The Trichotomy

the trichotomy
The last time I posted this, people did not like the trefoil graphic, and proposed the triquetra, which has the handy property of symbolizing both Odinism and Christianity. So here is the improved graphic.

We need capitalism, because we need wealth and technology, we need patriarchy and tradition, to uphold the enforcement of the marital contract without which our population will disappear, and to keep ethnonationalism in line to prevent ethnonationalism from devouring capitalism with socialism and demotism, and we need ethnonationalism to prevent outsiders from devouring our society and our capitalism with it.

Tags:

80 Responses to “The Trichotomy”

  1. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Perhaps we didn’t like it because the third branch is properly known as Theonomy? Though, I agree, it’s hard to acknowledge Theonomy when you’re a practicing “atheist.”

    A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      When even the Jews are not practicing theonomy, it is as dead as the rest, if not deader.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Isn’t the Neo-Reaction supposed to change the world?

        Aristocracy is quite dead too, if we’re going to be morbid.

        • “Aristocracy is quite dead too”

          This is actually a good point. Aristocracy is at least as dead as Christianity. If we bury the latter, surely we should bury the former. But IS aristocracy dead, or is it simply an naturally emergent property of civilization having certain deep incentive structures? If the latter, might not Christianity operate in a similar vein?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Indeed, I really don’t think the pagan revivalists would have any clue how to operate today’s technology so they’re inevitably doomed.

          • Michael says:

            seriously ? are you guys really supposed to be the bright lights of DENRX Christianity is a leftist religion; its destroyed at least two great europran civilizations its irrational it can not be rebooted- please im very fond of the church but its done- stick a fork in it. aristocracy died cause lots of things but HBD makes it a stupid idea along with kings.

          • peppermint says:

            what, HBD is the justification for aristocracy that aristocrats were having trouble stating towards the end there. And then a culture that rejected the idea that the children of individuals who had particular talents would be likely to inherit some of those talents, ended up rejecting the idea that the children of races who had particular talents…

            we know why Jews pushed the idea that race doesn’t exist. But why would anyone ever have listened?

        • It is hoped Neoreaction will change the world in much the same way the Frankfurt School changed it; i.e., without anyone noticing it.

        • Nyan Sandwich says:

          Aristocracy is always lurking under the surface, waiting to seize power. The aristocrats never went anywhere, and are still around, they just aren’t doing their job.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            If you’re objecting to that, does that mean you agree with “Jim”‘s statement regarding Theonomy?

            Explain yourself, N.S.

          • Nyan Sandwich says:

            Not sure what you mean, but a high-IQ high-power elite is an unavoidable fact about humans. Christianity is not.

          • Just sayin' says:

            > High IQ power elite as an unavoidable fact
            > Aristocracy

            It seems that neoreaction needs to develop a framework for distinguishing between aristocracy and oligarchy

            Start by googling “Aristotle Politics”

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Nyan Sandwich”

            This is what I am getting at. You have defined Theonomy as Christianity. But it obviously could include a set of polytheistic divine laws. Theonomy literally means god law and pretty much every culture, even paleolithic ones have had it.

            If aristocracy is not dead, but only behind the scenes and not working, then Theonomy is at least as relevant. I believe there is a blogpost at Occam’s Razor that details the laws of the Cathedral. Using our imaginations, we could say it describes Cthulhu’s Theonomy.

            So, the question is not “if Theonomy” but “what Theonomy”.

            An “atheist” Theonomy would like to avoid the question by inserting a fall-back to traditionalism or politically charged patriarchy instead of using the word, but it would forever be incomplete.

            Yes, indeed, I do serve the Christian Lord God and keep his commandments as best I can. I will concede that even under ideal conditions there may or not be a generation that gets lost in the way. But that doesn’t mean I should stop trying. Nobody should.

            Your sneering at Christianity will not make you friends, nor would it help you in your own life. In fact, the more you push away from it, the more you would push away those who have internalised the faith. I suggest you, and others, tread more lightly. I’ve said enough.

            A.J.P.

          • Peppermint says:

            — An “atheist” Theonomy would like to avoid the question by inserting a fall-back to traditionalism or politically charged patriarchy instead of using the word, but it would forever be incomplete.

            Today’s anti-immigrant protesters in Germany say that they love their nation, but are not socialists, so they are not Nazis.

          • Michael says:

            why use a word associated with genetically retarded inbreds who had contempt for free markets when i hope you mean to imply genetically gifted leaders who have little chance of reproducing their talents through sexual means. and if you mean to say this can you not see they are doing their jobs wonderfully they are just working against us.

            • jim says:

              I see plenty of examples of aristocracies that really were superior. The ashantee aristocrats were about as smart as English gentlemen, while those they ruled were typical blacks. The Vietnamese aristocracy was several standard deviations above the mean.

          • Just sayin' says:

            “The ashantee aristocrats were about as smart as English gentlemen, while those they ruled were typical blacks. The Vietnamese aristocracy was several standard deviations above the mean.”

            You think. But nobody has come up with really solid scientific proof for that kind of thing.

          • peppermint says:

            — the ashantee aristocrats were about as smart as English gentlemen

            did they all die out? Why isn’t Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson one of them? If there was an actual source of Black intellectual talent, it would make race-doesn’t-exist-ism seem much more reasonable.

          • Nyan Sandwich says:

            @Sayin’

            An oligarchy can easily turn into an aristocracy given the right incentives. The people are all in place, they just need to formalize their position and take responsibility.

            @AJP

            I don’t reject theonomy. You’re also right I ought not to be so obnoxious about my non-christianity.

    • The term “Theonomy” is quite objectionable to putative Theonomists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

      • Randy says:

        Aristocrats become decadent pretty damn fast. Prince Charles has someone to prepare his toothbrush. I guy like that is going to lead us into battle?

        • George says:

          Randy,

          A good rule of thumb before entering a discussion is “Do I understand the concepts being discussed?”, or better yet “Am I capable of understanding the concepts being discussed.”

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        I need to stop believing the definition of words that some random commenter uses.

  2. Alan J. Perrick says:

    I think the Soviet Union from the 20th century just reached out and claimed this blog…

    • Nyan Sandwich says:

      How so?

    • jim says:

      I assume this is a reference to the color scheme.

      I had in mind the colors of Clive of India and the Siege of Arcot, the colors the men of the restoration who conquered the world and founded science.

      You see, the new imperialist left adopted colors as different as possible from those of the old colonialist right, to emphasize that imperialism was way lefter than colonialism.

      And then with the passage of time, the new imperialist left became the old imperialist left.

      And then the communists, then new, adopted colors as different as possible from those of the imperialists, to emphasize that they were even lefter – which meant that they adopted the same colors as the colonialist right, the fighting men of the restoration.

      Oh, and the colors of the fighting men of the restoration were adopted to be as different as possible from the colors of the roundheads.

      And to this day, the Koch brothers tend to red and gold on their ties, while google executives tend to dark blue.

      The restoration gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, the industrial revolution, and world conquest, and since then everything is defined against it.

  3. peppermint says:

    it’s funny b/c last time you posted this, i posted a trichotomy in the comments, and Spandrell said it wasn’t a trichotomy but a triad. Anyway, the father can be ethno-nationalism, the son can be tradition, and the holy spirit can be capitalism 🙂

  4. A.B Prosper says:

    Great graphic as it sums up NrX quite well and is inclusive enough for the Christian and Heathen elements that make up the movements. Well done.

  5. Thrasymachus says:

    Something dualistic is needed, because as I have said, there are two kinds of “neo-reactionaries”- those who have Golden Dawn t-shirts, and those who don’t.

    Sound off- t-shirt or not? T-shirt!

    • Peppermint says:

      Passivists and activists, then.

      The USA is not ready for street fights between neo-nazis and neo-trotskyists. Here, we contemplate the Sampson Option of withdrawing police protection from Blacks and any Whites like Jessica Chambers stupid enough to have dealings with them, in order to enhance the contradictions and bring about a revolutionary climate.

      I haven’t been a trotskyist in too long, I think I’m forgetting the keywords.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        But do you have a GD t-shirt? I know Jim doesn’t.

      • Michael says:

        where do you guys live youre not withdrawing anything they could round you all up tomorrow for terrorism and no one would say a word. urban police forces are majority minority soon the whole country its over this philosophical battle youre decades too late and Christianity as your weapon LMAOROTF please. there still time for a well planned revolution maybe another decade. but you guys will just fiddle with dungeons and dragons while Rome burns

    • Adolf the anti-White says:

      I actually have an Augusto Pinochet T-shirt.

  6. Adolf the anti-White says:

    I think the triquetra symbol implies that Theonomy converges with these things. Property, Patriarchy, Ethnonationalism.

    Historic Christianity might be a bit weak on the ethnonationalism, which is why it doubles as an Odinist symbol.

  7. vxxc2014 says:

    Happy New Year, good points.

    What do we need Neo-Reaction for? We do need the other 3 and why was pointed out.

  8. Matt says:

    You should call it the Golden Arches of Neoreaction.

  9. Rollory says:

    Good piece.

    Good flag.

  10. Mackus says:

    I think that if you have technology capitalism, non-aggression principle, and no democracy (monarchies or anarchy), you can get away with “soft”, purely cultural ethno-nationalism and tradition patriarchy (as opposed to “hard”, legislated one, and maintained by police).
    If you have non-aggression, how do you force people to pay for welfare state? You cannot. Unemployable ethnic minorities and single mothers would have to beg to get their money, or try to steal them on their own, and risk getting shot. Some will be more successful beggars and criminals, but it will be much harder to extract resources from working men, than if they could just vote themselves others peoples money.
    Immigrants might come, but unless they actually can and want to get jobs (like white european migrants who moved to US in XIX century), they won’t in huge numbers, unless they know they are guaranteed welfare. Outsiders won’t come to devour the society from inside, if they have no incentives to move in, or are incentivised to assimilate if they do (Today immigrants are incentivised to NOT assimilate, because poor minorities vote for left). “Mr Abdul Muhammed, I would love to employ you, but you blogged that you want to kill infidels and rape their women. Get the hell outta my office.” No diversity quotas. You don’t wind up with welfare nanny state, if you have non-democratic state, or no state at all. (With monarchy you would wound up closer to nationalist-patriarchy, and with anarchy you would be closer to non-aggression)
    Non-aggression means you CAN have an unequal, binding contract, between man a woman. Because nobody can STOP them from making a contract by force (unless either or both are minors..), and breaking contract is an act of aggression. So yeah, you can punish unfaithful wives in society with non-aggression principle, and lynch cads who make move on your wives (for stealing, no quotations). And because women are attracted to men who can and will own them, men will be incentivised to be patriarchs, to get high quality women. Today, the incentivised to be anyone but patriarchs: either slaves who provide with no reward, or thugs.
    Libertarian might believe in sexual autonomy, but if he understands principles, he knows woman can give away her sexual autonomy in exchange for resources. If she cannot, this means her sex was never hers. You ca give away something you have, and cannot something you don’t. This is elementary.
    “So a young and naive woman can bind herself to an enormous debt for a PhD in hating dead white males and capitalism, a debt which cannot be expunged by bankruptcy”. In society like one I propose, it would as obvious you don’t pay huge amount of money for useless PHD, as it is today you don’t leave your kids when windowless van is circling the playground. There would always be INCREDIBLY stupid people, but perhaps they lives are only good for serving as warning to others. And to be honest, you would not be able to enslave anyone with non-expungeable debt. No need to legally prohibit contracts like that, just don’t enforce them on taxpayers expense (in monarchy, because in anarchy there would be no taxpayers period). If they just run for it (easier to disappear with no bloated bureaucracy requiring you to get dozens of permits before you can get a job or rent apartment), you would have to catch them, probably hire three people to do so, and then hire guards to guard the slaves. Slavery is not that profitable, unless its subsidized.
    What you would call libertarianism, I would call “progressives smart enough to know they need capitalism to produce wealth they can steal” – even Marx knew capitalism would produce industry communist would seize. What I call libertarianism, is something that comes from moral principle of non-aggression.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “Non-aggression means you CAN have an unequal, binding contract, between man a woman. Because nobody can STOP them from making a contract by force (unless either or both are minors..), and breaking contract is an act of aggression.”

      Ignores human nature completely.

      No one believes women can or should be held to contracts. Women instinctively recoil from the idea because they want to be able to get out from any commitments when it’s convenient and men are always inclined to go easy on women.

      If contract law is the foundation you’re building patriarchy on you’re building on sand.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        In general, social institutions must be build on divine mandate. But contract law can work out the details.

      • jim says:

        In libertopia women get to make their own decisions, and suffer the consequences.

        But there is no will to let women suffer the consequences of their own decisions, therefore women cannot be allowed to make their own decisions.

        • peppermint says:

          dailystormer, /r/coontown, and /r/antipozi laugh at Jessica Chambers. You say there is no well to let women suffer the consequences of their decisions, it’s probably true, but the NYPD appears to be taking the Sampson Option.

        • Mackus says:

          So, there would be will to make laws that would prohibit women from making their own choices, but no will to let women do them, and then at laugh at easily predicted consequences?
          Are you saying that, for example, a person would be willing to lock his wive/daughter in a cage, to stop her from going on a date with biker gang, but if she got pregnant and crawled back to him, he would welcome and forgive, as opposed to smacking her face and throwing her to the street?
          This is a serious question. What kind of person would ignore female crocodile tears when he tries to forcibly stop her from doing bad thing she wants (but daddy, I love him!), but would fall for the very same trick after deed is done?
          There is the thing: Stopping woman from doing evil requires effort on part of her guardian. Letting woman do evil, and leaving her alone to deal with consequences alone, requires no effort.
          Doing second would be easier, and its not currently for simple reason. It is not immediately obvious, because in welfare democracy costs of protecting dumb women are socialized. You do not _see_ your money being taken from you, to give to unmarried sluts.
          In stateless, or minarchist society, you actually have to hand your own money willingly. Or fight back if they want to take it by force.
          “hmm, I could buy new Xbox, or I could donate the money to the Campaign of Slut Liberation” says any guy with job. Oh. The Dilemma.
          If she gives him something in return, hey, free trade baby.
          Sluts with no real employment options could could make living by prostitution, or marrying unattractive, low-class guys who can’t find half-decent wives. Sure, they would not starve. But they would have to live as lowest ranking members of society, as opposed to current “heroic” and “courageous” single moms and divorcées, and that would be powerful incentive to stay good.
          Women hate low status. Thats why they marry unattractive rich guys, if power if aphrodisiac, low status is laxative. Bad women would be warning to girls of next generation.
          Keep in mind, that modern USA women turned sluts, partially because laws gave them incentive (financial), in addition to their own feral instincts.
          And if incentives and disincentives don’t work, how would man be able to stop woman from disobeying her in a world where women are not allowed to make choices, without actually chaining her? How would she figure out her husband would throw her out / beat her up for sneaking out to met other guys, if she wouldn’t be able to figure out he wouldn’t marry her in the first place for having reputation of slut?

          • jim says:

            There is the thing: Stopping woman from doing evil requires effort on part of her guardian. Letting woman do evil, and leaving her alone to deal with consequences alone, requires no effort.

            That is the libertarian solution. But it is not in our nature. The consequences you have in mind is that an immoral women will have no children, or will have to raise them without male funding and assistance. Not going to fly.

            During the early settlement of Australia, women and men were detached from their families. The authorities found it profoundly difficult to restrain women to behave in such a manner that the father of their children was known, and was someone willing and able to support those children. When, as frequently happened, women got pregnant to unknown men, or men that they refused to name for fear that they would be assigned to that man, the state wound up supporting them and their children – extremely badly.

            Although none of the women transported to Australia were prostitutes, usually transported for petty theft from their employer, their sexual behavior was extraordinarily bad, pornographic, and obscene. I conjecture that this happened because they were removed from the restraints of family and respectable female associates. Having children Australia to an unknown father during the early settlement of Australia was really unpleasant. The authorities really were not liberal left wing bleeding hearts. But nearly all the females, unless subject to quite disturbingly brutal restraint, behaved in ways likely to result in that outcome.

            And if the alarmingly brutal and puritanical authorities of the Australian settlement were not willing to let women face the consequences of raising children without fathers, who will be willing?

            Now if you have intact family structure, women will not behave so badly. And if you have contraception and abortion, the consequences of their misbehavior will not be so dire – their misbehavior results in population decline, instead of a horde of fatherless children.

            But the “intact family structure” involved the patriarch applying the rod as vigorously as the Australian authorities applied the whip.

            The early Australian experience was that absent patriarchs, contraception, and abortion, women behaved horrifyingly badly, and had to be coerced into monogamous behavior by the most dreadful means.

            Monogamy and identifiable fathers, and the requirement that a woman sticks with the father of her children, are a male plot against women where men use their superior physical strength and superior capability for large scale coordination to coercively impose on women a civilized sexual order.

            My wife and I got together at seventeen, and we stuck together ever since, but that was a long time ago, and that was the last generation for which such things were reasonably common.

          • Mackus says:

            Australia was artificial case. Women there had no fathers to restrain and guide them, because government took them away from them, literally to other end of the world. That evil was caused by excessive government power, no wonder another government power (australian authorities) made it worse.

            Men who protect slutty women, and those who would restrain them for their own good, are _not_ the same group. And in democracy former (and women) outvotes and forces latter with ballots to help them protect sluts. In libertopia, patriach would laugh in face of slut who tried to guilt him into giving her money. If he wouldn’t, how the same man if placed in patriarchy, would be able stop his own daughter or wife from whoring herself? Without democracy, weak men would have to risk their lives to forcibly extract resources from such patriarch.

            If in libertopia there would be some weak men who shield women after they whored themselves (I did not deny there would be some, they just won’t be able to tax us into helping them support those sluts), in neoreactopia there would be some weak men who fail to restrain women in their households before they whored themselves.

            Did father of your wife forced her to marry you? If not, then its not unreasonable of me to expect most free women in libertopia would willingly resign their self-ownership (if it makes them so unhappy) to a man she wants to marry. Him providing for her would be price for owning her.

            I am done, as far as this topic goes.

            • jim says:

              If you are assuming anarcho capitalism, no state to subsidize bastard spawn, but also no patriarchy to prevent bastard spawn, we are going to get a lot of bastard spawn that no one looks after, which will lead to people demanding a state.

          • Mackus says:

            Do men posses organizational skills, that would allow them to form and sustain patriarchy?
            Do men posses organizational skills, that would allow them to stop slut enablers who want to forcibly put end to libertopia? (stop by activism, lynchings, assassinations, open battle, you name it)
            If yes to first, and no to second, why do you believe first would be so much easier?
            Can men believe in their right to control their women, to the point they will physically hurt and restrain them?
            Can men believe in their right to their own property, to the point they will physically hurt those men who try to steal from them on sluts behalf, or organize into state which will steal from them?
            If yes to first, and no to second, why do you belive men would prefer to be violent against their own women, as opposed to stranger men, in defense of property they use to provide to their own women?
            Can men believe they have right to restrain women before they become sluts?
            Can men believe they have right to not support sluts?
            If yes to first, and no to second, why would men fell guilty from just turning away from women for something they did, but not fell guilty about being violent to women in their own household, for something the hadn’t done yet?

            Are men capable to be firm, and harsh on women? If yes, then libertopia can work, and so does patriarchy. If not, then libertopia cannot work, but neither does patriarchy.

            • jim says:

              In a partriarchal anarcho capitalist society, fertile age women would not be able to contract directly with protection agencies, because they would be subject to fathers and husbands.

              Let us imagine a progressive anarcho capitalist society, in which fertile age women have equal rights. Large numbers of women in such a society are going to behave in ways that deprive their children of fathers – they will sleep with men unable or unwilling to act as fathers, or conceive a child by one man and then sleep with another.

              At which point, the society can either set up a welfare state, or deprive women of the right to make such bad choices by subjecting them to the authority of fathers and husbands.

    • peppermint says:

      non-aggression is utterly incoherent because it fails to define what aggression means. If there was an authority people listened to regarding what is aggression,it would be a government.

      Carlyle calls what you describe “anarchy with a street-constable”.

      • Mackus says:

        Easy. Self-ownership, and non-initiation of force.
        There are grey areas, but so what? You just make arguments and talk thins out when you run into one.
        Why there would be a need for a central authority? Every day, people make decisions without central authority.

        • George says:

          Ancap ramblings won’t gain much purchase here mate. Better hit the books.

        • jim says:

          You know why so few women are libertarians – and those that are libertarians are obedient wives of libertarian husbands?

          Because women really are not all that keen on this self ownership stuff.

          For a man, making his own decisions is making his decisions and taking the consequences. For a woman, making her own decisions is getting away with as much as possible, making decisions that someone else will pay for.

          For a man, “making his own decisions” brings to mind “How shall I invest my 401 money”. For a woman, “making her own decisions” brings to mind padding the company credit card. Like dogs, they are always trying disobedience, but are more comfortable if they cannot get away with disobedience.

  11. Michael says:

    if you guys are going to continue this boosting of this leftist offshoot of Judaism that’s already destroyed us twice please explain why. there are surly other ways to rally the clan

  12. Thinkingaboutit says:

    Doubts I’ve been having for a while. Would appreciate if someone could settle them or at least point me towards resources dealing with these issues.

    1. Sweden vs East asia
    Sweden’s matriarchy, socialism and extreme leftism has produced a society on par with or better than Singapore. I choose to not make comparisons with Japan, South Korea or Taiwan since they are much more populous than Sweden, but Swedish pet capita GDP is higher than all the four east Asian countries. Singapore, being a city, would be expected to have a higher per capita GDP than Sweden, but it doesn’t.

    2. Economy:
    The human capital of the societies above are roughly similar, in terms of IQ and homogeneity. Their similar outcomes should be proof that feminism and high taxation do not necessarily cause any decline in economic strength. Capitalism is good but it can take a lot of regulation before it stops laying golden eggs.

    3. Birth rates
    The birth rates are sub par in Japan and Singapore just as they are in Sweden. But tolerance for unmarried parenthood and generous support to working mothers had helped raise Swedish tfr, even among whites, from what I hear. So it isn’t always true that patriarchy alone can sustain birth rates.

    4. Population replacement:
    one area where the eastern countries outperform Scandinavia is in preservation of the volk. And the related factor of keeping control of crime. This is unambiguously a triumph of nationalism over universalism.

    The conclusion seems to be that materialist ideologies actually work very well towards producing materialist utopias. Feminism and gender equalism does make a country more productive.

    5. Wellbeing and suicide
    it is hard to say that the rampant atheism and radicalism of Sweden has actually had noticeable effects on well being. Denmark has been at the top of the world happiness surveys for several years. I’m guessing Sweden is nearby. Perhaps anomie and suicide is higher in progressive civilizations, but I remember reading Japan has a high suicide rate too. But video games and porn and Prozac can handle suicidality fairly well- it simply isn’t a large enough problem to justify reorganizing society.

    6. Is masculinity needed in a society that does not experience war?
    Sweden has essentially castrated all its males. But if its women can reproduce and maintain society without masculine males, what real argument is there against this being attempted everywhere?

    Back in the day, men were needed to make war and defend the land. In the absence of war, in a world where women can do 90% of jobs as well as men, while also taking care of reproduction, is there any utilitarian reason to maintain patriarchy? I feel the only reason have is that men like it better when we’re on top- just because.

    7. Civilization and the sexes in relation to natural order
    Civilization is essentially self domestication. It started off with beta males banding together to prevent victimization by alphas. Laws became the way to regulate how men behaved with each other, instead of strength. In a way this was against Natural law.

    Feminism is the extension of Law to women. Where force can no longer be used to coerce them, much like force cannot be used to coerce beta males.

    Civilization of the past, what we call traditional civilization, protected betas. It allowed men to be judged for achievements like science and art, instead of power, charisma and serial attractiveness. Again, a rebellion against natural law. This depended on women notbeing able to provide for themselves, which is clearly an anomaly at least in the animal world.

    When females are freed economically, they generally choose handsome charismatic men. Fewer men get sex, while most women have no difficulty finding sex. A harem system is probably more normal for humans than monogamy, as shown by genetic studies of the % of men vs women who have reproduced in the past.

    Tldr: feminism may be returning humans to natural law. Instead of working against it. It is civilization and patriarchy which are rebellions against nature.

    I am planning to post this comment on other nrx sites as well just to see what I might be missing.

    • peppermint says:

      — Tldr: feminism may be returning humans to natural law. Instead of working against it. It is civilization and patriarchy which are rebellions against nature

      ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha http://youtu.be/4LTWi13_jjk?t=17m30s

      — I am planning to post this comment on other nrx sites as well just to see what I might be missing

      maybe a ban

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “Feminism and gender equalism does make a country more productive. ”

      Setting a house on fire will heat it in the winter.

    • jim says:

      GDP per capita is frequently falsified for political reasons.

      In terms of white goods per head, Sweden performs very badly, possibly reflecting failure of household formation by middle class people.

      In terms of cars per head, their performance is rather ordinary, inconsistent with claimed GDP – but it is true that nothing very terrible is happening to the Swedish standard of living, other than stagnation. Cars per head indicate a moderately prosperous economy, slightly more cars per head than South Korea, considerably fewer cars per head than Japan.

      Their buildings look old. They are not building new buildings, probably due to failure of middle class household formation.

      support to working mothers had helped raise Swedish tfr, even among whites, from what I hear.

      But you don’t hear any actual official numbers breaking it down by race, or even by actually working mothers. You hear progressives claim it is working as intended without actually producing any numbers indicating that it is working as intended.

      What I hear is that white tfr has collapsed, that the reason that the numbers are secret is because they are so horrifying, that swedish reproduction is primarily non working non white migrants whose successful violent resistance to white social norms allows them to impose patriarchy by private violence.

      You have a large population that maintains patriarchy by private violence against women. To conclude that feminism is working, need separate figures for that population.

      Feminism is the extension of Law to women. Where force can no longer be used to coerce them, much like force cannot be used to coerce beta males.

      There is no will, and there never had been the will, to make women live with the consequences of their own decisions. The costs of female decisions are born by men, always have been, always will be. Therefore women cannot be permitted to make bad decisions.

      • Korth says:

        Swedish demographics in a nutshell: https://imgur.com/a/4Iyyg

        • jim says:

          Great.

          That is the data needed, to answer the lie that subsidies for fatherlessness and working women have raised swedish fertility.

          The white Swedish population is in deep demographic collapse, their white male population reduced to eunuchs, similar to Japan, probably worse. Reproduction is coming from a population that has maintained patriarchy by private violence.

  13. […] got another diagram of The Trichotomy, which spawned a particularly entertaining set of comments (even for Jim). Also Sockpuppet Rapist […]

  14. […] got another diagram of The Trichotomy, which spawned a particularly entertaining set of comments (even for Jim). Also Sockpuppet Rapist […]

  15. […] under thoughtful investigation at the Catalyst Club. Re-visiting the Trichotomy. Christianity and degeneration. Notes on religion. Gnonological meditations (1, 2). […]

  16. […] under thoughtful investigation at the Catalyst Club. Re-visiting the Trichotomy. Christianity and degeneration. Notes on religion. Gnonological meditations (1, 2). […]

  17. […] way a doctrine that was not aggressively liberal would be formulated. Example number one and number two […]

Leave a Reply