among the top causes of World War I.

                  “popular sovereignty”, “national revolutions of Europe”, “among the top causes of [the war that killed the West]”

                  Thanks, nationalism!

                  >That means diversity-through-separation, where the greatest white ethnicities, and heck, even the lesser white ethnicities, get to do their own thing, as was the case (broadly speaking) during the Renaissance, minus the bloody wars.

                  You would’ve made a fabulous British imperialist.

                  >and opt to end the fratricidal bloodbaths for good, because it’s bad for the white race to have incessant wars amongst itself

                  “War is EVIL and WRONG. One minute I’m a Nietschean Nazi on the warpath and the next I’m a Quaker pacifist!”

                  >If this practicality makes me a liberal, fine, brownie points go to you, you’ve successfully purity-signaled your reactionaryism.

                  I’m no reactionary; I don’t even like the word.

                  >decide which white ethnicity is better than the rest of them, and let the best white ethnicity exterminate all the rest

                  Do you no idea how insane you sound?

                  >all that matters here is that white civilization grows

                  Do you think that your German ancestors (let’s say) ever conceived of such a thing as “white civilization”? Who ever heard of that crap? Even the pan-German nationalist Anglophile Hitler himself didn’t come up with such as insane idea. German civilization, including Austria is at least pretty cohesive, and what missing cohesiveness there was would’ve been made up by the Germans’ unparalleled asabiyah, but “white civilization”? Not only would your great-grandfather scratch his head in confusion, but the only worldview under which “white civilization” makes sense as a viable platform is one in which you view muds as your nearest power rival…. Do you begin to see the problem with in-grouping all whites? What policy does “white nationalism” dictate? What principles does it hold beyond “white people are the shit, dawg, now let’s go down to my cousin’s tattoo shop”. It sure doesn’t seem to exclude, say, transnational SWPL civilization.

                  >diversity-through-separation

                  The nation demands homogeny, friend. That is the nature of democratic politik.

                  >It’s not a high-bar. It’s the most minimal and preliminary bar. Thus, darkies out as “first step” towards civilizational revival, not as a panacea for everything.

                  “Darkies outl is one of the very last steps. You have in-grouped all whites so hard that you are literally incapable of seeing who is DOING the darkies TO YOU.

                  >It sounds like you’re trying to exclude someone, indirectly. If you hate some white ethnicity, we can discuss its merits and demerits, but otherwise, not clear why you think we’re in disagreement.

                  I’m not trying to exclude any breed of whites from my in-group. In fact, I’m not trying to in-group whites at all.

                  >The best whites should be in charge, and out-reproduce the others. But that is primarily true in a multi-white-ethnic society like the US; in Europe, let a thousand flowers boom.

                  Can’t derive an ought from an is.

                  >Strawman.

                  Nope.

                  >To put it absurdly: the Monarch ain’t gonna replace all his subjects with clones of himself.

                  It’s funny you should mention this. I’ve thought about it quite a bit. The big downside is if everyone is me or the female version of me then incest is kind of a problem.

                  >My “moral principle” is the desire for society (my actual society, not some galaxy-far-away society) to function well, for me personally to function well within it, and for civilization to bloom. With these aims in mind, and assuming most other people can at least grasp these notions mentally, if not sympathize with them wholeheartedly, the “moral” imperatives I espouse become clear.

                  If there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s that natural selection selects for those who serve their self-interest to the maximum extent permitted by the “collective superior force” (government, social reputation, job hierarchy, natural economy, etc.) looming over them. We’re riding evolutionary inertia, in other words. If you want to retain and even enhance white magic, under the Malthusian knife again you will go.

                  >Not power dynamics, but aims. My aim is the progress of civilization along healthy lines. A king may have his own reasons to align his policies with my aim, but be that as it may, the issue is not who selects and how he selects, but *what* is being selected. That’s the real issue.

                  Free-market competition, communism, Viking’s steam-fitter union, and Moldbug teach us that when organizations are incentive-alignedly self-interested, they behave sanely and perform well, and when they pursue the greater good of superior holiness, they turn to the Dark Side of red lightsabers and fingertip-lightning-electrocutions.

                  >Were it true you’d expect violent criminals to migrate into countries that have more violent crime, but they don’t. They migrate out of them.

                  Greener pastures, softer targets.

                  >Predators want to be where the prey is. Which is countries with low crime rates and high social trust.

                  Yep.

                  >what I meant by there is one or maybe two White nations in America is the recognition of others as “us”, and willingness to marry. Every White pretty much recognizes every other White and considers Whites marrying into the family acceptable, including Whites who claim not to know what White means.

                  True enough. In America the line between whites and muds is clearly demarcated. After all, America was 80% white (the vast majority from Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia) just 25 years ago. Contrast that with Central and South America, which started with a Moor-raped Spanish and Portuguese gene pool 300-400 years ago and been darkening ever sense. But in the long run our posterity are alive, and unless the anchor babies go back it seems likely that we will become Brazil 2.0 with an infinitely divisible grade of increasing whiteness, so?

                  P.S. I would feel rather let down if my öffspringen were to marry, for example, Spaniards or S.Italians of average Spaniard-or-S.Italian whiteness.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >“War is EVIL and WRONG. One minute I’m a Nietschean Nazi on the warpath and the next I’m a Quaker pacifist!”

                  It is evil and wrong for a lieutenant to shoot his privates, or for a private to shoot his lieutenant. It is meet and right for privates and lieutenants to shoot privates and lieutenants in the enemy army.

                  Also holding to the idea you can’t get oughts’ from is’s is just shooting yourself in the foot ultimately since you’d have no basis for saying why [people you don’t like] are actually doing anything wrong or to have any basis for informing why what you believe in is meet and right and adaptive.

                  There are lengths and layers of abstraction in the connexion of one thing to another certainly; that simply means they are not readily apparent to vulgar mundanes, and hence require the magisterium to divine the voice of god for them.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          You rarely see non-whites advocate ethno-nationalism, as most intuitively sense that in the event of open species vs species conflict, they’d be losers.

  23. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    The way some people (rol) speak of leftism is a lot like the way a lot of people speak of racism; as some sort of abstract, magical aura that certain people emit that, makes things worse? somehow?

    No. If the term is to have any sort of intelligibility, then there must, just as for any other term to be intelligible, be *pointing too*.

    Do not autistically rely on superficial associations like that other typical argumentative tactic of hysterical progs (‘did you know that FDR also ate sugar?’). Do not inflate some contingent concept beyond its adaptive operational envelope. And where it is no longer appropriate, use a different word. Point to specific examples, walking and talking, out in the wild, actually doing things. What is it that they are doing, and to the point, what objectives, what *telos*, is it actually interfering with? Or not, even?

    Formulaic association based definitions have produced a menagerie of forms; many things, all and sundry have been described as leftist under this metric or that. All ultimately dependent on some essential form from which they were analogized, into which the autist ironically has only partial insight, his need for interpolating the world through formula the very same thing that make him the most unqualified to make formula in the first place.

    Some say that the essence of leftism is defection through lying. It is true, leftists are often liars.

    Some say that the essence of leftism is defection through irresponsibility. It is true, leftists often shirk responsibility.

    It is true that leftists can be all of these things, and more besides; but they are not responsive to what is the animating impulse that gives rise to this variety of behaviors; to how, when, and why they are actually problems to begin with.

    In the truth, the essence, the *maladaptive* essence, of leftism, is what we have always and already known in ones gut; *the defection itself*.

    The leftists animus, his *competitive thymos*, is directed not towards outgroups, but towards *other members of his ingroup*. He treasonously aligns with the far vs near, precisely and above all other reasons, because the near are *those who he wishes to compete with the most*.

    Rather than directing his energies to outward and expansive efforts, a masculine posture of civilizational glory, he directs them inwards, towards zero-sum, negative-sum, self-destructive pretenses with his fellows, a feminine posture of harem politics.

    He sees little value in the good and the great for their own sake, the pillars and edifices and products of civilization; he would tear down all others into the dirt if it means he could stand atop the rubble. He would rather, not gladly, but compulsively all the same, reign in hell, than to serve in heaven.

    He is a petty, spiteful, neurotic creature. Above all, he combines within himself a simultaneous shortness of vision and extremity of status consciousness. By these means shall you recognize them, by these means shall you censure, condemn, and kill them. Such is the traitors just deserts.

    • jim says:

      To condense this excellent comment into something brief enough to read:

      The defining characteristic of leftism is not its ever changing ostensible program, but rather treason and betrayal: The pursuit of advantage by allying with far against near.

      Thus the Populares allied with the Samnites because they cared deeply about rationality, reason, decency, and humanity to far away strangers, and the fair and humane treatment of slaves and foreign subjects of the Roman empire, and yet were strangely unworried that the Samnites allied with the Populares because they intended to overthrow the walls of Rome, kill every male Roman, and every old woman, and enslave every fertile age Roman woman.

      Similarly, the progressive Muslim alliance.

      Thus the the left used to be upper class white males who wanted to use the white working class to murder other upper class white males, and is now upper class white males who want to use nonwhites to murder other whites, including working class white males.

Leave a Reply