What to do in a restoration

That which cannot continue must end. Thus one way or another, the movement ever leftwards, ever faster, is going to stop, going to be stopped, probably after the fashion of Stalin, if we are lucky after the fashion of conspiracy of 9 Thermidor, if really lucky after the fashion of Cromwell.

That does not necessarily mean things will get better, merely that, as in Stalin’s Soviet Union, they will stop getting even worse. But when China recovered from Maoism, it not only had a pretty good restoration, but came out of a dark age. And today’s Russia is not doing too badly.

So here is what is going to take to clean up the Augean stables:

Cannot stop a left singularity. unless you get real serious about stopping it. Hence the end of a left singularity is apt to lead to a restoration – though it may instead merely lead to the execution of a remarkably large number of leftists, suspected leftists, potential leftists, and suspected potential leftists. (Yey Stalin! Go Stalin Go!)

The inability of King George the Fourth to divorce of Queen Caroline was lunatic barking mad leftism in charge, frothing at the mouth, and biting crazy, and it has been going downhill ever since, getting crazier and more extreme every day, faster and faster. This is damaging technology through rule by consensus. Peer Review means that instead of experimentalists telling the scientific community what they see, the scientific community tells experimentalists what they would see. Science died when peer review was introduced in the nineteen forties, and in the seventies, technology began to follow.

To fix the left singularity needs military force and martial law. Warriors on top, so warrior status has to be raised, priest status lowered. Confiscate the Ivy endowments, and completely destroy Harvard, totally bulldozing every trace. Symbolically pour salt upon the earth, then redevelop the Ivy campuses for housing, shopping malls, and offices.

Deflate academic credentials, with the school leaving exam, taken at the age puberty begins, discriminating between those above and below IQ 105, and the school matriculation exam (high school, taken at completion of puberty) discriminating between those above and below IQ 115. University entrance begins at IQ 125. Some people fail university, quite a lot fail university, about half of them, so that pretty much everyone with a two year or more degree is IQ 130 or above. Four year degrees, however, should not be significantly smarter, just more academic. Above common IQ levels, above IQ 130, we don’t use academic credentials, but rather deal with individuals case by case. So if you are really smart and leave school at school leaving age, then self educate, you will still do fine. We cease to force people to waste their fertile years in zero sum competition for credentials of little value. Post deflation academic degrees are given new names to differentiate them from inflated academic degrees. The net effect is that far fewer people go to university, and those that do go to university for a far shorter time.

To lower priestly status, we make sure that there is a non academic path into every career, often built around apprenticeship – that there are no careers where academics have a legal monopoly of licensing people to perform certain tasks. Well established and successful practitioners can also license people to perform those tasks.

School years should be tied to puberty, so that people with the same physical development are taking the same exam, so as not to discriminate in favor of blacks and against whites, and so as not to discriminate in favor of females and against males, and to create an expectation that completion of puberty means getting a job, a wife, and having children.

Issue a clear definition of orthodoxy and heresy and systematically purge government, academia, and quasi government institutions such as banks of heretics..

The Mad Max scenario – trade and specialization of labor collapses as at the end of the Bronze age – is unlikely. That social technology is too widely known and too well understood. However, we are losing, have lost, the scientific revolution and the scientific method. In place of Nullius in Verba, we are now required to believe in the scientific consensus established behind closed doors on the basis of secret evidence. Reflect for example on the endless and generally unsuccessful lawsuits attempting to get the Universities to reveal the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming, even though all the older journals have rules theoretically in place requiring full data and evidence for any published article to made available. Double entry accounting is under attack, with Sarbannes Oxley replacing accounts that reflect reality, with accounts that reflect official reality.

We have also lost the important reproductive technology of marriage -that a man and a woman could make a contract to stick together and raise their children, and be socially and legally forced to stick to it. The concept of marital rape – that the thought seems meaningful, that the concept exists, is incompatible with the existence of marriage as marriage has been understood for the past few thousand years. If either party may withhold sex or reproductive sex at any time for any reason or no reason, then either party may cancel the marriage at any time for any reason or no reason, which is a profound deterrent to having children.

Patriarchy is also necessary for marriage. If one person does not have final authority over the household, you don’t have one household.

Without marriage, marriage as it was understood up to 1950 or so, whites are not going to successfully reproduce.

Before 1972, not only was “marital rape” legal, but people had difficulty understanding what feminists were talking about – the combination of words made no sense to most people. Feminists had to talk around the topic in long winded ways. Legally the right of a man to compel his wife to perform her marital duty had been quietly abolished early in the nineteenth century, but socially, people continued to pretty much take it for granted until the nineteen seventies.

Tags:

133 Responses to “What to do in a restoration”

  1. Bruce says:

    “Legally the right of a man to compel his wife to perform her marital duty had been quietly abolished early in the nineteenth century”

    Jim, that’s an interesting data point. You mean, in general, laws that were explicit about defending a man’s right to enforcement were abolished at the state level? Was this part of some general trend in U.S. religion e.g. the 2nd great awakening?

    • peppermint says:

      There were laws that say a woman can accuse her husband of rape if he has sex with her when she is separated from him, implying that a woman can not accuse her husband of rape if she is living with him.

      Men are naturally stronger than women and without laws empowering women to seek damages after the fact, yes, it was anticipated that a man might force himself on his wife.

      Whereas it is preferred today that a woman should be able to leave her husband, but have Uncle Sam the Big Pimp break his legs if he doesn’t pay her indefinitely for services not rendered, so she can then…

      • Bruce says:

        Did the logic of these laws follow from the Protestant understanding of divorce?

        • jay says:

          No. Because such is in contradiction to Scripture.

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            Ah, but Henry VIII and his newly-minted coterie of Protestant clergy beg to differ!

            Who’s to say what the Bible really means, anyway? Every good Protestant gentleman must be free to decide what the Bible means for himself, without any skull-smooching, papist traditions and pontiffs mucking about! After, all: “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” I find that my Bible often means whatever the hell my own concept of existence says it means.

            • jim says:

              Anglican England gave us science and the industrial and technological revolutions.

              And the Pope never had any difficulty finding reasons to annul marriages among those favored by the papacy.

          • Bruce says:

            If I understand Catholic annulment, the declaration of nullity is an opinion and only and opinion since it can only provide moral certitude, not absolute certitude. Even if the Pope make the declaration of nullity. I could be wrong but that’s how I understand it.

          • jay says:

            No cui just as the word of God goes a certain way that is immutable. So it is with language which describes an objective immutable reality. No amount of fudging and reinterpretations will change that.

          • jay says:

            Look at how the constitution is reinterpreted to mean what leftists want them to mean. Even though the constitution can only mean things a certain way.

    • jim says:

      Early nineteenth century, late eighteenth century, marriage was indissoluble, and husband’s authority over his wife indissoluble, and a man could apply corporal punishment to his wife, for proportionate cause, referred to as “stripes”, implying the use of a whip or a cane.

      This rule was furtively and de-facto changed early in the nineteenth century, and then formally and legally changed in the Matrimonial Causes act – which allowed a wife to abandon her husband, but not a husband to abandon his wife.

      But, for over a hundred years after the Matrimonial causes act, what was now legal under the act (leaving one’s husband, or even openly disobeying him) was subject to intense social disapproval, and what was now illegal under the act (spanking one’s wife and similar punishments) was subject to such clear social approval as to make enforcement impractical.

      • peppermint says:

        It was always legal for a woman to leave her husband and go live with her sister or brother. Of course, it was disapproved, and there was no alimony or welfare and of course impossible for her to have legitimate children by another man.

        • jim says:

          Not really legal. For example her husband still had control over her financial affairs and authority over her. So she could not have money or get a job or own anything unless he permitted it.

          • peppermint says:

            She couldn’t run a business or own property; ironically, now those options are denied to Alex Jones.

            Getting a formal job with wages could be a problem, getting her own apartment could be a problem, but women worked informally anyway; she could serve as a maid and be paid in room and board, if she really hated her husband enough to do the same thing she would do for him but without being his companion and having his children (one of the most ancient of English laws was that a man’s children could not be taken away from him, which is also reversed now).

            If she had a family with resources, she could leave and live with her family. The purpose of battered womens shelters and alimony and welfare for women is to extend this option to those poor underclass women to free up their pussies for NGO dick.

            Sodomy was illegal and if a man committed sodomy and his wife didn’t like it, if she could prove it by showing the damage to her body, she could get him in trouble. Today sodomy is expected of women as a sign of submission by all the cute little proggies who swear up and down that they don’t demand signs of submission from their women.

      • Bruce says:

        This was in the U.K., right? I wonder if U.S. legal changes paralleled the U.K.

  2. Ann K says:

    Interesting idea about peer review killing science. Please elaborate!

    • jim says:

      See Feynman’s definition of science. “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts”

      Pretty much the opposite of Peer Review.

      See also Galileo on science by committee. Galileo does not explain why science by committee is so stupid, but I do.

  3. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    Yes, I like it. This is a vision of the country I could support.

    To fix the left singularity needs military force and martial law. Warriors on top, so warrior status has to be raised, priest status lowered.

    This is the tricky part. The Right now is largely made of up of supplicating beta-boys and pussies too afraid (or unable?) to wield real power. For authoritarianism to work, we need genuine men, Hard Men.

    • rainbow apocolypse says:

      yup, even the military is swirling down the toilet bowl.

      this week the chief of the navy says women will be forced into combat units, even the seals. also this week the marines say putting women into combat units degrades performance of said units.

      enjoy the decline

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Leftists are almost to a person solipsistic whether male or female. See their reactions to the popularity of American Sniper. Many reviewers of the film were amazed it was so popular because none of their friends saw it and none of the papers they read reviewed it well.

        Left is feminine so will adopt feminine behavior and in particular solipsism. The root of solipsism being the inability to conceive of another mind lends itself to the narrative of the left’s ideology. The left then perceives other races as themselves but with different appearance. It leads to the blank slate for both male and female and race. Blank slate theory origin comes from this solipsism.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      Apparently Hard Men are easily bought off or misled.

  4. Dave says:

    In 1972 the Shah of Iran visited MIT. Speaking of his plans for Tehran University, he said “My goal is to create a Persian MIT, not a Persian Harvard or Princeton.”

    In other words, I want engineers thinking up ways to make my country stronger and richer, not philosophers thinking up reasons I shouldn’t be Shah.

    • jim says:

      That was what he wanted.

      But what he got was Sodom and Gomorrah in Harvard on the Arvan Rud.

      1. While most of Iranian society is pretty much what one would expect of a Muslim society, for example poor employment prospects for women, legal enforcement of husband’s authority, and so on and so forth, school and University is Harvard on the Arvan Rud. Despite lower female intelligence, smaller female brains, and the fact that very few girls will wind up in employment (the rest of society still being quite Muslim) 62% of people admitted to university are female and only 38% are male. Schools and universities consider it their mission to raise female status and lower male status, to transform those horrid old fashioned obsolete unprogressive aspects of Islam. All students are compelled to attend courses urging them to have fewer children, and denigrating marriage and motherhood.

      2. All girls are taught the false life plan. Concentrate on your careers and fucking Jeremy Meeks, and marriage and family will just happen by itself.

      3. Who cares about 3? OK: 3 is Sodom and Gomorrah in Harvard on the Arvan Rud. Iranian girls are very strictly controlled until they get to university, coed university, whereupon … most of them are ruined for any man who would be inclined to marry her, since they will now see him as low status and insufficiently handsome and manly.

      Ayatollahs! You need to behead most of these academics. These guys are planning to take your society away from you. Pretty soon you will be like wasps at the Obama Whitehouse.

  5. Oliver Cromwell says:

    A necessary condition of a true restoration is the total destruction of the state education system. That means the end of the education system as such, since most of it only exists due to compulsion and subsidy. In non-politucal fields the academic career track you describe didn’t exist in English speaking countries until the 20th century, when all fields started to be politicised.

  6. Korth says:

    Jim, isn’t too much meritocracy dangerous? An elite made up of people raised in vastly different social backgrounds will lack cohesiveness, and robbing each generation of the poorest strata off their smartest children can’t be the best thing for economic performance in the long term.

    • peppermint says:

      The elite are the people. Look at what actual data science has revealed about social mobility in feudal England.

    • jim says:

      Yes, too much meritocracy is dangerous. We need to encourage the hereditary principle, with the sons of an X automatically receiving preference in the X career.

      • Alex says:

        The Japanese did this through much of their history, and while it allowed for stability, it wasn’t optimum. You had many cases of incompetents, supported by far more capable underlings. These underlings were presumably unhappy that the idiots above them were taking the lion’s share of wealth and credit, while they were thrown the scraps. Perhaps not, Japanese being what they are, but unless I see reason to believe otherwise, I’d support a strict meritocracy.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          Arrogant, clueless incompetents at the top, supported by unappreciated, resentful, capable underlings… Sounds like at least half the modern, meritocratic corporations I’ve worked for.

  7. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    I always assumed that the central part of a restoration in the USG, would be dissolving the federal government, except for the military. Then splitting the 50 States into 500 (or so) city-states, and each city-state is permitted to determine it’s own family law, immigration policy, welfare system, et cetera.

    • peppermint says:

      Step 1: effectively repeal snivel rights by quietly suppressing snivel rights lawsuits. Glasnost.

      Step 2: repeal snivel rights by Congress declaring it out of the hands of the Supreme Court, or, packing the court and getting decisions. More glasnost.

      Step 3: everything else follows

      Step 4: put the traitors on trial for their hoaxes and other petty crimes, put Anil Dash in prison for extortion, investigate and prosecute NGOistan for misuse of public funds and improper activities for tax exempt organizations where possible. Actually, that last part could be done in parallel with the rest of it. But it needs to be a continuous process until the country sees justice done on the traitors and knows that treason doesn’t pay, because for many years it has, in both money and pussy.

      Step 5: Children of notorious professors, politicians, and journalists lose their family name and become bastards. Maybe?

  8. Glenfilthie says:

    “…discriminating between those above and below IQ 115. University entrance begins at IQ 125. Some people fail university, quite a lot fail university, about half of them, so that pretty much everyone with a two year or more degree is IQ 130 or above…”
    ————————————————————————————–

    No.

    IQ is no indicator of ability or future success. Some bloggers (Eg. Vox Day) purportedly have high IQ’s, but they are so unlikeable and socially inept that only the dullest will work with him or tolerate him.

    Universities should reward merit and ability. To me the best way to do that is to cut the bottom 50~65% of the first year students to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is no reason that a capable person with an IQ of 124 should have to give way to an incapable one with a 125 IQ.

    • Erik says:

      ESR works with Vox, and ESR is far from dull (also far from Christianity). While I agree that there are other factors than IQ that might be useful, you have to hammer those factors into a clear and objective measurement with multiple independent tests like IQ before they’re safe to use for cutting wheat from chaff. Otherwise you’re just opening up a loophole in what was a decent filter if not a perfectly accurate one.

    • Brian says:

      “IQ is no indicator of ability or future success.”

      Yes. But, it is an indicator of educability.

      Even a motivated, competent person with an IQ below 115 is not going to benefit from four years of college.

      In fact, expecting a motivated, competent person with an IQ below 115 to have four years of colleage is an obstacle to their success.

  9. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Lots of information in this one. I’m reading through it again. Thank you.

    A.J.P.

  10. We cease to force people to waste their fertile years in zero sum competition for credentials of little value.

    This is an excellent idea. We should extend it to the workforce as well: credentials should be meaningful and given to the few, and everyone else demonstrates competence and rises slowly. Credentials in any system can operate as a work-around for competence, which both makes them dangerous, and makes the Crowdist horde want to force them to be nearly universal for anyone who sits through the classes and upchucks the right repetition.

  11. Dr. Faust says:

    Grand Theory of Cuckury:

    The male child is punished most often for male behavior. The act of spanking can trigger a panicked response in the undeveloped brain which pairs the masculine behavior with a panicked response. This response in the child is perceived as a life or death situation since the child’s survival is dependent on the adult in the relationship. The forbidden male behavior is repressed in their mind and denied in consciousness. The desire to be cucked manifests as a desire to embrace this repressed masculinity. The cuck sees the bull in the sex as a projection of this repressed masculinity he desires to embrace but is scared to death of doing so. By experiencing it vicariously through a proxy masculine character he gains a sense a fulfillment of this masculine but done in a safe way, a way in which he can deny it being in himself

  12. A.B Prosper says:

    most of the Left singularity is a product of urbanization and wealth . Its not coincidental that it started in the early modern period since that is when society shifted from rural to urban. You won’t have a truly folk/tradition centered society in an urban culture much less a connected urban culture, I do see benefit in ending the left singularity of course but it is going to self correct, in addition to being tied to urbanization, a good chunk of the most egregious R selected behavior is tied to wealth. As the wealth dries up and it will, the populace will shift K. Hell its already happening, you just have to keep at it,

    Now the fertility issue is tied to technology. It makes no sense to have more than a couple of kids in a technological society where they all are likely to survive anyway. Children will remain a liability in a technological society and if you get rid of tech, you’ll serve whoever doesn’t. Simply we do not need a fertility rate of more than 2.05 or so for Whites at most and we don’t need population growth . The resources aren’t there and growth is hugely overrated

    Population decline overly feared by the religious who lose power and of course the “creed of the cancer cell” money and growth junkies,

    Europe got by with a population doubling in 5 centuries, we don’t need one in 5% of that time and don’t have the resources anyway,

    The issue we face is we have foreigners on our lands not we have too few White people.

    Note that the entire global population of Whites in 1500 was around half the White people in the US today. This was after a population doubling over 5 centuries from 1000-1500 . we don’t need another population boom since we have no land and no economic use for them.

    What we need to do is get rid of foreigners , stop helping them and not try to win a breeding race with them.

    Its not important if European peoples stabilize at a smaller level which they will so long as they can hold what is theirs. .

    • jim says:

      most of the Left singularity is a product of urbanization and wealth .

      Not so.

      Left singularity in King Louis’ France, left singularity in Tzarist Russia, which was poor as dirt, numerous left singularities in a China chronically on the edge of starvation.

      Recall Spandrell’s story about China

      Now the fertility issue is tied to technology.

      Not so:

      Was it tied to technology in ancient Rome? Ancient Egypt? Sparta?

      Fertility is wholly and entirely an issue of female emancipation and the status of women. Fertility requires marriage 1.0, and marriage 1.0 requires patriarchy.

      Europe got by with a population doubling in 5 centuries, we don’t need one in 5% of that time and don’t have the resources anyway

      White population is collapsing. Inferior races are booming. Inevitable that Europe will be flooded with members of inferior races, and Europe revert to third world, with South African style genocide of the white population, because market dominant minorities always get genocided, particularly in nonwhite countries. On our current course, South African style genocide is inevitable around 2060 or so.

      If, however, we have a booming white population, we can and inevitably will resume colonialism.

      • peppermint says:

        it was inevitable that “the world will shrink” and it is now possible for any nigger to come to a White country as a tourist.

        It wasn’t inevitable that any nigger will be able to come to a White country as a migrant worker, or as an immigrant voter, or find fertile White pussy to plow. That took decades of revision to the language coupled with threats of jail and hated penury and promises of a glorious utopia with a technological fountain of youth, no income inequality, and cheap chalupas for everyone.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          Sure.Lets say somehow reactionary forces get into power, its more plausible than you think. What do you suggest we do about it?

          How precisely are we going to create well remunerating work for average Joe’s much less smart people when a machine does a better, more precise , more efficient job

          Only an idiot hires a man when a machine is cheaper.

          Honestly trying to roll back to Marriage 1.0 or earlier , a censored narrower world and to a closed economy driven by state sponsored inefficiency is Communist level stupidity .

          • jim says:

            How precisely are we going to create well remunerating work for average Joe’s

            1. There is plenty of work to be done. In the US, manufacturing physical objects is illegal and immoral. All existing industries are grandfathered in as unprincipled exceptions, which unprincipled exceptions keep being rolled back.

            AI is a fantasy. A robot cannot fold towels efficiently. No robot shows the intelligence that every spider possesses. Pretty much all existing jobs require that kind of intelligence, so they are not going away. Driverless cars are no closer than they ever were, though cruise control, auto follow, and automatic emergency braking is getting better. Automatic fruitpicking, and automatic sweater folding are endlessly running into the same real-soon-now-but-not-quite-yet barrier as driverless cars.

            2. I don’t really give a shit what happens to average joes. It is superior people that build and maintain civilization.

            3. Peasants living on few dollars a day seem able to afford food, wives, children and shelter. It is really not that hard. The main reason first worlders are poor while third world peasants living on a few dollars a day are often rich is that first worlders are increasingly forced to buy goods that are artificially restricted in supply, for example ever higher education and housing that will not be overrun by dindus and is ever closer to the revolving door between regulators and regulated.

            First world poverty – the inability to afford a wife and children – is as artificial as the Ukraine famine. It is not a natural result of technology. Rather it is a manifestation of ever escalating left wing repression. Parents are forced to pay ever higher prices to send ever fewer children to ever lengthier periods in institutions of left wing propaganda.

            The ever escalating suppression of jobs forces people to live ever closer to the revolving door between regulators and regulated. Anarcho tyranny destroys housing and prevents the creation of new housing. Credentialism intended to force people to attend ever lengthening lectures on leftism forces people to waste their youth.

            Reverse degree inflation, children become profitable once more. Drop social security, children become an essential investment. Cut regulation, price of housing falls because people can get jobs without having to live next to the regulatory revolving door. Restore marriage 1.0. Marriage then gives you the security to produce children and invest in them.

          • peppermint says:

            That’s not our problem right now. The problem we need to solve is the Civil Rights, and, other countries have their own anti free speech laws.

            The problem they need to solve is shutting down the American-hosted pro-White blogs.

            The way they’ll do it is by passing a hatespeech law; the Jewpreme Court will of course approve if not implement it themselves.

            The way they’ll do that is to get anyone who hears anything racist to report it to local law enforcement or face prison time if they can be proven to have heard a racism and not reported it before a terrorism is committed.

            The way they’ll do that is by jailing Dylan Roof’s friend Meek.

            When they have a few examples of hatespeech preaching terrorism, they go after the First Amendment, all pro-White blogs, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones, and they complete their White genocide with no samizdat.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            And Jim, you seem to be counting an awful lot on people you despise to do you heavy lifting,

            I fail to see why this is vastly better for Joe Sixpack than the current system where almost all White people have European White babies with other European Whites.

            As for your suggestions, return to the 19th century. Nope, that ship has sailed . I concede that school costs are higher than needed and a lot of time is wasted and that there are more than a few things we could do but there is no magic formula to reverse price inflation (thanks for being so precise in terminology BTW) and no social security just means more savings. You cannot create enough deflation to make it work. Also you cannot have a functional 1st world society without paying for it . Its vastly expensive.

            Of course if you want the 3rd world, in theory you are actually worse than the Cathedral though in practice identical

            Economically the end its always cheaper to buy a small house, pay it off and live on savings or maybe interests than to count in maybe reliable children to pay your way. What you would get is an even smaller family size with delayed family formation, especially since most of the jobs under your regime won’t pay well

            No matter what in an urban system children are a cost and are an unreliable source of retirement.

            Numbers, current US amounts are around $14,000 per child. Under your system this can be cut in half. $7,000

            Lets say we go full reactionary and push women out of work. wages won’t double but they will go up. Lets call this an average of $35 take home a year

            Now assuming the man has stable employment (he probably won’t) one child costs 20% of his income, two children means 40% of his income goes to children and this is still lower than replacement fertility. You need around 44% of a workers income to reach replacement fertility

            Also two children can’t actually support two parents and have a family of their own anyway so the numbers don’t pan out

            Honestly by simply forgoing 1 child, a couple can pretty easily pay off a modest home and by forgoing 2 have a decent retirement if they save. Assuming 1 worker with stable income , lower house costs (say a nice house is 125,000) and current food/energy costs (they won’t go lower do to supply limits) not having two children would facilitate a stable zero interest retirement at age 55 or so. You’ll die broke or with a reverse mortgage but you’ll do pretty well

            This of course presumes that people want many children which may not be the case, People may have fewer children because they don’t actually want them and in a modern world have better things to do

            Earned money can easily be put in the bank, a house paid off and life enjoyed far more than living in urban squalor so some ambitious asshole can have more lives to play with.

            I know you want neo-peasants but anyone with a 3 digit IQ can figure out that in an urban environment kids are a cost and that the “deal” you are offering is a raw deal.

            Now after the collapse if we have one and I think we will within a century or less, populations will decline, masculinity will be in huge demand however the new world won’t support a fraction of the people it does now.

            The trick for the well being of our people is removing non Whites from our lands and thew Cultural Marxists from power, The rest will self repair

            • jim says:

              And Jim, you seem to be counting an awful lot on people you despise to do you heavy lifting,

              I fail to see why this is vastly better for Joe Sixpack than the current system where almost all White people have European White babies with other European Whites.

              Seeing a lot of white women having fatherless brown babies supported by white male taxpayers.

              White male taxpayers are not too happy about this but are permanently outvoted.

              Family formation for most white men is unaffordable, and if you try it, high risk of divorce rape. Marriage rates and family formation rates are collapsing because children are unaffordable, due to artificially high cost of housing and degee inflation, and because of the high risk of having your children taken away from you, of being thrown out of your home, and the high risk of being forced to support your wife’s lovers who beat up your sons and rape your daughters.

              Patriarchy is basically a male conspiracy to artificially reduce the cost of women. Price control creates shortages, shortages are dealt with by socialist rationing – by which I mean chastity and monogamy.

              This form of socialist redistribution, fair sharing of pussy, works far better, and is far more popular among the beneficiaries, than redistributing money or land. Redistributing money or land destroys the goods that money can buy and land should create, but equal distribution of pussy increases the supply of fresh pussy by increasing total fertility. Thus the Iron Ricebowl, the supposed guarantee of fair shares of rice to everyone, led to tens of millions starving, while monogamy and chastity works just great.

              I am absolutely certain that most white males would support a system that ensured they had chaste obedient wives and could afford to support their wives and their children by those wives – indeed, throughout history, that has been pretty much what gives a system enough support to survive, collect sufficient revenue to support its military, and defeat its enemies. First you guarantee that anyone moderately competent and willing to work can get enough to eat. Then you guarantee that anyone moderately competent and able to work and fight can get a wife and children. And then you have mass support. Other goods are way down the hierarchy of needs. The masses of males don’t care about the rest of that shit, and the masses of females respectfully defer to the decisions of their husbands and fathers.

              Right now, the best of men has grave difficulty getting virtuous wife and obedient children, hence the system lacks support, and is likely to collapse at the first serious trouble. Bread and circuses will not get you people willing to fight, and right now we are seriously short of people willing to fight. Bread and wives will get you people willing to fight.

              You cannot create enough deflation to make it work. Also you cannot have a functional 1st world society without paying for it . Its vastly expensive.

              That is just cathedral triumphalism: You proclaim yourself stronger than us, and it is true, but every day you get weaker. A modern society is not expensive. The Cathedral is expensive, and every day more expensive and less capable of defending itself.

              What is expensive is safe neighborhoods and inflated degrees. Everything else, such as food or building shelter once you have obtained the unobtainable permits, or the technology needed to build technology, is getting cheaper and cheaper. Degrees can be deflated with the stroke of a pen, and the social technology for creating safe neighborhoods is well known.

              The reactionary program in a nutshell is that the socialist program for redistributing wealth is failing catastrophically, destroying,, rather than sharing wealth. The socialist program for creating equal families does not create equal families, but instead destroys unequal families.

              The old socialist program for redistributing pussy (monogamy and chastity) worked great. Let us end redistribution of wealth, and resume redistribution of what men really care about: Pussy. That redistribution program is way more popular among the kind of men whom you need to defend and enforce a system.

            • jim says:

              Also two children can’t actually support two parents and have a family of their own anyway so the numbers don’t pan out

              All your calculations are based on the supposition that we continue paying for the Cathedral.

              A successful third world peasant can afford two wives and eighteen children.

              The big killers are that safe neighborhoods are expensive when they do not have to be, and endless schooling in political bullshit is expensive. Reduce the cost of housing and education to something closer to third world peasant levels, and wives and children are affordable.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Jim, I live in majority brown California. I don’t see very many White women of any worth with non white guys. Its happens more than I’d like and its nauseating but its not all that common. I don’t care terribly about highly dysfunctional and ugly women or men with part White Mestizos anyway. I’d rather not but its not a huge problem.

            Also among the upper classes divorce is pretty rare even with the current divorce laws, The burden is on the lower and middle groups you implied you didn’t care about.

            That said returning to the older “fault” system is a near must. The older “chattel” system might not be doable.

            This presumes of course people want to be married and have children. They might not. People seem to have children because everyone is having children or they are on a farm and its a benefit

            . I’m not sure the former is something you can push top down. And note, it was easier to push smaller families , taking Brazil to below replacement fertility in like a decade or two. The reason here is obvious, smaller families make life better if you are not rich. The opposite is not true,

            I ought to repeat this, many children do not make life better for people and they can be happy with one or two.

            Now as for societal costs, has nothing to do with Cathedral triumphalism whatever. Roads, bridges, the Internet, 24-7 power and water , the military, public schools if we want them all that costs money. Lots and lots and lots of money.

            You can’t opt out of paying for this

            We could in theory cut taxes in half by eliminating all welfare but this won’t happen in a vacuum and the increase in savings rates might prove to be problematic. Its called the paradox of thrift or the problem of surplus production depending on who you ask

            Basically if I don’t have the State to fall back on especially if I have minor children, well I save more and you don’t have me as a customer.

            Also people being married late is nothing new and neither is population stagnation. Its the normal way European peoples deal with carrying capacity .Notice how slow population grew in the most Christian period in our history or take a look at the Great Depression.

            During the Great Depression TFR was an estimated 2.1 in 1936 or so which below replacement and this was without modern divorce laws, with high religiosity and with no birth control

            On the issue of the military, I concur with you. However we do have weapons that are huge force multipliers and we could concentrate more efforts on drones . It would actually be cheaper and more effective to field say a kill swarm of 50 or so mini-drones than an infantryman

            we might not be able to occupy with that and we might not have the nerve to win nor the population to colonize but we surely have the tech to maintain our own borders.

            That is I think what we need to do, expel foreigners. keep them out and put a hammer down on the Cultural Marxists and let be. This should be adequate to sustain Western civilization.

            Also a last bit, don’t write Europe off, It is run by its hostile elite but Europeans are fighting back and they’ll probably purify Europe fairly soon. They won’t have a population boom but again Europe is crowded.

            Vox Day who lives in Europe talks about this at length and I suspect is correct.

            The US however is baring a revolution, collapse and partition or some strongman far above the dreams people have of the mediocre Trump is screwed.

            • jim says:

              Jim, I live in majority brown California. I don’t see very many White women of any worth with non white guys. Its happens more than I’d like and its nauseating but its not all that common. I don’t care terribly about highly dysfunctional and ugly women or men with part White Mestizos anyway. I’d rather not but its not a huge problem.

              Also among the upper classes divorce is pretty rare even with the current divorce laws, The burden is on the lower and middle groups you implied you didn’t care about

              That is because they are not getting married in the first place. Can’t afford it, and the women are trash that are too dangerous to marry anyway.

              You are right that highly educated upper class women are not producing little brown babies for the white male taxpayer to support – because they are not producing babies at all.

              Pretty much all upper class baby production is upper class white males marrying slightly lower class white women that they found in a more socially conservative milieu. Murray obfuscates this by ignoring the social and class origins of the married and fertile upper class women he surveys. They are upper class because they married up, and they married up because recruited from socially conservative environment, not upper class because highly educated and successful careers. Highly educated women with successful careers are not reproducing.

              Northern California is full of very smart affluent white male software engineers. Very few of them are getting married. Of those that are getting married, few are having children. Walk into the office. Then find the part of the office, such as the engineering department, where people do actual work that actually produces something – walk far away from HR. All the real jobs, all the real work, is done by white males – who are not married, not getting sex, not having children, and not bloody likely to do so. It is very hard to find a married software engineer in Silicon Valley.

              If you find one that is married, he found his wife in some socially conservative place in the backwoods of Alaska or Mindanao, not in Silicon Valley. In Silicon Valley, nothing but vicious hard bitten much ridden whores, who have been ridden hard too often and put away wet.

              White males with assets that could be stolen in divorce rape do not get married in Silicon valley. Ask around in Silicon Valley. Anyone with a productive job, anyone with assets to lose, is white, male, and single. And those rare ones that are married, went somewhere safer to recruit a wife.

              If upper class men have low levels of divorce, it is because upper class men have a lot to lose and are very, very frightened.

              I suppose B would say that they are not getting married because they are geeky losers. That does not, however, explain the fact that when they do get married, they do not marry silicon valley girls. If Silicon Valley Engineers are terrified of women, they are terrified of those women that they have damned good reason to fear, and considerably less fearful of those women that they have less reason to fear.

            • jim says:

              Now as for societal costs, has nothing to do with Cathedral triumphalism whatever. Roads, bridges, the Internet, 24-7 power and water , the military, public schools if we want them all that costs money. Lots and lots and lots of money.

              Common sense and casual observation is that what is expensive for the individual contemplating family formation is safe suburbs and prestigious credentials. Everything else is cheap and getting cheaper. And we can easily create a lot more safe suburbs and make prestigious credentials cheaper and quicker to get (by making them harder to get – radical degree deflation)

            • jim says:

              During the Great Depression TFR was an estimated 2.1 in 1936 or so which below replacement and this was without modern divorce laws, with high religiosity and with no birth control

              We have had birth control since the early bronze age. Infanticide, induced abortion, non reproductive sex, and, believe it or not, condoms. Onan, recall was punished by God for pulling out.

              Modern divorce laws were introduced de facto around 1820, and de jure with the Matrimonial Causes act of 1857

              However these laws were so wildly and violently contrary to social norms, that they did not immediately have large effect.

              The effect was accomplished by turning television and schools into propaganda, to bring social norms in line with the law.

              I grew up in a society where the social norms corresponded to the law as it had been before 1800, in a family where people acted as if the laws of 1800 were still in effect, and in my own family, the social norms of 1800 have prevailed despite a hostile outside society.

              Thus the proposition that we cannot simply turn the clock back to 1800 does not seem reasonable to me. It is like arguing that we cannot stop illegal immigration. One day Tony Abbot simply stopped illegal immigration, and that was that. There were some screams of outrage, but after the Tamil incident, everyone sullenly got into line.

              Turn the laws, and what is shown on television, and what is taught in school, back to 1800 – well pretty much all functional intact families are quietly eighteenth century style anyway. Who is going to make a fuss? A bunch of lesbians?

              Not a dog will bark.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Not everyone in Silicon Valley is a geek but most of them are and speaking of someone who is a reformed geek, geeks are not desirable to any woman anywhere as a mate even the rare geek girl doesn’t want one.

            Fixing that requires changing the culture of computer programming away from encouraging immature semi adults with Asperger like traits to normally functioning adults which is doable.

            Also a lot of very smart people neither want nor need wives nor have the time and energy for them. Being very smart is time draining and many of us would honestly rather spend extra time on line or with a good books than a woman,

            This is not just a product of noxious modern women but of biological gender differences in IQ and other things. For the very smart women are boring as hell and children are a cap shoot,

            Given the information out there in how women actually think (the Red Pill and the Black Pill if you’ll pardon my jargon) its only going to get harder.

            Future relationships will need to account for technology. Baring collapse the same basic tech that makes women’s work easier also means that men have less need of them.

            I don’t need a woman to do most of the things a woman might have done in the past since the amount of time she would spending doing them is low enough that it would take less time on relationship cultivation than to do the job myself.

            I don’t see that changing since the washing machine and vacuum cleaner aren’t going anywhere.

            Cooking is the one exception though I can do that if I must or eat out and any man you might be concerned about can.

            So cultural repairs need to take that into account, women offer little and that only for a short time and you don’t have artificial manhood markers to back up “wife, house,kids” its going to be a challenge If you want men back to the plantation.

            In a weird way the Cathedral is kind of right, it may end up being liberating for men and in time, assuming we can hold this abomination together we may end up finding out what the freedom brings. Nothing good I suspect.

            Oh and when the sex bots and VR get cheaper, Its game over.

            Also don’t assume men want to have that much power over women, Read Hitchhikers of Gor for what its like. All work, little gain.

            IMO the people that matter and ought to be of concern are the 120’s and 130’s who of they have healthy families and decent jobs are getting and staying married in numbers already. However many over-educated women, the Mid Wits do need to be encouraged to marry and stay married and we we absolutely need marriage reform.

            A last bit re: African extinction. So what?

            At most you can add some years to our cultures compared to theirs so long as we don’t screw the pooch and kill ourselves off In a longer term,Whites are going to be extinct too. Long enough term, the Universe ends.

            • jim says:

              Also don’t assume men want to have that much power over women, Read Hitchhikers of Gor for what its like. All work, little gain.

              Men want to have a household with a woman in it who cooks and cleans, gives them sex, gives them children, and changes the children’s nappies. That requires a hell of a lot more power over women than they now have. Not quite Gor levels, but tending in that direction. And women are surprisingly comfortable submitting to that level of authority. Women don’t really like to have agency. It is just a shit test. They think they want agency, because natural selection wants them to sort the real men from the boys – the real men being the ones who succeed in denying them agency.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          Jim, I agree with you re; women’s willing submissiveness to the natural role of wife and mother and to a degree shit testing. Most of them aren’t fit for nor do they desire much more than a strong caring husband with some status

          I’m not as sure about the men but again I’m not like most so my situation may be anomalous and I honestly have no idea how many men are dregs, geeks or just “low deltas” that might find and opting out better. It could be many or it could be few,

          If we get VR or Sex Bots especially ones that can cook and clean, this may change even more. Also re: children many people have 1 or two and are quite happy. Some have more, some have less. I wouldn’t count on men or women wanting enough for a baby boom.

          As for racial superiority, the one standard deviation we seem to have over everyone save Ashkenazim Jews and East Asians isn’t all that in the long run and might prove to be a detriment. we also don’t all have the insatiable will to power you might think. Most of us are happy with a modest family.

          Also re: peasants . You misunderstood me. You seem to me to be promoting a peasant society around mass natalism for genetic conquest or for kinder und kirsche or whatever

          This kind of thing is incompatible with rapid technological progress at the current technology level . Simply, progress is no longer easy and each action we take technologically may have bad side effects. In many ways we’ve only refined our tech since the 19th century and in others we’ve regressed

          The base assumption that we can have a highly fertile smart caste to lift us up is also highly unlikely. Smarts generally do not go well with fertility.

          As for a collapsed system , that happens. expect massive technological regression and in such a system even low IQ type sin numbers are a threat. Bette hope they die off faster than we do

          100% agreement that the current feminism/marriage system is toxic but what you miss is its not all of the cause Our tech matters and it changes things.

          Again you seem to avoid the issue of urbanization, there has never been a highly natal urban society that sustained it for a long time. In addition cities are always decadent and lower fertility. The one odd exception, the baby boom was closer to a baby delay and it wasn’t that high (3.08 isn’t that many it being .7 or .8 children above replacement) nor was iit sustained for long We certainly could try rural or more small towns but we can only support so many of those and if they grow, they become cities

          Simply, there is such a thing as social carrying capacity and the West has reached that limit even if it hasn’t reached its physical carrying capacity limit. i

          Now I will add that in theory if somehow we could get enough societies to embrace your ethos which I think is unlikely and we were willing to risk global war of conquest and were willing to engage in mass genocide (slave states work like tech and lead to decadence) we could do as you suggest. Conquer slaughter enrich. pretty difficult to get it to work though and such a civilization would be more Hunnic or Avar than Western.

          It will also not be Christian since Christianity forbid this kind of thing

          • jim says:

            As for racial superiority, the one standard deviation we seem to have over everyone save Ashkenazim Jews and East Asians isn’t all that in the long run and might prove to be a detriment. we also don’t all have the insatiable will to power you might think.

            Actually it is all that. It means that pretty much everyone in our elite is one standard deviation smarter than everyone in the elite of other groups (Officers of the Israeli army being a glaring exception)

            One standard deviation is huge. Across two standard deviations, it is difficult to regard the people you deal with as human. At a gut level, you inevitably regard them as dangerous apes that belong in the zoo.

            True, we don’t have the will to power. Unless, as in a well functioning society, power gets you pussy and a safe place to keep your wife and raise your children. And back in the days when power did that, we most certainly did have the will to power.

            You seem to me to be promoting a peasant society around mass natalism for genetic conquest or for kinder und kirsche or whatever

            I don’t see how you misunderstand me in this way. I want the smart and successful people in our society to be able to reproduce, the way successful peasant in a third world society is able to reproduce. There is something very wrong and unnatural that poor people in certain societies can afford wives and children a lot more easily than rich people in our society. If a successful peasant in the backwoods of Mindanao can afford two wives, a mistress, and eighteen children, a successful engineer in Silicon Valley pulling down 120000 a year should be able to afford a wife, three mistresses, and twenty five children. And if he cannot, there is something terribly wrong.

            Smarts generally do not go well with fertility

            Higher education does not go well with fertility.

            If you control for higher education, high IQ males in our society have substantially more children than low IQ males, and high IQ females do OK.

            Hence the need to roll back degree inflation. If we roll back degree inflation, reproduction will go strongly eugenic. Smarts will go with fertility.

            Also the need to roll back female choice. Given the choice, most women will spend their fertile years fucking lads who live by small time burglary, the occasional job folding sweaters, and sponging off their large harem of high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends, while patriarchs will tend to choose the guy making 120000 a year. So, like the successful peasant in the backwoods of Mindanao under patriarchy, the successful Silicon valley engineer under patriarchy …

            Again you seem to avoid the issue of urbanization, there has never been a highly natal urban society that sustained it for a long time.

            Urbanization did not stop the Japanese from breeding like rabbits. Female emancipation stopped the Japanese from breeding like rabbits.

            Yes, hard to reproduce in an apartment. Though nowhere near as hard to reproduce as without a stable and enforceable marital contract. But reproducing in suburbia is easy. The reason you have to go to the backwoods to see high fertility is that the Cathedral is emancipating all the women it can get its hands on, and it is easier for the Cathedral to get its hands on them in the cities. Any Silicon valley engineer that is reproducing usually went somewhere remote and socially conservative to find a wife – the backwoods of Canada or Alaska. Build more safe suburbs, put marriage and sex laws back to 1800, put the sexual rules of 1800 on television and the movies, we would shortly be seeing high IQ Silicon Valley engineers with eight legitimate children and twenty illegitimate children.

            And it would be easy to set the marriage and sex laws back to 1800. Recall that everyone said it was utterly unthinkable, insane, evil and absurd to propose ending illegal immigration. Tony Abbot ended it at a stroke. Viktor Orban ended it at a stroke. And it instantly became obvious that not only was it politically possible, but hugely popular.

            Similar, restoring the rules on sex and marriage to what they were in 1800 is not only politically possible, but would be hugely popular. Nobody genuinely wants the destruction of marriage, they are just frightened to dissent, just as no one wants the formerly white countries to become majority nonwhite.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        Colonialism is exactly what we don’t need and baring a truly massive African or Asian die off, it will not be feasible. technology spreads fast and that old adage “for we have the Maxim gun an they have not” isn’t the case anymore.

        We’d have to have an insurmountable technological edge which we don’t. Africans on average aren’t terribly smart but there are a lot of them, some as smart as anyone in the West and unless we’ve developed really advanced technologies, they can make us pay far too much. A few Nigerian spammers turn hackers could turn off our power grid and assuming that society created 1/3 as many smart people, that one alone would have as many as the UK or near Germany.

        I suppose some future regime could genocide the continent of course but we’ll end up with a wounded ecosystem in a continent that we are not biologically adapted for. White men do not for the most part thrive there and do not belong there.

        Sparta had other issues unrelated to the fact that women were the administrative class.It was as much related tot he fact that a man was near the end of his healthiest period before he was allowed to marry or really had resources The natural consequences of a militaristic slave state. I’ll also note that Athens , famed for high female fertility didn’t last forever either. All cultures die. All humanity will die. Valar Morghulis if you’ll forgive

        Also I think its highly unlikely the West baring an apocalyptic event will revert back to marriage 1.0 or to folk/culture based societies. I’m not sure men want it or more importantly can have it. Technology makes male labor increasingly obsolescent every year and this means we have no way for men to have wealth or status. No work, no quality babies.

        I haven’t seen a single reactionary deal with the job loss issue , namely that as computers get smarter, labor demand is either cheap slaves or much much smarter. The former is available but I wouldn’t blame anyone for opting out of that future and anyone with a decent IQ (in the triple digits) and the later is limited by biology and has a contra-reproduction trait as well even in marriage 1.0 The reasons for this are simpler than you think, it takes real effort to be smart and to make a living and this reduces the time/energy for family .

        In dealing with the issue of jobs to get to your society you’ll have to have enough force to control the economy, control how technology is used, control the flow of information (not too difficult) and create conditions where not only is work and wealth available to the common man but that they find that preferable to whatever tech offers.

        You want men to be harnessed to your ideological plow or be canon fodder for your abstract “West” for basically pussy and the the rush of being a working stiff. It doesn’t sound that much more appealing than what the Cathedral offers to be honest.

        We have porn and video games now with heavy cultural effects and in time I can’t imagine what VR and sex bots will do . Hell they might be able to cook, clean, defend the home and act as shrink. They can’t have children but hey exo-wombs or not even bothering or just have a tamagotchi AI kid or something.

        An apocalypse or a collapse is a different matter if that happens, probably driven by water, in half a century or so all bets are off.

        However till then, reaction will have to be smarter and will have to deal with the technology and not lot historical or complacency bias lead the way. History rhymes but it doesn’t repeat.

        • peppermint says:

          “spammers turned hackers”

        • peppermint says:

          You seem to be under the impression that niggers are good for something other than picking cotton under close supervision

          • A.B Prosper says:

            You seem to misunderstand human biodiversity.

            I think we all agree that Black people on average have lower IQ’s and less impulse control than Whites and Asians.

            However Africa has a population of `1.1 billion. Assuming that they produce 1/4 of the quality people and 1/10 of the geniuses that suggests that they have a potential “quality” population close that that of the US and a genius population potential about that of the the UK and Canada combined

            However social conditions, i.e the weight of mass numbers prohibits the limited pool from being of much use.

            That doesn’t mean of no use and anyone with an IQ about 65 or so can handle an AK or an RPG. We will never breed at a sustained rate enough to win that war.

            We can and will many battles, all of them maybe but very well could lose the war and if we make a mistake, overstretch, have domestic troubles nothings stops some other power from screwing us

            If the US for example has a civil war as it may, this may result in China taking parts of Japan and the Philippines or Russia or some neo-caliphate from going crazy.

            • jim says:

              You seem to misunderstand human biodiversity.

              I think we all agree that Black people on average have lower IQ’s and less impulse control than Whites and Asians.

              However Africa has a population of `1.1 billion. Assuming that they produce 1/4 of the quality people and 1/10 of the geniuses that suggests that they have a potential “quality” population close that that of the US and a genius population potential about that of the the UK and Canada combined

              Ignorant stupid nonsense. Is this the best that Cathedral propagandists can do?

              Look up the normal distribution.

              The mean for subsaharan African IQ is about 75 (American black IQ about 85, possibly due to white admixture)

              The minimum IQ necessary to operate in a modern economy without being closely supervised is 105. Looking at the normal distribution, this about one third of the white population – and about one fiftieth of the subsaharan black population, assuming blacks IQ is normally distributed, and blacks have the same variance as whites.

              The minimum necessary for smart jobs, for example low engineers and low level executives, is about 120. Ten percent of the white population can do this – and about one subsaharan black in ten thousand can do this, assuming blacks IQ is normally distributed, and blacks have the same variance as whites.

              The latter number reflects hyperexponential decay.

              The dark enlightenment is full of smart people. Your masters should have sent someone with half a brain.

              The proposition that there are millions of genius level blacks defies common sense and casual observation. But since you are not much impressed by common sense and casual observation, open up your excel spreadsheet and look for the statistical function NORMDIST

              Playing around with NORMDIST will help you to understand that though there is plenty of overlap between stupid tourists and smart bears, and stupid whites and smart blacks, there is no overlap between smart tourists and smart bears, nor smart whites and smart blacks.

              If you take a group that is half white and half black, and select the half that is smarter than average, that half will be disproportionately white. If you instead select the smartest one percent, that one percent will be entirely white.

              Hyperexponential decay is why poster girl female and black scientists are pretty stupid, and poster girl female pilots keep dying.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Let me add something to what Jim said, re: Sub Saharan African IQ . The IQ figures are generally assumed to be correct and I don’t think even better nutrition and health would result in more than a 10 point gain. If that.

            Quantity has a quality of its own

            From that great Cathedral mouth piece the Daily Stormer

            An IQ of 70 in adults, then, is equivalent to a mental age of about 11 years. This would make the normal range of mental ages found in Africa to be from less than 9 years to almost 14 years.

            Eleven-year-olds, of course, are not retarded. They can drive cars, build houses, and work in factories if supervised properly. Eleven-year-olds can even wage war—and do so in many parts of the world.

            Thus in a recent TV documentary on the wars engulfing the Dark Continent, Kalashnikov (the inventor, of the AK47, the famed Russian assault rifle), as well as a U.S. military expert, both said the AK47 was the weapon of choice in the Third World because it was so durable and so simple.

            In the latter`s telling words: “Even a child can learn to use this weapon.”

            We don’t have unlimited money or lives to waste and I don’t think we’d resort to genocide nor would the Chinese allow us to do it. and they are heavily invested there.

            Also while certainly the number of Africans capable of high order thought are much smaller than in the West or East they do exist and it does not require large numbers to mess up delicate systems.

            http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/it/the-african-hacker

            An example with more than a bit of Cathedral agitprop of course but a telling one.

            Yes there are very few good coders in Ghana or anywhere else in Africa but a tiny number of guys like that with an axe to grind could pull another OPM hack or screw around with a virus given by foreign handlers or plenty of other things. They don’t even have to do the heavy lifting.

            Nigeria is famous for cyberfraud for a reason. Not a lot of good hackers but we aren’t good at cyber defense and it doesn’t take a lot of them , You’d be a fool to assume that we will ever be able to repeat our failed colonial effort or that other won’t jump on or anything like that.

            hell Jim, by your own standards most of our own White population can’t maintain modernity. as such it needs to go since it cannot be sustained anyway.

            I honestly do not think that your restoration plan would even come close to granting Europe the power it had in the Colonial era. The distribution of technology make such conquests unlikely and there is no reasonable path I can see that we could become 1/4 of the human race as we were in the past, caveat a massive die off of the human race in which case the survivors will end up tribal and traditional and the tech will fall off anyway

            Also in case you are thinking it we are not going to get free “marry and reproduce” agitprop from Christianity. The .Orthodox countries have no significantly higher fertility rates than Western Christian ones or secular ones as such old Christendom is dead and its not going to be resurrected in the East

            More importantly we are not in a life or death competition with all of humanity. We can with good policy sustain our own lands and peoples and even tolerate a population adjustment till we are at carrying capacity.

            Where we are in trouble is with Cultural Marxism and with allowing foreigners to overrun us. Fix those and we fix what’s wrong with us.

            • jim says:

              Nigeria is famous for cyberfraud for a reason.

              Their cyberfraud entirely consists of poorly spelled email messages promising to give you large sums of money. There are no black hackers, none. Hacking requires IQ 135 and above.

              Blacks are incapable of harming us except we let them. We are capable of eradicating them without breaking a sweat or it costing us very much money.

              An individual black with a gun is almost as dangerous as a white man with a gun.

              An organized group of ten blacks with guns is insignificant compared to an organized group of ten whites with guns, because incapable of being very organized.

              An organized group of a thousand blacks with guns is just vermin to be eradicated to an organized group of a thousand whites with guns, because blacks just cannot organize on that scale.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            AB Prosper – you are completely innumerate.

            Comparing all of Africa with an IQ of around 70 and assuming a full 15 point standard deviation do you know how many 135+ IQ people there are on the whole continent? Around eight thousand. How about a hypothetical nation with an average IQ of 100 and thirty million people – how many 135+ IQ people are there in that nation? Around three hundred thousand.

            The continent of Africa has about the same number of 105 IQ people as a nation of 30 million people of European descent. Every point of IQ that you add increases the numerical advantage of the European descended people to the point where at 130+ the small 30 million person European has twenty (!) times as many people at or above that level of intelligence as all of Africa. 135+? 37 times as many.

            The “advantage” that Africa has is that it has ten times the population with an IQ of 80 and under – these are people in the United States that are considered far too dim to even serve as soldiers who do thinks like load artillery pieces.

            All this even assumes that the intelligence distribution for Africans is a continuous normal distribution and that the standard deviation is 15. If you use a lower estimate of 12.5 for the standard deviation the numbers look far far worse for Africa – with that estimate there are about 100-900 people in all of Africa with an IQ of 135+ (depending on if you use 70 or 75 as the African mean).

          • A.B Prosper says:

            To what Jim said, modern Colonialism presupposes that Whites have the will to do this. I am not sure of this and given our own history, if we do develop that urge we’ll probably turn on each other,

            I don’t want a repeat of the 30 years wars where half the population of Germany died.

            And while I generally agree that Africans can’t beat us in a fight, I’ll note that other than a sliver of Southern Africa we don’t control anything there and they are all over our lands, I’d call that a near African victory. As I said quantity has a quality of its own. It doesn’t matter if its self inflicted, if your opponent cuts himself on your sword, you still win

            In an absolute sense, you are correct they stand no chance against the West but simply, there is no real path we’ll take where we would want or need to take Africa nor that we’d wish to fight a proxy war with China. China could easily hurt us badly with nukes, germ warfare, African proxy armies and yes hacking.

            I think your assumption that we can top down by force or memetics change society to a much older less individualistic model, somehow advance in technology while a nation of peasants and than will have so many children we need to colonize Africa is absurd.

            Our previous dominance was a fluke and what I think can happen is we go back to our normal historical role , just one more nation often a rump nation but one capable of a true civilization.

            So long as we control our own lands , who cares about more than that . I see no reason for the “breed in poverty have kids die in a foreign adventure so some aristo can get rich ” cycle to continue. Fuck those people, they aren’t my betters and I owe them nothing.

            Better we keep what is ours, enjoy the good life and keep a wary hand on the proverbial sword

            • jim says:

              To what Jim said, modern Colonialism presupposes that Whites have the will to do this. I am not sure of this and given our own history, if we do develop that urge we’ll probably turn on each other,

              A society that is not decadent will first go for areas that that have poorly defended and under utilized resources.

              And then we will turn on each other if we don’t get into space in time. The progressive plan, however, is not life, but a too peaceful death. And it will not work. The white race will not be allowed to peacefully disappear. When whites become a market dominant minority, genocide will ensue.

              there is no real path we’ll take where we would want or need to take Africa

              We grow or we die. If we grow, we will want to take Africa.

              One way or another, we will return to patriarchy, either on the Pauline or Viking model. The way the wind blows, probably on the Viking model, as the west goes into a chaotic dark age. Population growth will then resume. Recent events in Europe give me hope we will not quietly disappear all holding hands and singing Kumbayah.

              And while I generally agree that Africans can’t beat us in a fight, I’ll note that other than a sliver of Southern Africa we don’t control anything there and they are all over our lands, I’d call that a near African victory.

              I would call that willful white suicide. We have a belief system that tells us we should die, and deserve to die, and power flows to those that preach and practice this belief system most enthusiastically. The holy compete each to be more holy than the other, and the holiest wind up ruling. Those that think this is the Zionist Occupation Government are wrong. It is worse than that because the belief system requires the Jews to die too, indeed to die first. Gaza and the Palestinian authority are suicide on the installment plan.

              we can top down by force or memetics change society to a much older less individualistic model, somehow advance in technology while a nation of peasants and than will have so many children we need to colonize Africa is absurd.

              You contemptuously dismiss breeders as peasants. Are you gay?

              If we don’t reproduce, we don’t care about the future. If we don’t care about the future, we are not going to advance technology.

              Our previous dominance was a fluke

              Our previous dominance was a result of racial superiority, rapid population expansion, patriarchy, the optimistic and energetic outlook that rapid population expansion causes and is caused by, and the high quality masculine leadership that patriarchy creates.

              Even today when the west hates and despises those who create technology (NASA shirt guy) the Chinese are dependent on western technology. What happens is that new technologies are developed in the west, but implementing them is deemed illegal, and is in any case despised and low status, so the developers emigrate to China and marry Chinese women.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            A.B.P.,

            Regarding the 30 Years War: Papists are not your friends. If you disagree with me, you might still have time if you rush, to catch the Vatican pontiff, the “papa” in Washington, D.C., leading a Spanish-language service.

            Aliens are aliens.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

        • jim says:

          Colonialism is exactly what we don’t need and baring a truly massive African or Asian die off, it will not be feasible. technology spreads fast and that old adage “for we have the Maxim gun an they have not” isn’t the case anymore.

          In battles between blacks and whites with equal or comparable technology, whites usually win in a ridiculously one sided fashion, for example the black battalions of the civil war do not have as single creditable battle to their history.

          Battles between Asians and whites are less one sided, but the early colonial history is of whites fighting Asians with comparable technology, and still usually winning in a one sided fashion. Clive of India’s technology was not markedly better than that of the Indians of his day. Both sides had the technology to equip every soldier with a gun. British guns of the time were not significantly better than Indian guns. (Both being so crappy that people tended to wind up whacking each other with swords)

          Superior people defeat inferior people if allowed to do so, as for example the Ashkenazi officered Jewish armies against Arab officered arab armies.

          Look at Zimbabwe. A handful of whites could reconquer it if allowed to do so.

          Current western weakness is social decay. A handful of western mercenaries can defeat a horde of Arabs. A handful of of Arabs can defeat a horde of the British army, perhaps because the British army views the status of women as a more important issue than the ability to win battles and attempts to fight wars according to police rules. Therefore a handful of western pirates could conquer Britain, after the fashion of the Norman conquests – which may well be how the left singularity ends.

          I suppose some future regime could genocide the continent of course but we’ll end up with a wounded ecosystem in a continent that we are not biologically adapted for. White men do not for the most part thrive there and do not belong there.

          Air conditioning and effective treatments for tropical diseases has extended the zone in which white men thrive. The tropics are now fine for whites. There is no longer any ecological niche in which negroes have an advantage. In the long run, they are going to be extinct. The only question is how soon.

          As Darwin predicted:

          At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

          Before air conditioning, or effective treatments for tropical diseases, this prediction was well under way. Today, there is nothing stopping it but social decay.

          • Dr. Faust says:

            “In the long run, they are going to be extinct. The only question is how soon.”

            How long are your predictions calculating for an extinction and why wouldn’t the population revert back to small tribes warring with one another?

        • jim says:

          Also I think its highly unlikely the West baring an apocalyptic event will revert back to marriage 1.0

          Ever leftwards movement is ever worsening social decay. An apocalyptic event is inevitable. Recent events have shown that the British army, and presumably most European armies, are incapable. So if we do not get male supremacy on the Pauline model, we will get it on the viking model.

          The only question is whether this happens before, during, or after the genocide of the native peoples of Europe.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”, that is a common mistake. The contest is not between pagan vikings and Christians Caroleans, it’s between Mahommedans and everyone else, who are mostly a Christian underclass forced there by the Cathedral and effete secularists who manage not rule over them.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Guest says:

            You are seem too harsh on the British. The army is still highly white, the best of the army is still entirely white. They are underfunded (so the most talented higher-ranks have left to private industry). Also, they have always lost their first couple of battles in wars, it takes time to adapt. Plus, they were very hampered by absurd rules of conflict. According to one story, they rekkied men loading a mortar in Iraq, but were forbidden from attacking them until they started firing.

            I don’t know much about Afghanistan, and would be very interested in why you see them as incompetent. But my personal experience suggests that they are quite capable of springing up from ashes if they received a good does of funding, and if the conflict was long enough to allow the meritorious officers to rise through the ranks, so that they start winning battles.

            I believe that if the UK gets swamped with immigrants, it’ll be the British army that will get the job of kicking them, and they’d do a fine job at it. I have seen such good examples of humor friendship and teamwork among the British that I am skeptical that they could be defeated easily, once they received the right level of funding.

            • jim says:

              Defeated in Basra, where they had plenty of time to adapt, defeated in Afghanistan, where they had plenty of time to adapt, and the utterly shameful and entirely contemptible Persian Gulf incident.

          • peppermint says:

            Guest: The British army would be great if the political apparatus would permit them to do their jobs.

            Jim: Story of the past few centuries.

            Margaret Thatcher: poofters and trots

            Queen Elizabeth II: thatcher is a meanie

            Peppermint: nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      We have plenty of land, and it’s easy to get around with transportation improvements A.B.P….

      Something else you might be overlooking is that women have a hard time letting go of their foreigner “pets” and they also have a hard time of getting themselves “back into the kitchen” and away from the lure of professional independence. So men would have to help them in both ways; it’s more connected than you might think.

      But to anti-whites the easiest point to make is the racial point. So let’s keep that argument going strong when discussing today’s situation to outsiders.

      A.J.P.

      • peppermint says:

        lure of professional independence

        once upon a time, being a house wife was considered liberation. It took decades of propaganda coupled with threats and empty promises built on Cucktian fables to convince women to seek professional independence, and they still can’t sit still in the professional world.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          Aye. Very true, This might have been the worst thing feminism did .

          I suppose in some sense the 1st gen feminists were correct, they have liberated men and women alike from gender roles. However this also liberated men from sustaining civil society.

          That was foolish.

  13. Erik says:

    What to do in a restoration: First we must assign blame. Let’s all holler “it was the protestants, it was the catholics, it was the jews, it was the cucktians, it was the academics, it was the betas, it was the feminists, it was technology, it was urbanization, it was the niggers, it was the communists” at one another as we engage in monkey shitflinging. /s

    For God’s sake, pull yourself together, people. Please try not to post generic comments that could fit in half the posts of this blog; they add nothing. I can point the finger at communists, either as example or blame, in response to practically anything Jim posts. This suggests that pointing the finger at communists is not contributing to the conversation unless I also include useful specifics that narrowly identify what the communists did and how. The way this is going, the comment section is turning into Fox News bitching about the commie muslim darkie president.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Erik” is a good, strong name. What’s this “Catholic” and Jewish sympathising really about?

      Trolling score: 0/10

      A.J.P.

  14. vxxc2014 says:

    Jim,

    Great post and completely agree.
    ==========

    Comments: The Hard Men aren’t usually sitting in leather seats at the Pentagon and are bound to obey orders – until they don’t.

    Please understand “until they don’t” is a one way journey to either end of career or perchance…victory or death. But it’s not an option lightly exercised. This isn’t a political party or a reddit thread, choices in the military have consequences.

    You can if a hard man mitigate and buffer the nonsense off your unit and that’s about all you can do. Good leaders do this and timeservers don’t.

    There is no shortage of Hard Men oh be assured. 14 years of war will do that.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      None of them are near power or keep their power level secreted away. The left rightly fears an American Pinochet because the left is a bunch of faggot holier than thou priests who hold influence through their giant empty dildo God of atheism and could be easily removed from their ivory universities if a cock swinging MOTHERFUCKER showed up and declared their rule over.

  15. Dave says:

    Jim, as you noticed, there a lot of engineers in Silicon Valley who earn over $120,000 a year and can’t get laid (or don’t dare try). Suppose I offered them jobs in the Philippines for $30,000 a year. Would they come, and could I get any work out of them when their balls are being expertly drained four or five times a day?

  16. Mark Citadel says:

    I think the rural areas will become Mad Maxian as federal authorities lose their grip and can no longer enforce laws, this coupled with an ongoing economic breakdown. The question is what happens to population centers. Chicago is going to become a cannibalistic baboon jungle.

  17. Dr. Faust says:

    “A robot cannot fold towels efficiently.”

    I guess it’s not a towel and it does depend on your definition of efficient but this robot folds a towel. It’s slower than a human but it also has no need for breaks or a wage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr7U9pQtwq8

    When people speak of automation they often think of humanoid robots serving your drinks at a bar but that type of automation is the last type that will happen.

    • jim says:

      It folds the shirt AFTER a human straightened the shirt out for it and carefully laid it out flat.

      Give it a laundry basket, it would have no hope.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        Give it time. Progress isn’t terribly fast as I’ve mentioned but we are making some strides in robotics, Also it doesn’t require robots to do everything to wreck the economy. Machines that replace welders or kiosks are plenty destructive to men or the family formation

        And Alan, re: Papists.

        I know,

        • jim says:

          A machine can only replace a welder if it is doing the same weld every time on the same part in same orientation. All such jobs were replaced a long time ago, and a welder still makes a pretty good living.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Agreed. However there is still less demand for welders overall which is what counts. The best example of this is the TV show “How its Made”

            its a very pro business show, extremely apolitical especially for a Canadian show , even shows shooting sports in a good light.

            However go look at pictures of a factory from say 1950 and than one on the show and you’ll see a lot less people doing skilled work or any work really. Thus you get wage deflation and less overall jobs.

            Still people doing things that machines can’t but less of them. This will increase every year and its a big problem.

            Taking a low wage example, food service, Kiosks and the current hamburger making machines though in actual use aren’t quite ready for replacing the staff 100% but each the this is done, you put pressure on workers wages.

            Do this too much and you won’t have a very good economy,

            • jim says:

              The proposition that automation threatens all jobs, or even a large proportion of jobs, is equivalent to the proposition that we are making progress towards AI.

              We have not been making progress towards AI since 1972.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            We actually have been making progress to utilities equivalent to AI for limited functions and quite a bit of it.

            We don’t need a full “man replacement” when we can just use a single purpose kiosk. And while yes we still need some accountants, we now can get rid of many of the lower end ones with tax preparation software and so on.

            Also no matter how anyone spins it, automation reduces the demand for labor and correspondingly wages, Thinking otherwise is simply complacency bias

            • jim says:

              This just is not true.

              Since 1972, have not been losing many jobs to automation. The great stagnation set in not when automation started displacing people, but when it stopped.

          • peppermint says:

            AI isn’t going anywhere because no one has a theory of what intelligence is, because few will dare to think about it.

            And also because it’s hard.

            • jim says:

              Actually intelligence is easy – we can program computers to play chess and stuff no problem. Anything that only humans can do, computers can probably do. The problem rather is consciousness. What a spider can do turns out to be rather hard. Partly because we cannot really explain what consciousness is or why it is useful. Artificial consciousness is hard. If people do not agree on what intelligence is, even less do they agree on what consciousness is.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          If you did know that then you’d have already made the conclusion that a counter-attack would be justified, A.B.P….

          A.J.P.

  18. Eli says:

    The key here is no mere pretense for orthodoxy, but orthopraxy — much harder to have in real life, unless truly systemic and done by eager non-hypocrites.

  19. […] Singularities and restoration (plus, the Cathedral isn’t ZOG). Private cities (1, and police. 2). Swimming right? […]

  20. B says:

    I had a hard time skimming the word soup about falling birth rates in the West.

    Lots of wailing about how whites can’t afford children because safe housing/schooling costs so much.

    Bullshit.

    Homeschooling is perfectly legal. I know people who do it in the US. No problem.

    The entire downshifting movement explains how you can live fine on minimal money in the US.

    Whites can’t afford children?

    Bullshit.

    They can afford their SUVs and their $5 crappucinos and $10 Chipotle burritos and latest iPhones and overseas vacations.

    They can afford insane student debt for degrees in digital self-exploration (while an engineering degree can be had for about $20K from community college for the first 2 years and state college for the last 2 years-that’s without financial aid. And if your parents make less than $70-100K per year, or you can keep up a reasonable GPA, or you’re willing to do a couple of years in the military, you can get a free ride, more or less, with living expenses included.)

    They can afford bullshit McMansions with $300K 30 year mortgages, an hour’s commute away from their jobs.

    They can afford to go out and drink $10 beer.

    This loopy broad is a typical representative: http://www.businessinsider.com/i-work-in-silicon-valley-for-a-6-figure-income-and-i-dont-have-nearly-as-much-money-as-you-think-2015-9

    Whites in America (except Mormons, Mennonites and the assorted nonconformists who don’t have their heads up their ass) don’t have children not because they can’t afford children. They don’t have children because they don’t want children. And that’s a good thing-if you’re too much of a solipsistic sheep to reproduce, you shouldn’t.

    Modern whites’ level of financial decision making is a notch above that of blacks, with microbrews and McMansions replacing grillz and spinnerz. Of course, just like the blacks blame whites for the end result of their piss-poor decisionmaking, the racially conscious whites blame the Jews, or the Cathedral or the blacks or whoever. It feels better than accepting responsibility.

    I notice our host, despite marrying young and holding down white upper-middle class jobs, managed to produce two children. He can tell you all about barramundi and hiring expensive lawyers to get you out of trouble gotten into by being an idiot and stuff like that, though. Eh?

    • A.B Prosper says:

      B.Most Whites aren’t anywhere near that well off. They are making maybe $12-15 an hour often less. A stable couple could if they were willing take a fiscal hit and bring up a child, maybe 2 in poverty. I’ve been poor, its far better to never have children than to allow them to be poor.

      Children are often not worth it for anyone with low to moderate income, impulse control and a 3 digit IQ who isn’t driven entirely by religion . The White trash doesn’t care but they are only half a notch better than the non Whites,

      Also note toon either LDS or Evangelicals have good retention and the LDS despite managing around 3 kids, outside of Utah isn’t growing. I don’t think Evangelical numbers really are either

      A personal anecdote, as it happens good number of my friends are LDS, all men have been on mission, many generally church going in their mid twenties , mostly men a few women. Only about half are married, one to a non church member and I think none have children and it is economically driven.

      You are in essence correct on the very wealthy but I think you a bit off that having children is the correct choice for most people in an urban environment. Its not and baring a religious revival, fertility rates will stay low.The urban population sink is a thing and among reasonably smart people, heck even dumb ones is pretty much inevitable. In Europe, after a generation even immigrants have less and less kids, That is why so many fertile foreigners get brought in, aside form treason anyhow.

      Also you kind of miss why someone might want to be well off in the West. we work hard to increase OUR standard of living, not our children’s and not to produce new soldiers, consumers and canon fodder for the elite. There is no point to having money if you don’t enjoy it on yourself.

      And despite bubble economies driven by debt, the Average American has percent GDP is half as wealthy as in 1973. Half.

      The old idea of working hard for your children is done and as many parents have learned, doesn’t lead to especially good outcomes anyway.

      Also re: two children. Yes many more couples could have two children, when the economy is functional it wouldn’t take very much to get it up to replacement. The ratio of births to 2 White parents is 1.7 to 1.8 most years dropping to 1.6 in the middle of what is a depression

      Hail To You (An HBD blogger) has the data

      https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/the-usas-total-fertility-rates-by-race-1980-to-2010/

      Its pretty grim, on par with Europe

      However the way you get fertility closer to replacement is not complex, 1st deport anyone and everyone you can. 2nd Marriage/Child Support reform 3rd an improved economy 4th education reform to a pro-natal should do the trick.

      However the might not make it much above replacement under any circumstances, As I’ve said before, we’ve reached limits on social carrying capacity and being highly urbanized, population shrinkage is inevitable.

      Also assuming we had say a stable population of around I don’t know 150-200 million in the US , why is this bad? So long as we manage our borders and stop feeding strays we should be fine.

      • jim says:

        B.Most Whites aren’t anywhere near that well off. They are making maybe $12-15 an hour often less. A stable couple could if they were willing take a fiscal hit and bring up a child, maybe 2 in poverty. I’ve been poor, its far better to never have children than to allow them to be poor

        1. I am not worried about the poor being unable to afford children. Anyone who cannot earn more than twenty dollars per hour is below IQ 105. I am worried about the rich not being able to afford wives and children – that the more assets you have, the better your career prospects, the more reason to fear women.

        2. Twelve to fifteen dollars an hour is not poor in the sense that one cannot afford to feed and clothe a wife, a mistress, and dozen kids. It is poor in the sense that one cannot afford to house a wife a mistress and a dozen kids in a safe suburb and cannot afford to educate a dozen kids. And the high cost of education and housing is entirely a result of politics – safety is not permitted, developing land is not permitted, everyone has to work close to revolving regulatory door, and academic degrees have been inflated so that even very stupid people who cannot possibly benefit from a college education have to spend four years in college.

        • B says:

          The majority of the US, geographically speaking, is places where you can rent a house for $800 per month or less. In a safe enough place. With decent schools.

          As for the rich not being able to afford wives and children because they are terrified of divorce, I am not really impressed with the argument. Divorce rates for the rich and educated are not that high, there are prenuptial agreements, etc.

          As I showed below, there are plenty of jobs that don’t require a college education and provide mid/high 5 figures.

          • jim says:

            The majority of the US, geographically speaking, is places where you can rent a house for $800 per month or less

            That is not where jobs are, in large part because of the need to be close to the regulatory revolving door.

            Divorce rates for the rich and educated are not that high

            1. That is because they are cautious. The more assets, the more one’s career has a future, the more caution. Which caution interferes with reproduction.

            2. Rich and educated men are reproducing – by marrying somewhat less rich, less educated, and more socially conservative women. Rich and educated women are not reproducing.

          • B says:

            Of course-who could ever a job in…Colorado Springs? Or Dallas? People there survive by raising turnips with rudimentary hand implements.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            B, I lived for decades in Colorado Springs, Its not turnip country but the economy there was never outside of government very good.

          • Dave says:

            “Rich and educated women are not reproducing.”

            Quite true. No woman has married out of my father’s family since 1923; my sister, aunt, and great aunt never married or had children.

            This means that the X-chromosomes of the rich and educated are wiped out in two generations. I hope there’s nothing important on those chromosomes, such as alleles for high IQ. This is easy enough to test: After adjusting male and female IQ to the same mean and variance, a man’s IQ should correlate more with his mother’s than his father’s. Does it?

          • B says:

            Sure, absolutely no work for plumbers, carpenters, heavy equipment operators or nurses anywhere near Colorado Springs. Robots do it all.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            B. If you are only concerned about a narrow section of the population, fine.

            Lets say the people best suited for “modernity” are people one standard deviation above baseline. That is only 25% of the population of Whites.

            Under those terms Colorado Springs and many other places do have jobs.

            However “the West” is not just made up of its 115+ IQ people but all of White people including the majority that are below that or who aren’t as high functioning or whatever . They matter more than the elite by any measure since they are almost all the race.

            However while there will be work for lumbers, carpenters, heavy equipment operators nurses and others for years to come, the issue is “Is there enough other work for everyone to keep wages for those groups high , to provide an economy for the rest of the people and those who don’t work in those trades.”

            Right now, apparently not It doesn’t appear that it been this way since the 1930’s and automation will make this worse.

            Assuming even the needful things re: regulation, immigration and the size of the State all that I think its the worst sort of complacency bias to assume that a conservative natal urban civilization can be maintained

            Also if you’ve written off 75% of your own people, they have no reason to support you over the Cathedral and it would be unwise to assume that the Cathedral can’t triangulate either.

            You want to win, you had better include Joe Six Pack

            A caveat here, a social collapse will change things, IQ will drop anyway (most smart people are in urban areas and will die) and after the die-off work rebuilding and reaving and raiding will be plentiful

            However that is the last I have to say about that.

            • jim says:

              You seem to have mixed up me and B.

              I am they guy who writes off two thirds of whites and ninety eight percent of blacks.

              You want to win, you had better include Joe Six Pack

              Historically, Joe six pack has never mattered. Revolutions have been made in his name, but he did not participate, except as conscript cannon fodder, nor did he benefit. When Jack Cade rouses the masses, he finds that they get distracted by looting the pub.

          • B says:

            >However “the West” is not just made up of its 115+ IQ people but all of White people including the majority that are below that or who aren’t as high functioning or whatever . They matter more than the elite by any measure since they are almost all the race.

            >However while there will be work for lumbers, carpenters, heavy equipment operators nurses and others for years to come, the issue is “Is there enough other work for everyone to keep wages for those groups high , to provide an economy for the rest of the people and those who don’t work in those trades.”

            I don’t know what you’re asking here. It doesn’t take an IQ of 115 to drive a truck or to be a basic mechanic. If your objection is that there are a lot of people out there too dumb to drive a truck or turn a wrench to make $40K per year, I don’t know what to tell you other than that rice and beans are cheap and nutritious, and Wal-Mart sells the necessities of life at rock bottom prices (and is full of plainly dumb people whose obvious inability to produce value doesn’t stop them from having kids.)

            For the 5th time-white Americans are not too poor to have kids. They just like $5 venti caramel-lattes and $25k vehicles more than they like kids.

            • jim says:

              For the 5th time-white Americans are not too poor to have kids. They just like $5 venti caramel-lattes and $25k vehicles more than they like kids

              Suppose you are a successful silicon valley engineer. Probably raised in a house in the safe suburbs, went to a good university.

              Now consider the cost of a house in the few remaining safe suburbs of Silicon Valley, and the cost of sending several kids to a good university.

              It is a physical fact that there are substantially less safe suburbs than there used to be in the vicinity of Silicon Valley therefore substantially fewer people can afford a house in one of them. The cost of a good university is rising, and the length of time you are expected to put in to differentiate yourself from all the morons at that university is increasing. Therefore, not going to reproduce.

              Joe sixpack is in fact in a better position to reproduce. His girlfriend is probably going to have her child supported by Uncle Sam the Big Pimp.

          • B says:

            >It is a physical fact that there are substantially less safe suburbs than there used to be in the vicinity of Silicon Valley therefore substantially fewer people can afford a house in one of them.

            The United States is full of places that are not Silicon Valley or NYC.

            >The cost of a good university is rising

            So is the amount and availability of scholarships, especially for STEM. Anyway, UW Seattle costs $12K per year, in-state tuition, sticker price (which nobody pays.) University of Iowa costs $9K per year. If your parents make less than $70K per year, you can get a full ride, no problem. If you can’t figure out how to swing that, you are too dumb to go to college.

            >and the length of time you are expected to put in to differentiate yourself from all the morons at that university is increasing.

            Bullshit. To differentiate yourself from the morons, take a hard major. Starting salary average for mechanical engineers (with a BS) is $70K. All my engineer friends got their degree in 4-5 years.

            >Therefore, not going to reproduce.

            Losers, therefore, not going to reproduce.

            • jim says:

              >It is a physical fact that there are substantially less safe suburbs than there used to be in the vicinity of Silicon Valley therefore substantially fewer people can afford a house in one of them.

              The United States is full of places that are not Silicon Valley or NYC.

              But your boss needs to be ever closer to the regulatory revolving door, and if your career is going to go anywhere, you need to be close to your boss.

          • B says:

            >But your boss needs to be ever closer to the regulatory revolving door, and if your career is going to go anywhere, you need to be close to your boss.

            As usual, it’s impossible to tell you anything, since you know everything already. Especially in areas where you do not know shit.

            For instance, you don’t know shit about manufacturing, which leads you to make idiot statements like the above. Fortunately, most of your readership knows nothing about manufacturing, having maybe “made” a WordPress website in their lives. So they don’t know any better-but I do.

            Example: Iowa. Iowa is bumfuck nowhere, full of nice wonderbread people. 3 million people. Houses go for maybe $150K for a nice one in a “major” city. Iowa has the headquarters for Rockwell Collins, plus over the river there’s John Deere. Massive manufacturing companies, with huge manufacturing supply chains in the area, thousands of shops, lots of work for engineers and tech guys.

            Texas is also full of nice white people and industry.

            Etc., etc.

            “But white engineers can’t possibly live in Texas or Iowa!” Right, because all that’s available there is Starbucks, not Peet’s. Also the barramundi is always frozen.

            Come on, GTFO.

            • jim says:

              White engineers have trouble living in Texas and great difficulty living in Iowa, because there really are not many jobs for them, and getting fewer every day.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Why are you concerned about race? The United States still has plenty of white people!”

            For some reason when an anti-white opens his mouth, he ends up sounding just like every other anti-white…

          • B says:

            >White engineers have trouble living in Texas and great difficulty living in Iowa, because there really are not many jobs for them, and getting fewer every day.

            Again, bullshit. Even Iowa, with 3 million people, is home to 3 large advanced John Deere factories, with another two over the river, plus 20K Rockwell Collins employees cranking out advanced electronics, plus an ecosystem of contract manufacturers for them.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_Collins#Advanced_Technology_Center
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Deere#Factories

            If you are an electrical/software/mechanical engineer and you can’t get a job in Iowa or Texas, something is wrong with you. Here are thousands of listings.

            http://www.indeed.com/q-Mechanical-Engineer-l-Iowa-jobs.html
            http://www.engineerjobs.com/jobs/iowa/
            http://www.indeed.com/q-Mechanical-Engineer-l-Texas-jobs.html
            http://www.engineerjobs.com/jobs/texas/

            You live in some alternate reality.

      • B says:

        $12-15 per hour is what unskilled labor (for instance, moving helpers) make. At 18 years old I was getting $12 per hour humping furniture. Would have made $15 with a Class B CDL, and of course

        The average plumber makes $50K per year officially, which assuming 50 weeks a year and 50 hours per week is $20 per hour.

        The average carpenter makes $45K per year. Ditto average HVAC. Ditto average truck driver. Ditto heavy equipment operator.

        Assuming the wife works part-time and pulls in $15-20K, that’s $60-70K per year.

        If you can’t do alright on that, you’ve got something wrong with you, man. And those are all jobs that you don’t need more than a year or two at a community college, or an apprenticeship, or a basic school for. If you get a 4 year degree in something useful, like nursing, an RN makes an average of $65K per year.

        I have a neighbor in Israel raising a family with 5 kids on $2000-2500 per month, plus whatever he can make on the side. He and his wife have two functional cars. They live in a house he largely built himself. The kids are fed, clothed, behaved and literate (except the toddlers.) Nobody is starving or raggedy. Food prices here are a bit lower, gas and car repairs and electronics cost double that of the USA, there are no tax rebates that I’ve seen.

        Again-the Starbucks’ in America, even in podunk towns, are full, selling $5 crappucinos. The parking lots are full of trucks and SUVs getting 18mpg.

        The first step is to stop lying to yourself. If that’s too hard, at least don’t blow smoke up my ass.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          When were you 18 years old?

          Anyway the median wage in the US per person is $26,695 with the median household income being about 50k , just a shade under $1,984.49 in 1969 terms or 1.91.

          The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60

          http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income/

          Its a somewhat higher for Whites than other races and higher for skilled and semi skilled trades of course but many people get by on not a lot of money

          Try again and take your “bootstraps” and eat them

          Pretty much all income gains have been at the top and the people who have restricted the number of children they have are behaving sensibly. They correctly calculated the opportunity costs and limited the numbers of children they have.

          This is over one lifetime the right thing to do and with immigration control the correct thing over a few generations.

          • B says:

            I was 18 in 1999. Those were the wages in the Midwest.

            History did not start in 1960.

            In terms of the amount of food, comfort, transportation, medical care, educational materials or tools that $50k buys, Americans are much better off than they were 80 or 120 or 180 years ago. They don’t have kids because they don’t want them.

            Bootstraps-there is nothing to stop a man from working two jobs and or goin to school to increase earnings. Seen it, done it, doing it now.

          • red says:

            >In terms of the amount of food, comfort, transportation, medical care, educational materials or tools that $50k buys, Americans are much better off than they were 80 or 120 or 180 years ago. They don’t have kids because they don’t want them.

            Americans are not having kids because Jewish created propaganda that having kids is bad is being shoved down our throats. However, your point about money is correct.

            >Try again and take your “bootstraps” and eat them

            There are Americans who are having kids. In fact the only person in my circle of childhood friends to have kids dropped out, is unemployed, uses drugs and has 7 kids from 4 different mothers. A successful friend of mine gave up looking for a virgin to marry and intentional knocked up a single mother just so he doesn’t have to die alone. He knows the girl will eventually split and he’ll be stuck with child support, but better that than nothing. The rest of my friends have given up on the idea of having kids. Either they can’t find a women suitable for marriage or they bought the propaganda.

            We’re suffer from Cathedral inspired Jewish produced degeneracy which is killing birthrates and family formation. We’re almost back to the levels that Jewish dominated Weimar produced:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2847643/Berlin-liberal-hotbed-homosexuality-mecca-cross-dressers-transsexuals-male-female-surgery-performed-Nazis-came-power-new-book-reveals.html

          • B says:

            >Americans are not having kids because Jewish created propaganda that having kids is bad is being shoved down our throats.

            When blacks blame crime and failure on nefarious mind control by more intelligent whites, they’re stupid losers. When whites blame crime and failure on nefarious mind control by more intelligent Jews, they’re…wait, we no longer have analogies on the SAT.

            Let me fill you in there, Cletus McWhitePride. The eugenics movement, birth control agitprop, these are all WASP things, largely directed against ethnic whites, who were perceived as a threat, what with their tenements, Catholicism/Judaism and fecundity.

            Margaret Sanger was not Jewish. Charles Knowlton was not Jewish. Annie Besant was not Jewish. The Fabians were not Jewish. The Rockefeller Foundation was not Jewish:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Knowlton
            http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/health/family-planning

            This is a WASP shitshow. Of course, it takes talent to create propaganda, so they outsource it to conversos. Whom are they gonna hire, your doper friend with the four baby mamas?

            >There are Americans who are having kids. In fact the only person in my circle of childhood friends to have kids dropped out, is unemployed, uses drugs and has 7 kids from 4 different mothers. A successful friend of mine gave up looking for a virgin to marry and intentional knocked up a single mother just so he doesn’t have to die alone.

            It’s the Jews’ fault we losers, dawg! They be oppresin us 24/7!

            In actual Judaism, which actual Jews believe, non-Jews are not even allowed to use birth control or non-procreative forms of sex.

          • B says:

            my answer is waiting for moderation

  21. A.B Prosper says:

    You know B, I think I have to agree with your notion that White Americans do prefer $5 lattes to children. I also agree with Jim in that much of this is caused by cultural shifts re: the value of family/divorce etc.

    I’m not sure this is the wrong way to think however , caveat immigration. Kind of the point of building cities is to offer more individual opportunity. Cities tend to suck for child rearing even when they aren’t multi-cult hellholes. I’ve grown up in both and in suburbs I’d far rather my kids grow up in an exurb like like I spent most of my childhood in than go near suburbs or worse cities, I’ve haven’t tried a small town though, a homogeneous, White small town might not be too bad if the people there were decent and there was work.

    Also the elite (and I’m not lumping anyone here among them) tend to have a bit of an entitlement complex in that they think others should live for the common good while they live for themselves . Most people are in fact wealthy enough to indulge a bit and ought to. Given that wages as percent GDP have been halved since 1973 , if the elite want people to be able to choose both family and self they had better find a way to get wages back up.

    Of course them being who they are, the Left prefer a few status signalling pets to keep an everyone else to die off . The Right aren’t as evil, just egalitarian idiots but again they don’t want to actually pay for things so they support wage arbitrage,

    Of course then everyone starts complaining about smart people doing exactly what is expected of them , i.e being a careful rational consumer who avails themselves of family planning. Some people never learn.

    At least the people here who are complaining are doing so with the actual conservative , well these days reactionary, view of a healthy family focused society and how people should be acting.

    I suspect it futile in any event but at least the ideas here are mostly, occasional blind spots aside coming from sound grounds. These are actually good ideas unlike the rest.

    An red, B is right, Yes Jewish people were involved in the BS in large numbers but the Cathedral is thoroughly a WASP thing and in my opinion essentially an Age of Reason Christian Heresy

    In places its very very Christian in its DNA.

  22. ReactionaryFerret says:

    “Deflate academic credentials, with the school leaving exam, taken at the age puberty begins, discriminating between those above and below IQ 105, and the school matriculation exam (high school, taken at completion of puberty) discriminating between those above and below IQ 115. University entrance begins at IQ 125.”

    By which scale? That seems awfully high for WAIS and S-B, but just about right for Cattell

    • peppermint says:

      oh my god, stop quibbling. Most people see 115 and think one standard deviation above 100, so think whatever one standard deviation is on your scale.

    • jim says:

      Perhaps it would be less confusing to indicated intended proportions.

      One third take and pass the school leaving exam (taken at start of puberty)

      One in six take and pass the high school matriculation exam (taken when puberty is substantially complete)

      One in twenty enter university

      One in forty graduate university.

      All jobs have a path to entrance that does not require academic accreditation – often apprenticeship/internship.

      The majority of jobs, all the low level jobs, and a significant proportion of the high level jobs, are filled by people who left school at the very start of puberty.

      The man who believes all men are equal, attempts to school the masses to make them equal, fails, decides more schooling is needed.

      The vast majority of people in college today are wasting everyone’s time while being indoctrinated in moronic leftism.

      If we gear high school to the top third, the top third will know classical physics, algebra, calculus, history, geography, and all that stuff, which is a lot more than most of them need to know.

  23. […] we have What to do in a restoration, which is really a Chapter Two to the Left Singularieties […]

  24. Corvinus says:

    “Science died when peer review was introduced in the nineteen forties, and in the seventies, technology began to follow.”

    That is observably false. Peer review, while experiencing significant flaws due to competing corporation interests, remains a standard bearer in research.

    “Confiscate the Ivy endowments, and completely destroy Harvard, totally bulldozing every trace.”


    Pie in the sky. You and Harvard have something in common, after all.

    “Deflate academic credentials, with the school leaving exam, taken at the age puberty begins, discriminating between those above and below IQ 105, and the school matriculation exam (high school, taken at completion of puberty) discriminating between those above and below IQ 115. University entrance begins at IQ 125.”

    

IQ is overrated. Besides, people have the liberty to decide what occupation to pursue, whether it be trade school, tech school, or college. 
Your proposal is an affront to liberty.

    “We cease to force people to waste their fertile years in zero sum competition for credentials of little value.”

    

By forcing people to see value in having children even if they are not prepared to have children. Ironic.


    “…to create an expectation that completion of puberty means getting a job, a wife, and having children.”



    That is not an expectation, you making it a demand. Not surprisingly at the expense of individual liberty.

    “that a man and a woman could make a contract to stick together and raise their children, and be socially and legally forced to stick to it”

    Tell that to the Roissy’s of the world, who actively promote the single lifestyle.

    “If either party may withhold sex or reproductive sex at any time for any reason or no reason, then either party may cancel the marriage at any time for any reason or no reason, which is a profound deterrent to having children.”



    More coercion and force. You sound like Stalin.

    “Patriarchy is also necessary for marriage.”



    That’s observably false.

    • jim says:

      “Science died when peer review was introduced in the nineteen forties, and in the seventies, technology began to follow.”

      That is observably false.

      Oh come on.

      Peer Review is the opposite of science. Instead of “Take no ones word for it” we take the word of secret and anonymous comittees meeting behind closed doors and making decisions on the basis of secret, and quite possibly nonexistent, evidence. Consensus is what religious synods of Bishops do, not what scientists do. And, predictably, peer review has not given us scientific progress, but theology.

      By forcing people to see value in having children even if they are not prepared to have children.

      How does the proposed system force people to do anything?

      Cheap housing and shorter periods of credential acquisition are opportunity, not coercion.

      The most immediate effect is it allows them to start earning money as soon as they hit puberty – thus gives them the opportunity to marry and have children. It also makes housing and educational credentials cheap, thus lowering the cost of children. And patriarchy makes it hard to get nailed without getting married, and once married, have the opportunity to safely have children.

      Tell that to the Roissy’s of the world, who actively promote the single lifestyle.

      The Roissy lifestyle is an accommodation to female power. On the PUA forums you always see debates of the form

      “My girlfriend is secretly checking out guys on e-harmony. What do I do?

      and the PUA experts reply

      “She does not belong to you. So spin some more plates.”

      Men want to own women. And women want to be owned. Natural selection made us like this because it is difficult and dangerous to reproduce otherwise. We are all descended from men who owned women and women who were owned, thus descended from men and women who liked it that way. Or maybe God created Eve as a help meet for Adam. But neither men nor women can get what they truly want, because each cheats on the other, creating a defect/defect equilibrium.

      When men have power, they don’t put all the women in a big brothel and share them. When women have power, they put themselves in a big brothel and share themselves.

      That is why we need patriarchy to make marriage work – you can see it every PUA forum, the frustration and bitterness of their inability to own women.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Peer Review is the opposite of science.”

        Peer review entails a rigorous process. If anything, blame the individuals driven by corporations who have a financial stake in research. But the process in and of itself is

        “Instead of “Take no ones word for it” we take the word of secret and anonymous comittees meeting behind closed doors and making decisions on the basis of secret, and quite possibly nonexistent, evidence.”

        Your ignorance and arrogance proceed you. There is nothing secret about the procedures. The evidence is for everyone to scrutinize—that being the actual study, which is standardized.

        “Consensus is what religious synods of Bishops do, not what scientists do. And, predictably, peer review has not given us scientific progress, but theology.”

        The consensus is whether the scientists agree the process has not been compromised.

        “How does the proposed system force people to do anything?”

        You are compelling people to have children who have chosen not to go that route.

        “Cheap housing and shorter periods of credential acquisition are opportunity, not coercion.”


        The manner in which those ends are achieved through compulsion.

        “The most immediate effect is it allows them to start earning money as soon as they hit puberty – thus gives them the opportunity to marry and have children.”

        
Assuming the opportunity for people is to marry and have children.

        “It also makes housing and educational credentials cheap, thus lowering the cost of children.“

        You have no idea as to whether your proposal will lead to those results.

        “The Roissy lifestyle is an accommodation to female power.”

        The Roissy lifestyle runs counter to men who, as the alleged higher moral agent, refrain from having sex outside of marriage. Single men and women who have sex outside of marriage are committing sin.

        “Men want to own women. And women want to be owned.”

        Corrected for accuracy—Men and women want to work together to own a relationship.

        “We are all descended from men who owned women and women who were owned, thus descended from men and women who liked it that way.”
        
IF one believes in that particular brand of faith.

        • jim says:

          “Peer Review is the opposite of science.”

          Peer review entails a rigorous process.

          Peer review is consensus established behind closed doors. Plenty rigorous for those outside the closed doors. Human nature being what it is, not going to be rigorous inside the closed doors.

          You are compelling people to have children who have chosen not to go that route.

          How compelling? The proposals merely give the opportunities to have children that progressivism denies. In particular, and most importantly, freedom of contract, that a man and a woman can contract to stay together.

          “It also makes housing and educational credentials cheap, thus lowering the cost of children.“

          You have no idea as to whether your proposal will lead to those results

          Oh come on. What is expensive is not suburbs, but safe suburbs. We know how to supply safety everywhere. And as for education, what makes education expensive is zero sum competition for ever more inflated credentials.

  25. […] Hence my program “What to do in a restoration“. […]

Leave a Reply