Republicans voters losing interest in voting.

Recently there was a big upset in formerly Republican safe seat, and Democrats told themselves it is because Trump is such an ultra extreme right winger who hates women.  And now another close result in a formerly safe seat looms.  Trump won Arizona by 21%, yet Republicans are in danger of losing in Arizona.  Is this because Trump the president revealed himself to be far more racist, sexist and right wing than Trump the candidate?

Well, that is what the Uniparty would tell us, but it is obviously false.  Further, the uniparty is leafleting the state with leaflets telling people it is their duty to vote to support democracy and all that, which reveals that Republicans are failing to vote because recent events reveal that no matter who you vote for, no matter what you vote for, you get ever lefter policies.

Americans voted for a wall.  Republicans voted for a wall.  If no wall, no point in voting.

229 Responses to “Republicans voters losing interest in voting.”

  1. […] from his theme of voting last week, Jim opines that Republican voters are losing interest in voting. This is a shorter offering, so you really have no excuse for not […]

  2. Anonymous Fake says:

    To those who doubt my urban theory, look at this. Oil consumption per capita by country.

    The US could nearly cut oil consumption per capita in half, like Japan (and France and Italy do fine with even less), a far nicer country by white man standards than America itself. The reason the establishment fights, literally fights, tooth and nail to keep America gorged on oil is so suburban based white dispossession can continue.

    Shale oil production is very aggressively encouraged even when it’s obviously not very profitable for the quasi-private companies that produce it. Tesla isn’t remotely profitable at all, but the cult of the car must continue.

    • jim says:

      You have this backwards.

      Obama was trying to force white males out of flyover country into the big bicoastal centers. That was the whole point of the Paris Treaty.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        How did the shale oil boom happen with Obama, then? Why did it continue after 2014’s oil price collapse, even when it wasn’t even profitable before? And what’s with all of Elon Musk’s weird stunts when he can’t turn a profit and he even jokes about bankruptcy? Somehow he always find angels and unicorns who want him to keep up appearances.

        It’s the suburbs. Dumping too much diversity into the suburbs would force whites back into cities. It was definitely done, but not too much at once.

        • jim says:

          Shale oil boom happened despite increasingly drastic efforts by Obama to prevent it.

          It happened entirely on privately owned oil land that had already secured permits to extract oil before Obama took power.

  3. Anonymous Fake says:

    Look at how much the left used to lionize blue collar factory workers and labor unions. What they were actually seeing was the value of population density, which declined due to automation. Now, people head to the cities for sexual appeal, so the LGBTWTFBBQPBJ’s are now the most prized political bloc and the factory proles are outer party conservative losers.

    That’s what the green movement is actually about. The solution to pollution is dilution, from a strictly naive material view that engineers and accountants see best, but decentralization is the actual agenda. Long, complex supply chains from sprawled out little shops and power sources like wind and solar simply do not lend themselves to mass political power like an old aluminum smelter powered by a coal plant. Or better yet, a hydroelectric plant.

    Labor unions themselves are exposed as pointless parasites that were feeding off density in the first place. Conservative political parties are in the exact same position since the post-1960’s white flight, and eventually voting for them to accomplish anything is going to be seen as quaint as going on strike to be treated fairly by management.

    • peppermint says:

      No, idiot, the factory workers were useful because they could be whipped up into communism they didn’t care about in the course of labor negotiations they did. Anti-Whites took over the unions in the 40s with accusations of White chauvinism. If you don’t know what happened to labor unions since the 60s, I don’t know what to tell you.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Automation. Suburbs. Television and internet and other fake interactions which are just like voting except even more pointless. Cities now exist just for sex and politics, and the two are increasingly mixed. Even dindu ghettos become gentrified by queers and lose influence.

        There simply isn’t a techno substitute for proximity, and the right hasn’t figured that out since the 60’s. The only substitute for sex might be extreme hallucinogenic drugs, VR, and robots, but that isn’t here yet and probably not at all. There’s too much money in pretending to be against drugs.

        Dispossession of political proximity and the birth control pill are the death of the West. Migrants too stupid to use birth control are just filling in the vacuum.

        • peppermint says:

          By the way, don’t disparage cannabis, or call it by its mexican, nigger, or hippie names. Disparage Boomer drugs like viagra and the new opiates Boomers use under the Boomerist medical philosophy of pain management, and drugs like SSRIs used for unclear reasons under bizarre shamanistic Boomer philosophy of the brain (need a better term for philosophy of the brain). Don’t forget to remind people of the time progressives tried banning alcohol by having women say “lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine”, which is every bit as slutty and retarded as “will trade racists for rapists”.

          You want open proximity? Defend implicitly White things from proggers who talk about the unbearable Whiteness while quietly telling people inside those implicitly White spaces that the proggers are coming for them and not to be a cuck. Do you know how many people who were into implicit White stuff have deactivated their Facebook accounts in the past year?

          We are under occupation. We can have victory parades after we cuck the kikes sex war now.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            I’m a full reactionary with regards to trash like drugs. Anti-drug laws should be enforced by poor celibate monks who don’t have an economic incentive to go full retard or play the other side, like Puritan based drug laws which eventually lead to a libertarian backlash and then a society that looks like China during its opium crisis century. Yes, libertarians are fake opposition.

            But the occasional monk bought a bit too much wine with his indulgence money, so religious courts had to swept away by the reformation retards. Corruption in reality increased, but it didn’t matter. Big republican government was a done deal at that point.

            • peppermint says:

              No one but Iraq-invading Boomercons want cannabis banned. Politically, cannabis acceptance is how we signal that Boomer libertarians are right and Boomer neocons are garbage.

              Theoretically, if reactionary means traditionalist, cannabis wasn’t in the Western world prior to the 19c and was banned in the 20c by puritans, which politically we hate. If it means elitist there is no reason for A national government ban, unlike opiates, which have been documented to destroy lives everywhere, which is why Boomers love them so much. SSRIs meanwhile are given to unhappy people basically because of the philosophical deficiencies of Boomerism.

    • peppermint says:

      Why did the left talk up labor unions?

      Communism: there are two classes, The Poor and The Rich. The Rich stole everything from The Poor and use race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, to divide and control The Poor. Hello fellow Poor, let’s force The Rich to give all their stuff to the poorest of The Poor.

      There’s been a lot of debate about the middle class. Revilo Oliver said the middle class, with clear title to land, had already been destroyed decades ago. The middle class for our purposes is the White working class. This definition makes much more sense than commie whaargarbl. White collar and blue collar is a rivalry, not a difference, because people can and do change collars.

      The faggots are prized because they are politically reliable, an insult to the middle class, and fun for Boomers and catladies to virtue signal about. I would suggest to young conservatives with enough autism to larp as a faggot to get up in leftist organizations and spill their data and wish I had done that myself.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Faggots were nasty, disease spreading degenerates when other factions had economic reasons to live in cities. The bourgeois are nowhere near the cities because they’re too interested in pretending to be real estate experts in the flyover fringes. They believe everything taught in school because good schooling leads to good real estate values. They’re buggy.

        Leftists organizations in the Cold War had a lot of real structure due to Russian influence. Today, they’re rather in place by default due to the left’s monopoly over urban life. They’re just there. They don’t have to sort out hierarchy and loyalties and so on because everyone physically involved in the organizations is already a leftist.

        Communism was actual leftist organization, and what we see is that it disappears when simple neoliberal urban control is in place. It’s a waste of energy. It was useful when the right also lived in cities and was willing to fight in the streets, but it’s obsolete now.

        • peppermint says:

          White collar workers have two hour commutes in both directions because they want to real estate speculate in good schools instead of having communities. Got it.

          • jim says:

            Not so. They have two hour commutes because they do not want their kids beaten up by diversities.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            They could try building functional cities of their own if they won’t hold onto existing ones. Prole real estate is ironically designed to look “classy” instead of plainly useful. It’s all about appearances, especially those granite counter tops and decorative fireplaces and chemically enhanced lawns. The commute is a price to pay for the pretense and bad taste.

            There are even subdivisions that won’t allow actual working man trucks parked out front. You have to have the right kind of truck, you see, those quad cab yuppie trucks. The wrong personal transportation belongs in the garage where the homeowners association people can’t see it.

            Schools are the same thing, all about appearances. Most people don’t really care about their kids getting beat up or not, or what they’re learning in school. What they do care about is a nice looking school with impressive standardized test scores, and they don’t give a flip that college is now worthless and suspiciously high scores usually just mean cheating. It’s all about looking good for the real estate prices.

            • pdimov says:

              >Most people don’t really care about their kids getting beat up or not


              Whence do you draw this experience of yours?

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                Reality. The bourgeois are more afraid of expensive lawsuits than bumps and bruises. In fact, proles who don’t even think about lawsuits might be more sensitive about getting into fights than the SWPL’s. Blue collar types want to avoid outright underclass behavior.

                • pdimov says:

                  OK, bourgeois this, proles that, but do you know actual people who don’t care whether their kid is beat up in school by blacks?

                  >What they do care about is a nice looking school with impressive standardized test scores

                  Haven’t you figured out yet that this is the socially acceptable way to say “white” without being labeled racist? Even I know that and I’m not American.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        “I would suggest to young conservatives with enough autism to larp as a faggot to get up in leftist organizations and spill their data”

        I’m not even saying this is a good idea. It is however an inevitable idea. When the Left started to fight dirty by doxing and ruining people’s lives it inevitably created a niche for bad actors on the Right to do just that.
        If I were the type, which I’m not, I’d be ratting on them for drugs first and foremost, but where applicable also ratting on them for infidelity and (especially) statutory rape.
        There are rich pickings to be had for a rat amongst the vermin.

        Again, I’m neither recommending nor contemplating any such thing, but it’s inevitable that some douchebag will make betrayal into a virtue.
        They literally did it to themselves and it’d be a miracle if no disillusioned doxee’s buddy decided to try something like this.

  4. pdimov says:

    Asians can protesting.

    So maybe this Anonymous Fake guy’s got a point after all.

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      Individualistic camo wearing gun nuts are despised, even when they form “militias” and go LARPing, while collectivist Koreans were the heroes of the LA riots, and this was during a time of bad sentiments towards Asians due to the Japanese asset bubble causing massive capital flows into America instead as a safer alternative.

      For a more familiar and Western example, look at the Orange marches. Even when they pretty much exist just to piss off Catholics and cause problems, the organization and uniforms are impressive enough to allow them to continue. Even explicitly anti-authoritarian soccer hooligan clubs can get away with a bit of controlled anarchy!

      It’s like the results of the Milgram experiment, cranked up to 11 because it’s an entire crowd wearing an authoritative costume and displaying mass confidence. People can be convinced to do anything ridiculous due to this, and even those aware of the absurdity participate anyway based on the handicap principle.

      • peppermint says:

        ignore race = sound like a moron

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          Ignoring location, location, location = sound like an imbecile, in less politically correct times the grade below moron. As long as conservatives are a sea of light pink surrounding deep blue islands, they’re impotent and demented no matter what their ideology is. They can take the same ideology, like gun ownership, and if they moved to the cities it could turn from being redneck fringe culture to virtuous vigilante culture overnight.

          There’s no utility in living in sprawling individualism unless you’re actually an early American colonist or a settler on Mars. New idea or even old ideas for a new consciousness demand population density and uniforms. If whites STILL failed for some reason, despite having a Manhattan of their own and a matching prestige costume, THEN it’s time for the Rahowa or whatever they want to call it. Until then, they can get their act together.

          • jim says:

            On the contrary, deep blue means that the votes of rapeugees and criminals are wasted.

            This is exactly what we want, and the reason why the Obama regime was smashing productive jobs for white males in flyover country, to force white males out of marginal electorates in flyover country into the big city.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              Dit soort dingen bespreek je niet in het Engels…

              • peppermint says:

                dirt soot dings are spoken not in heterosexual english? So you’re saying that only faggots discuss filth all day and true normal conservatives ignore such unpleasantness? Sure. Discussions here are not for the dining table. Politics hasn’t been for family situations in pretty much a century.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  dirt = vuil
                  soot = roet

                  dit = this
                  soort = kind

                  Dutch has two definite articles, “de” for animates, “het” for inanimates. Animate/inanimate distinction is also found in Ojibwe, Cree e.a.

                  Haec res non disputandae oculis ceteris est.


                  The Lardil had two initiation ceremonies for men, namely luruku, which involved circumcision, and warama, which involved penile subincision. There were no ceremonies for women, although women did play an important role in these ceremonies, especially in the luruku ceremony.

                  It is sometimes said that Damin was a secret language, but this is misleading since there was no attempt to prevent the uninitiated members of the Leerdil tribe from overhearing it. However it was taught during the warama ceremony and, therefore, in isolation from the uninitiated. At least one elder is known, who, though not having been subincised, had an excellent command of Damin, but this seems to have been a unique case.

                  Damin lexical words were organised into semantic fields and shouted out to the initiate in a single session. As each word was announced, a second speaker gave its Lardil equivalent. However, it normally took several sessions before a novice mastered the basics and could use Damin openly in the community. One speaker did claim to have learned to speak Damin in a single session, but on the other hand two senior warama men admitted that they lacked a firm command of the register.

                  Once Damin had been learned, the speakers were known as Demiinkurlda (“Damin possessors”). They spoke the register particularly in ritual contexts, but also in everyday secular life, when foraging, sitting about gossiping, and the like.

                • peppermint says:

                  commit suicide, homosexual

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              Urban control matters more than any stupid gerrymandered vote. Being fooled by a few extra votes to leave the cities is the biggest political trap the right always runs into.

              • peppermint says:

                What does control mean? How has it been enforced? Why is no technique available to us? Are you going to egg all the houses that have those signs saying immigrants welcome in dune coon? Why do we expect that to have the opposite of the desired effect?

                In a sense, Charlottesville was an attempt at decolonization as if it was true that the colonized people all wanted it and the imperial governments didn’t. At this point everyone but us thinks James Fields ran Heather Heyer over either in the confusion or out of a disregard for human life and none of it would have happened without our guys. Anyone who says out loud that they know the truth gets harassed.

                100 years ago politics was Whites arguing about what is best for Whites. 50 years ago it was ((Whites)) arguing about what is best for ((everyone)), and Whites who weren’t idiots or compromised have been systematically harassed and excluded. The cities are in the hands of the comped and morons. Saying that out loud gets you harassed.

                The solution is to turn Boomer politics into memes so when people see Boomer politics they only see our memes. The solution is to leave the cities to burn – sure, grandma lives there, but she’s a leftist, voted for it, and can leave if she wants to. The solution isn’t just to call Boomers cucks, but call cucks Boomers, identifying them with the old White men they hate. The solution is to rub the left’s face in not just trannies and giardia and super-gonorrhea, but also in anti-meat activism and all the other wierd irrelevant stuff they’ve been virtue signaling about that their current focus on anti-Whiteness makes look parochial and retarded. The solution is to eat bacon and drink milk. The solution is to mock school and college.

      • jim says:

        That is because they are white. Whites are second class and males are second class. You can see this walking down the street.

        Nothing to do with tactics. They are second class in spite of superior tactics, not because of inferior tactics.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          Even prisoners can pull off a beautiful mass exercise. Asians get it. Women get this. Even queers get this. The “black lives matter” mobs are a lot harder to do than they look. Whites so far have horrifyingly failed at rallies except the tiki torches at Charlottesville were ironically impressive. Funny how they can’t decide on the best aspect of their own culture to present, so they weren’t as memorable as an island people tradition.

          No one is second class in a march. No politician turns down any crowd.

          • Q says:

            So a mass of Mexican convicts are orders of magnitude more cohesive, coherent, and organized than the fault-right. Heh.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              They once did a prisoner’s dilemma experiment with actual prisoners and found out they defect less than the general population. They’re used to collective failure, so they develop a kind of loyalty. But mainstream respectable Protestants will split a church apart because they can’t agree on whether wine or grape juice is more appropriate for the symbolic blood of Jesus. Yes, they’re a little confused, and a lot disloyal.

              Putting on a costume is playing fringe. A march of the fringe is the mechanism to break into the mainstream. It’s a lot easier to march when you have real streets, like before the postwar infrastructure programs. This isn’t too hard to figure out.

              • peppermint says:

                Virtue signaling traitors will virtue signal that a church should change its ways and try to destroy it in order to have an impact on the world, while normal people just want to hang out with other normal people and send the kids to sunday school in the hope that they’ll unlearn all the evil bullshit from government school.

                Prisoners have more loyalty than virtue signaling faggot traitor Boomers. Who is surprised?

                Remember: if you’re insulting and degrading normal people by association with Boomers, you’re doing John Lenin’s work for him. If you’re insulting Boomers by association with bizarre virtue signals, you’re doing Mark David Chapman’s work.

                • Anonymous Fake says:

                  Criminals stick together for fear of punishment and saints stick together by faith and heroism. Average lukewarm cucks are only consistent in their unreliability. The best one can do with them is force them to live close to each other so they have to look at each other when they feel tempted to defect.

                • peppermint says:

                  > criminals are more trustworthy than normal people

                  This would be a serious indictment of normal people, but criminals fear retribution from other criminals outside of the usual procedures while traitors expect normal people to recognize their virtue or face greater punishment than normal people.

          • peppermint says:

            > No politician turns down any crowd.
            What will it take for you to believe that the teachers in school were weird catladies, the people on tv are weird faggots, and everything they say is a bunch of poorly thought out self-serving lies held together by the sense of alienation they enforce on you through regular punishment?

  5. Anonymous Fake says:

    Keep in mind that black nationalist socialist Marxists are objectively extreme right, just for their own context, but the globalist left will work with them because they are WINNERS. The objectively liberal, tolerant, salt of the earth Boer farmers are effectively slurred as Nazis simply because they are LOSERS. Actual ideology doesn’t matter in the third world, and the third world is increasingly everywhere now. It always was, to some extent, but it’s bigger than ever.

    The most effective march that hasn’t been done might be the one which calls for farmer’s overalls and straw hats. And pitchforks. And most of all, slow but powerful tractors pulling heavy floats down the streets. That would get attention and respect. You can call yourself whatever you want and everyone else can call you whatever they want, after you win.

    Even the city slickers want to put on a costume and identify with some movement more interesting than bugmanism.

    • Q says:

      Your shit is retarded and you should feel bad.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Mexicans and Muslims can march thousands of miles as migrants, and you think it’s too hard for the right to put in 6-8 miles in one’s own city for a couple days a month? The occasional incident which happens is absolutely nothing compared to what the left faces marching through dozens of different countries to reach Berlin, Paris, LA, etc. Charlottesville was honestly tame, overall, when you think about it. It exposed a lot of poseurs as cucks.

        Boer farmers are a perfect identity because they are used to doing WORK. They have their boots on the ground every day. They get their hands dirty. They get up very early in the morning to make the most out of daylight, an insanely underrated skill in the agitation business. Their religion is strictly Calvinist and providential. They’re in fact the outer party of the cathedral, true believers like the Quakers and Presbyterians, and like all outer parties they can put an end to the inner party any time they find the motivation. It’s their choice, in the long run.

        In more academic terms, they’re the chemists and physicists who allow the social science sophists to exist in their universities. If the legitimate intellectual authorities had the confidence to rally the proles to their cause, they would secure their existence.

        • jim says:

          Oh come on.

          Charlottesville, state violence against right wingers openly associating, is why we cannot march.

          Conversely, Muslims and Mexicans can go for thousands of miles, because of state support. When Australia decided to apply state violence against people travelling long distances to come to Australia, they ceased to be willing to travel long distances to come to Australia. It works on them, exactly as it works on us.

          Similarly, when Russia decided to administer televised actual beatings to feminist protesters, feminist protesters disappeared.

          If the civil rights protesters had faced televised actual beatings, as the feminist protesters in Russia did, they would have disappeared also.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Marching produced local support even in the dark ages, when pilgrimage was common. Later, this scaled all the way up to going on crusades, done without accounting or fractional reserve banking or the printing press, etc. Certainly, there was nothing on video tape! Heroism is so lionized that even the potential for heroism is rare and respected, and even if it is hardly witnessed it easily becomes legendary. Even peasants with pointy sticks and gambesons could win the reputation of knights.

            Boating just doesn’t do it. The most romanticized sailors are the pirates, but after age 10 or so they lose their mystique. The physical reality is that moving anything across water is trivial, and land is hard. Boat people, even Cubans or Vietnamese who are legitimate refugees and reasonable in assimilation, simply do not get the same sympathy as marchers. This makes islands not just physically defensible, which is overrated, but psychologically easier to defend. It’s easier to imagine sea invaders as common low quality bulk shipping, not prime genetic specimens who ventured through endless barbarian wastelands on the way to civilization.

            If feminists in Russia dressed like suffragettes and had lovely marches, Putin might be in trouble. Russia’s a hard nut to crack, though, due to its urban density and the fact that people take walking for granted. They don’t have too many distant segregated subdivisions for conservatives like in the West.

            • pdimov says:

              Your theories are interesting, but I can’t help but feel that your suggestions work only when they already don’t need to.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                I think about the “cities of the plain” of the Bible, and then I look at the plains of North America and wonder why the American Indians never developed a great civilization in the region that we know of. No, Cahokia wasn’t that great. The Mississippi certainly is.

                Deserts force life in an oasis. Cold climates force heat sharing. Forced urban life forces conservatives to hit back and usually win instead of being nice and taking flight to yet another subdivision. Making a fertile plains region into a civilization requires a conscientious, deliberate religiosity to enforce order instead of succumbing to anarcho-tyranny and eventual collapse. The fertile crescent god-kings knew this.

                Geography/geopolitics is underrated by the right just because Jared Diamond is a fruitcake.

                • peppermint says:

                  Heat sharing? How do Finns share heat?

                  Oasis control? Is that why sand niggers are so good at holding territory?

                  What is forced urban life? Do you mean the natural conservatives of the Greek islands?

                  This is even derpier than the idea that Boomers were sinful to have so much house and initially people lived in one room mud huts like dirt niggers.

                  We’ve been over how environment affects evolution many times. Dirt niggers have female financial independence, the sheboons choose the dumbest, most violent, funniest, smelliest, blackest, most masculine, which is why niggers look and act as they do, grow up faster and are more capable of taking care of themselves at every stage of development.

                  Humans need houses and farms. A man must build a house and choose a woman to live with him. He chooses the most beautiful human men end up with pretty colors of eyes and hair too. Human women are amazingly beautiful between 16 and 26 because that is the window in which they are supposed to get a man. A man produces enough food for his family and doesn’t ever take another woman and don’t even look, but cooperate with other married men to raise their children together. Women without a man don’t reproduce and bastards are shunned. Harsh selection towards female beauty, selection for cooperative, intelligent, and competent men.

                  Chinks are insects from the rice plantations. The females stay beautiful until menopause because they need to keep their male’s eye lest he disfavor mistress and children. Some males have multiple females and some males cry on their knees begging a female to be their girlfriends. These “people” put cadmium in jewelry because failure to be a top50% male means genetic death, as opposed to the case of humans, where incompetence means death and life is won through competence and cooperation.

                  The evolution of the kike is unclear, however, the kike has been dominated by a number of human empires, has subverted and destroyed them in turn, and is efficient at it. Through the Greco-Romans the kike was introduced into the human urheimat. The kike looks almost normal if ugly to every primate species up until age 30 at which point the kike features develop in order to facilitate kike networking. The kike claims to be highly intelligent in the same way that the nigger was claimed to be intelligent due to its verbal facility, but while the nigger evolved to amuse its female, the kike evolved to subvert and destroy human civilization.

                  The Boomer grows up in an incredibly permissive environment. It is a traitor, a faggot, a bizarre cultist, a fattie, and would sell its entire heritage and childrens’ birthright for more heavily flavored mostly carb food with the cheapest oils, which it needs to watch the electric jew, not to mow its’ lawn or work on its’ hpuse, tasks given to migrants not in exchange for money so much as the birthright of the children. Biology will record the Boomer as the most disgusting creature ever to have existed.

              • “your suggestions work only when they already don’t need to”

                This seems to be the case with most non-unpalatable ideas.

            • jim says:

              Marching produced support when backed by Church and State. If we were backed by Church and State as the civil rights marchers were, we would be fine.

              Notice the spectacular and total failure of feminist marches to produce support when genuinely opposed by Church and State in Russia.

              The suffragette marches were backed by Church and State, as the Civil Rights marches were.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                Big enough government, full of factions and entropy and corruption, can become auto-propagandized and divided even without external manipulation. Outright denying marching only applies to legitimate authority in the tiny context of a city-state.

                Marching is part of the system now, and the lack of skill the right has in it demonstrates not just an error in itself but something else that is wrong with the right. I see a lack of coherency on the right as the problem, just like how the Occupy movement failed (or was nullified) when it took on too many fringes instead of sticking to financial reform.

                Feminism is an interesting case in that it is inherently incoherent. It’s actually being used as a barometer for all kinds of other leftist movements. It’s like global warming without an expiration date, though I’m surprised at how long the climate cult has been going.

                • jim says:

                  > Marching is part of the system now, and the lack of skill the right has in it demonstrates.

                  The right is of necessity very skilled at marching. The problem is that police will physically attack the right, and turn a blind eye when the left physically attacks the right.

                  Observe what happens when police and/or rightists physically attack the left in Russia. Works fine when your attacks are backed by Church and State.

        • Q says:

          Dude, there is no “right”. Seriously, let me know when there’s an identity group capable of mobilizing several thousand young men on short notice and depositing them in full costume on a city street somewhere. The men can’t be unemployed trailer trash, can’t be low-skill, low-paid scab laborers, can’t be stupid, can’t be ugly, can’t be fat, can’t be unfit, and can’t be wearing off-the-rack and/or untailored suits or shoes. No country music; no redneckmobiles; no military or pseudomilitary paraphernalia; no fucking camo. Nor: tattoos, Catholicuck imagery, motorcycle patches, those ridiculous pagan LARPer badges, or white power bullshit.

          I don’t expect to see anything even vaguely resembling that in my lifetime, and that’s just the bare minimum — ideally, they’d all have convertibles or motorcycles, active interest in Xtreme sports, six-foot-tall, model-esque grillfriends, and kids on the way, but then they wouldn’t be marching on some fucking useless road in the middle of goddamnowhere, would they?

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            Please come back when the hangings are over and there has been time to breed well-groomed Beautiful Ones of the utmost purity. An ‘executive level’ couch will have been reserved just for you to express your paramount and untainted rightwingness.

            • Q says:

              “Well-groomed Beautiful Ones”, you say, but really the first paragraph is all about establishing the bare minimum of a generic middle-class “movement”. Your comment is quite revealing.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Surely there are fat, ugly and even stupid people in the middle class? Conceivably even lacking a tailor.

                • Q says:

                  Whether there are a few fat, ugly, or stupid young men in the middle class depends largely on your definition of “middle class”. Most of them probably do not have a tailor, though they absolutely require one for PR reasons. There are harder limitations: for example, there is not a single middle-class person with tattoos.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                But perhaps I should engage a bit more directly.

                By it’s nature the alt-right does not (at this point) attract those who are well-off and busy with raising families, saving for college, health insurance and whatnot. They probably drove to the voting station in their Prius and voted Hillary with a certain smugness. It was the working class, consisting of unacceptable white human beings, who desperately needed a change for the better.

                Sure, the white middle class seems to be sliding into the abyss too, but the feeling persists that this will just cause the remaining ones to cling harder.

                • Q says:

                  The measure of a man is his economic output or his ability to coerce other men into giving up a portion of their economic output. To the extent that technology makes it impossible for a man to produce or extract something of value, he will slide into the abyss, first metaphorically, then literally. With modern IT and nascent narrow AI applications, UBI is inevitable, it is coming for us all, and it is the looming civilizational catastrophe.

                • jim says:

                  UBI will be the usual welfare disaster.

                  There is plenty of work to be done. The problem is government regulation that tries to destroy jobs in flyover country.

                • peppermint says:

                  These kinds of moron arguments leading to ridiculous conclusions are more often found in enemy backstories in japanese cartoons.

                  ubi will never happen except as political warfare

                • Dave says:

                  Q, UBI could be our salvation if done properly. First, it shall be revenue-neutral, paid for by abolishing all other welfare programs and firing their employees, who are welcome to sign up for UBI. Second, it must be paid annually, in cash, no strings attached, on the recipient’s birthday.

                  That serves to spread out the windfalls, giving liquor stores and drug dealers time to restock, and morgues time to dispose of the bodies.

                  UBI would thereby select the population for self-restraint, which is not IQ but is highly correlated to IQ, and arguably more useful than IQ.

                • jim says:

                  > UBI could be our salvation if done properly.

                  The usual suspects will blow their UBI on booze and hookers, and then show up at the usual welfare handouts dire need of a handout.

                • Q says:

                  Dave, I posted another comment — an excellent one, I dare say — that went to spam, but the short of it that there’s a world of difference between something that a man creates out of his own labor and something that’s distributed to him for “free”, morally, spiritually (in a non-supernatural sense), etc., and not the least of which is that his sustenance is derived from himself rather than the corporate bureaucracy.

                  The best we can hope for, disregarding an incomprehensible future containing superintelligent AI, is that we will all get our own robots, which can do everything for us and will run on free solar rays and be able repair and upgrade themselves as necessary. Then you will once again find eccentric natural aristocrats painstakingly tending to their eclectic gardens somewhere amidst the green, grassy knolls of Mother England.


                • peppermint says:

                  dave, that’s a great glibertarian talking point, except for the second part, which is pure NR confusion. what is the political purpose of putting it here?

                • Q says:

                  Hey Jimalino, want to rescue my longer comment, the one responsible for destroying Peps? Thanks, brah.

                • Q says:

                  >Dave, I posted another comment

                  …and here it is, rescued from the bowels of hell:

                  Civilization is a ridiculously recent primate reinvention of what ants have been doing to aphids since the Mesozoic. The state literally exists solely to extract the maximum amount of productive resources in the most effective possible manner, which happens to include “protection”. Note the double meaning; if you look carefully you can see many such double meanings: for example, “freedom”, “liberation”, “sovereign”, “our allies”, “humanitarian aid”, “unilateral declaration of independence” — but don’t look too closely at the seams of reality! you might go blind.

                  One of the few differences between states is the time horizon over which they can afford to operate.

                  >UBI will never happen except as political warfare

                  As forever since and forever hence, who, whom.

                  With a bit of luck, we might scrape out with a reasonably democratic distribution of AI, each with our own superconsciousnesses going at it with each other constantly on our behalf, locked in a zero-sum game in which each is approximately as powerful as another. Have you ever read Zones of Thought? Highly recommended.

                • Q says:

                  And the offending hyperlinked article, supposed to be embedded in “unilateral declaration of independence”, and absolutely impossible to post:

                  “A gentle introduction to Unqualified Reservations (part 9a)”

                • peppermint says:

                  Look at any literature up to the scifi on the 50s, which casually assumed permanent human supremacy in which human values would dominate forever. What we are living through right now is a very temporary situation that will end in the end of humanity or the permanent human domination expected by those 50s authors.

                • Dave says:

                  “The usual suspects will blow their UBI on booze and hookers, and then show up at the usual welfare hangouts in dire need of a handout.”

                  Which is why my plan closes all the “usual welfare hangouts”, and makes the UBI payment large enough to ensure a lethal dose of booze.

                  Of course I’m joking. A democracy would never kill off its most important voters, while a dictatorship would just shoot the useless eaters, or conscript them into chain-gangs.

                • jim says:

                  Not going to work. Some mother with nine starving sick children by nine different thugs, all of them currently serving lengthy prison sentences, is going to show up, surrounded by forty members of the press, and you will not be able to turn her away, because her kids are quite genuinely going to starve and freeze if you do.

                  That is how we got into this situation in the first place. With the collapse of restraints on the sexual behavior of women at the end of the Regency and the start of the Victorian period, huge numbers of bastard children ensued, women giving birth in dark alleys in the rain, and Charles Dickens and Victor Bruno pointed out how horrid this was.

                  Try abolishing all forms of welfare except the ubi, it is going to be a hundred times as horrid, because female behavior is a hundred times worse. Unless we are prepared to give women public whippings for sexual immorality and sell them into concubinage, we cannot shut down the regular welfare system. It was unacceptable in Victorian times, and it is going to be even less acceptable now.

                  What is going to happen to your ubi when fifty percent of women are giving birth in dark alleys in the rain?

                  “No welfare” is only going to work if you are willing to use startlingly drastic measures to control female sexual behavior. We have been there and done that. Women simply expect to be looked after, while behaving in ways likely to alienate the men responsible for looking after them. If you don’t restrain this behavior, the state simply has to step into the gap.

                  Give a woman ubi on the first of the month, she will allow the alpha thug of the day to piss it away by the third of the month, and on the fifth of the month show up at the usual handout locations with numerous children in tow who have not been fed for two days.

                  When you propose ubi in place of welfare, rather than in addition to welfare, you are projecting male behavior and married female behavior onto single women. Single women don’t act like that. Women need male authority and supervision.

                  We already tried giving women responsibility for their own lives, giving them incentives to act responsibly, and expecting them to act responsibility. It failed catastrophically, resulting in the welfare state we now have. See Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo for a depiction of the catastrophe.

                  Women simply have to be taken care of by men. It is inherent in their natures. Expecting a single woman to get by on ubi is like expecting a fish to fly.

                • Alrenous says:

                  The final step of applying for welfare should involve sterilization. Really cuts down on the whipping quotient.

                • I am thinking sterilization as well. Imagine a society with two castes. To honor Pournelle, let’s call them Taxpayers and Citizens. Separated by IQ tests or suchlike.

                  Citizens receive UBI, live in welfare islands, have some relatively harmless designer drugs legalized while no access to booze or anything that correlates with violent behavior, 7/24 TV, permissive sexual behavior, and sterilization. Or: one child policy, then sterilization, this is more humane. So the number of them still halves every generation while not denying them the important human experience of being parents.

                  Taxpayers males are treated as free adults, pursuing careers and businesses. Taxpayer females are expected to reproduce their high intelligence by having at least 3 children. Two ways to do that. Either patriarchy and they are stay at home moms. In this case the issue is is not a waste to do basic mommy stuff if you have high intelligence? The alternative is that you want from them is eggs. They are free to pursue career or whatnot. The eggs will be implanted into willing, well paid Citizen women, who carry them to birth, act as nannies doing most of the basic work of childrearing. Taypayer men will have harems of willing sterile Citizen women so they are not much interested in what Taxpayer women do. Maybe they will have nominal marriages between Taxpayer men and women mostly just to provide the background for the Citizen nanny raising the kids, but both are free to pursue career and random sex. Maybe they will be entirely single, Taxpayer men having those harems and Taxpayer women competing for alpha dick until they get old and sour.

                • Dave says:

                  When a single mother goes on welfare, sterilize her and all the children she claims to need support for. Civilization changed male instincts by culling 60% of men in each generation, but couldn’t afford to do the same with women.

                  With modern medicine, we *can* afford to cull females. Let the good women marry good men and bear ten children apiece, and make the bad women go extinct. Most welfare queens wouldn’t even object, as they don’t like children that much anyway.

                  When sterilizing children, surgeons should leave them intact enough that if the little bastards ever become productive citizens (not likely, but possible), they can reproduce with artificial assistance.

                • Q says:

                  I don’t understand your rationale…

                  Why would UBI go to women?

                • peppermint says:

                  Dave, what you are describing is chink “civilzation”. Human civilization has extreme female selection where women who can’t get a husband don’t reproduce and bastards are shunned, while male selection is based on whether the man is capable of sustaining himself, a woman, and their children. This is blondingly obvious to a cursory examination of human behavior or history from virtually any time period.

                  Why do you not know this? Think about that.

                • Dave says:

                  “blondingly obvious”, heh.

                  Wherever one sees an abundance of beautiful fair-skinned maidens, there is a harsh climate not compatible with polygyny or single motherhood, so every women had to snag a husband or die childless.

                  All healthy civilizations selected men for productive ability, but that was not done by reprogramming female instinct to desire good men. Females were locked up where bad boys couldn’t seduce them, or bad boys were put to the sword so females could walk about unmolested.

        • Q says:

          Oh, and did I mention Nazi bullshit? No Nazi bullshit.

    • pdimov says:

      >The objectively liberal, tolerant, salt of the earth Boer farmers are effectively slurred as Nazis simply because they are LOSERS.

      No, it’s because they’re white. This isn’t complicated. The globalist left will never call blacks Nazis, and it will always call whites Nazis.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        South Africa used to be a modern, liberal, first world ally of the West in the Cold War. When whites cucked out, they were retroactively labeled Nazis. Communists like Mandela were retroactively labeled “freedom fighters.” All that changed was power. You’ve fallen for the revisionism.

        Whites actually reproduced more than blacks did for each educational level, but were a lot more educated overall and thus had a lower fertility rate. The strange case of South Africa is what happens when all talent goes into geopolitics and diplomacy, but the schools were horribly managed. They had a Wil E Coyote moment in the mid 90’s and couldn’t react quickly enough.

        It is the excessive LACK of racism which makes a population turn to meritocracy/credentialism instead, and then they are called racist anyway because they lose too many reproductive years to education and their race declines. A healthy, moderate degree of racism is optimal for securing respect in the world.

        • jay says:

          ‘South Africa used to be a modern, liberal”

          Modern and liberal are not good traits to have.

        • >When whites cucked out

          Yeah, maybe you need a bit of a better description of this change, as you have this kekchan-level half-sentence in the middle of an actually very good analysis.

          I *think* communism caused antiracism, not the other way around. Racism was seen as capitalists exploiting black labor, in a Marxist analysis.

          If Moldbug is true that American elites (Brahmins) had a long-standing sympathy for communism, it sort of makes a logical sense to liberate white labor first, then black labor, and when doing that focus on eliminating racism as the tool to exploit black labor. Inside a Marxist framework at least this makes internal sense.

          But whites just cucking out to nonwhites and this causing them to ignore that they are communists does not really have this consistency.

          I mean, the alliance that defeated Nazis was called the United Nations.

          The UN was communist from the beginning. I don’t think it was antiracist in the beginning. The first refugee treaties clearly focused on the European displaced population only.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            “Article 1 of the 1945 UN Charter includes “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race” as UN purpose.”

            • Q says:

              Communism was not only antiracist in the beginning, it was also überfeminist. The tales are legendary, should you want to read them.

              • pdimov says:

                Antiracism is an American thing, there were no other races in Europe. It was purely rhetorical.

                Uberfeminism is an European thing, as there were women in Europe.

  6. Anonymous Fake says:

    The difference between a protest and protest theater is whether or not you’re marching down your own street, or parking your car in someone else’s garage so you can walk down his street. The right fails at protest because it doesn’t get this.

    If you don’t have a street, make one. Lawns really aren’t *that* nice to look at.

    • pdimov says:

      That’s what the National Guard is for, or so I’ve heard.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Uniformed authorities naturally respect other men in uniform. The left figured out that any kind of uniform will do, whether it’s a tough blue collar union worker’s overalls or a degenerate vagina hat. In many countries entire tribal loyalties are based on eye color or circumcision. The point is, CHOOSE SOMETHING.

        The right, on the other hand, shows up in tricorne hats and confederate t-shirts and jackboots and respectable managerial suits and forest camo and various religious attire. And occasional blue collar uniforms, too. In other words, a disorganized motley crew mob that doesn’t demand respect. They even include token minorities and make the skin color uniform impossible.

        It’s about discipline. Driving everywhere and dressing like a slob demonstrates a lack of discipline. It isn’t going to impress anyone. There has to be some kind of link which can make the psychological discipline of the right manifest itself into a tradition of physical discipline. The cavalier parties can happen *after* securing power.

        • pdimov says:

          You’ll trigger the anti-Hitler immune response. Koreans can own their streets, whites can’t, because Nazi.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            I’ll believe this when I see men marching in monocles and bowler hats, or other prestige clothes, beaten as if they were union thugs. So far it hasn’t been tried.

            Even Hollywood spoofs this. For some reason, the X-Men films all feature generic boring looking black uniforms instead of the flashy comic book style, and yet note that these films were smash hits. Flashy clothes are for VICTORY PARADES, after one has already won. Or in-group sexual competition, which is again associated with victory.

            Uniforms impress. LARPing doesn’t. LARPing the costumes from 4 or 5 different centuries ago makes you a motley crew about to get beaten by boring looking cops.

            By the way, the most influential civil rights marches were the ones that happened after the beatings on TV. The alt-right failed to continue marching after Charlottesville. Again, this is stupid on the spot and an obvious consequence of being dorky suburban invaders who weren’t actually marching on their own streets.

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              By the way, the most influential civil rights marches were the ones that happened after the beatings on TV. The alt-right failed to continue marching after Charlottesville. Again, this is stupid on the spot and an obvious consequence of being dorky suburban invaders who weren’t actually marching on their own streets.

              Yes, it was a mistake to stop marching. It showed a lack of heart, if you like, even if the government treatment of course was vastly unfair and black pilling. (Apart from Trump!)

              Also recall that the antifa were in essence routed during the Trump election, which was achieved by fighting back.

              Going to Charlottesville in the first place may have been a bad choice, of course.

              • jim says:

                The civil rights marches had state support. We face state repression. Big difference.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  I got the impression from podcasts that the alt-right tried to go meticulously by the book and were surprised and a bit hurt that the police and state government did not GAF about any book. We have also seen the grossly prejudicial treatment of the two sides afterwards.

                  Nation of Laws, squawk! (No laws and not a nation, one might reply.)

                  Still, the net result was that the alt-right got no-platformed from the real world and nobody cares. One might say we’re in the ‘rebuilding phase’ again.

                • Q says:

                  >I got the impression from podcasts that the alt-right tried to go meticulously by the book and were surprised and a bit hurt that the police and state government did not GAF about any book. We have also seen the grossly prejudicial treatment of the two sides afterwards.

                  They got a dose of reality. The fact that they did not reattempt a failed gambit is a sign of growth and learning.

          • Q says:

            I seem to recall Korean street gangs firing back at police, at which point the police decided they’d rather be somewhere else. Is that what happened in fact, or is that little fact something from a half-remembered dream?

  7. Dave says:

    “A large tribe is necessarily synthetic, thus adoptive kin, thus necessarily a religion.”

    The eternal conflict: Genetic tribes are very stable; some stone-age peoples produced the same artifacts for thousands of years. Memetic tribes can evolve and grow much more quickly, but are prone to collapse from mutational overload, or from letting in people who are genetically incompatible with the tribe’s values.

    Islam and Progressivism are both memetic tribes, but Islam has always been less successful at absorbing and assimilating all genetic tribes within its territory, like the Copts, Jews, Assyrians, Druze, and Yazidi. I suppose that’s because Islam obviously sucks donkey balls, while Progressivism looks like a lot of fun, at least to young people.

    • peppermint says:

      Puritanism is forced on children by cultists who are hot young women and use that prestige as hot young women to lie to young men while keeping them in these odd desk chairs all day next to but not conversing with their peers. In this panopticon environment, compliance is rewarded by a hot young woman pressing her boobs against you, and resistance is punished through ostracism.

      • Q says:

        Dude, what?

          • Q says:

            >cultists who are hot young women keep boys in odd desk chairs all day
            >hot young women

            • Roberto says:

              Have you seen all those female teachers — qualified pedagogues, no doubt — who were arrested for fucking their male students?

              9 times out of 10, these are indeed “hot young women.”

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          What does a Civilized Man want?

          A wife to start a family with.

          Where is he going to find marriageable women then?

          Literally the biggest reason young men go to college is because hot women are helicoptered into college environments.

          Where hot women are, young men will go.

          He who controls the hot women, controls the universe.

          • pdimov says:

            I’d say that it’s the other way around. Women go where men are.

            • Q says:

              Which men?

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              I would contend that women don’t really ‘go’ anywhere (on their own). Yes, even today.

              • pdimov says:

                H1 women are put somewhere as bait, men start going there
                H2 men start going somewhere, women start appearing there

                Which one is a better fit for values of “somewhere” being college, Google, etc?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  I would say it plainly obvious to anyone honest that women are being artificially helicoptered into universities and tech fields.

                • pdimov says:

                  Your posited motivation for their being helicoptered was to lure young men there. But young men were already there when women started being helicoptered.

                  Yes, this could be engineered to discourage young men from leaving. Or… it could be because women want to be there.

                • pdimov says:

                  *have been

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  I try to avoid expressing intentionality in express terms like this(that).

                  There’s a saying, ‘the purpose of a system is what it does’, which is basically a negating clarifier to allow a discussion to begin.

                  People who agitate (amongst other thing) for the helicoptering women into colleges for status cash and prizes can very well be doing so due to earnest belief on at least some level that it is morally perfected so to do. A person doing so for cynically consequentialist motivations of manipulating productive men (or potential rivals) into the clutches of their gods could also fit ably into the same niche.

                  In reality people people often have multiple rationalizations for whatever action it is they are engaging in, like these or more, which they might swap between at different times to reassure themselves in response to differing mental states at those times. In fact, i would say that accompanying feelings of guilt at some times or often times is *typical* of the baizuo man. Eg, if ones mental energy state is feeling more depressive they might think to themselves, ‘sure i may be doing this in order to move up in the world at the expense of my compadres…’ but it makes them feel better if they can convince themselves that on some level the objects of their insurgency really *are* wicked; that their instrumental status striving *also* happens to correlate with moral purity on some level anyways, so either way its fine right? If they can convince themselves in this manner, they will be able to be that much more strident(effective). And if they can convince themselves in such a manner, they can convince *others* too, and thats where the power of leftism really comes from.

                  Of course, all power has a flavor, and the use of a certain powersource naturally entails bringing yourself *into alignment* with that powersource (mantling that power and becoming an avatar); tends towards it’s use *necessarily* towards some ends and not others, but that is a discussion for another day.

                  Anyways, the operating point was that that was was the present reality as it stands is; if a man wants to find a hot high quality women to get to hitch up with him, where is he going to find them? In a bar? A young man thinking about the future and wondering how he might leave a real lasting legacy is going to go where the biggest concentrations of available bachelorettes are, which used too be church, but now is the replacement church (colleges).

                  It is *also* the fact he thinks he ought to go to college because he is gaslighted into believing that it is the only real portal to either high status or high pay (certainly, bugmen castes have tried everything in their power to make that reality, so that anyone whos anyone would have to go through the reeducation camps first to certify their adherence to bugmanism [would someone using different flavored powers use differing means to accomplish such a goal? A certain degree to a certain degree.]).

                  But then you know it still wraps around around again to the questions of… why does he want a high paying job?

                  >to afford that 12 box Star Trek set?

                  Yeah, if you’re a bugman…

                  I don’t know the exact numbers and dates off the top of my head, but i do that the number of people in post-secondary education was aactually a lot less than what people today would ordinary think; even as late as 1950 a high school diploma was considered practically a luxury in many parts of the country before degree inflation started kicking into high gear. I would wonder if the expansion of men seeking out university stays was also stepwise with the expansion of female attendance.

                  On the question of female wills themselves, certainly, in the abstract, if you were to ask a women sitting at home, ‘would you like less power, or more power?’ of course, one would say ‘sure id like more power’. It’s an easy sell, especially when you divorce the question from extenuating contingencies. Women themselves didn’t start going to college out of nowhere; they were gaslighted for a long time too; ‘real women get degrees, real women get high power careers, real women sleep however they like before ‘settling down’ with ‘mr right’ ‘, and et cetera. Of course a good row of propagandizing should also resonate at least a little bit with real desires that the target has (particularly in highlighting them and minimizing others that might be contrary). So one hypothetical chain you might say is, a sovereign moneylender might decide to invest in some media or academia provider and not others (you don’t need to personally conspire or demand someone toe the line when you can simply pick and chose who’s message you want to platform), the ordained tastemaker(s) then send out their(‘ ‘) message picked up by women, who then in turn start nagging and agitating their male owners, who evidently cucked out, not being wholly immune to the message themselves either also evidently, finding no shortage of validation and support, social, financial, or otherwise, in their dream(‘ ‘) of going to college and riding the carousel.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Men go where women are.

              Women go where women are.

              Evolutionarily speaking following the herd is a good strategy for women.

              Women also know that men will fight to dominate the places where women congregate – for obvious reasons. Then they get to pick the winners.

          • Q says:

            >What does a Civilized Man want?

            I’ve never been quite able to distinguish “civilized” and “domesticated”. Do you think you can help me out?

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Sure; the first kings started putting to death anyone who disobeyed their laws, thus creating Civilized Man.

              If you’re trying to find an easy formula to stop thinking about where you are in the golden mean; don’t.

  8. Anonymous Fake says:

    “All politics is local”.

    That says it all. Even a sportsball team that periodically packs in a high density crowd can create de facto nationalistic identity, no matter how rationally fake it all is and how dubious nationalism can be even when it’s real. Whites have a problem of aiming for identity first, while the most obvious success is found in aiming for proximity first, identity later.

    Even before modern transportation, the French Revolution occurred because a local population in the capital discovered its consciousness and that it was the real power everyone else had to obey. No one could resist leftism except for liberalism (ultimately ineffectively) which had cities of its own.

    Science fiction is actually frequently crypto-primitivism when it forces all the characters together in a tightly packed spaceship, where there is no ideology to manipulate outsiders who aren’t physically present with everyone else. Well, the outsiders are aliens who don’t count. Technology never changes the human identity of demanding personal interaction before being respectful towards someone.

  9. Piers says:

    Republican voters are losing interest in the cucks who keep fighting Trump instead of the democrats. It appears Trump is putting up a ‘fence’ twice as high as the current fence that can be used as a frame for the wall and later be covered with concrete if required.

    If Trump builds a fence across the entire border, or most of it, by the midterms that is enough to show he can get results and needs our support

  10. >A large tribe is necessarily synthetic, thus adoptive kin, thus necessarily a religion.

    This sounds like a very important idea. I think we’ve talked about stuff like this from various angles but it seems now you sort of synthetized it. Essentially, the fact that communism, liberalism and the older sorts of nationalism act like religions is not just an accident, nor is it just exploiting some yearning in the human soul, but implementations of pretty much the only way a nation larger than Liechtenstein can work? Elaborate this in a post, please.

    It seems to imply that Catholic universalism, the whole medieval idea of kings and nations are part of one Christian “republic” was not really serious – if you gonna have a France, you gonna have a Gallican church, and if you don’t have that you gonna have Jacobinism or Napoleonian nationalism or something?

    • Wait. Is AKarlin around? I think I just had an insight about Russia. Never really understood how it is often the same people feeling nostalgic about Communism who also feel positive about the Orthodox religion and nationalism. I get it now. “Just give me any civil religion, instead of that kind of destructive gangster individualism…”

    • So that is why separating state and church is an unsolvable engineering problem! When the state gives up controlling religion/ideology it gives up on controlling and maintaining national cohesion / ingroup sentiment, so someone else will eventually create a different large tribe, ingroup and pretty much take over the state with it.

      Well, we are really and thoroughly fucked.

      In fact Europe is more fucked than America as America has at least some civil religion-candidates up the sleeve. But Europe tried pushing the EU-religion which nearly nobody believes in anymore, but it destroyed the last vestiges of nationalism. And there is now nothing. The general sentiment is a certain dreadful waiting. For something. A messiah or a collapse or something.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Elaborate this in a post, please.”

      Not Jim so will be missing key concepts (since autistic Jew), but…

      People are motivated by self interest. Religion is a way to promise social approval and other rewards for certain actions, specifically ones that advance the power of the religion (think Iron Law of Bureaucracy). When a religion is under the control of a state, it will promote that which is good and crush degeneracy. When a religion is out of power it will promote degeneracy to gain supporters and power. You can see that dynamic at work with communism where the reds were crazy and radical in 1917, but working on supporting traditional values late Stalin.

      If there isn’t a single head of religion, it will break in different sects that promote slightly different things and compete with each other- this is how leftism functions. Eventually one will win, declare the other heresies and have control until it fractures again.

      This kills civilizations because more and more resources are destroyed in internal conflicts and degeneracy is promoted to destroy rivals, gain recruits and prove loyalty.

      “It seems to imply that Catholic universalism, the whole medieval idea of kings and nations are part of one Christian “republic” was not really serious”

      It was more of an attempt by the papacy and HRE to insist on their relative power and importance. Given their relative size in relation to the rest of Christian Europe it had varying degrees of success- in addition to its early years, it had a second peak when Charles V was in charge.

      “The general sentiment is a certain dreadful waiting. For something. A messiah or a collapse or something.”

      Wasn’t Europe like that in the early 20th century or was it just the intellectuals?

  11. Anonymous Fake says:

    I will add that South African whites are sprawled out just as badly as American conservatives. If they were actually reactionaries, they would have densely populated “urban rural” manorial outposts that could secure some respect and prestige for themselves. As it is now, they’re simply too individualistic. When you think about it, the manorial mindset is like individualism and collectivism both actualized and optimized, a superposition of social strategy.

    It shouldn’t be hard to find a single sympathetic Asian judge who could humiliate the ANC government by siding with whites. There are no Western countries that try to pressure the judiciary, especially in the Anglosphere. With politicians, especially Africans, the overwhelming majority of them are just doing theater and they will allow pretty much any court judgement stand. I doubt that they would risk threatening this arrangement over some farmland.

    • jim says:

      > “It shouldn’t be hard to find a single sympathetic Asian judge who could humiliate the ANC government by siding with whites”

      Could you find one in America?

      Not bloody likely.

      I have been reading some judicial opinions from our supposedly right wing judges concerning law enforcement, and there is not one judge on the supremes who is willing to accept the criminal law being imposed equally on blacks and whites alike.

      If whites went manorial, it would have been Waco and Charlottesville all over again.

      The whole point of going manorial is that local authority, who knows who the bad guys are, can kick them out or kill them. That has been illegal in South Africa for a very long time. Apartheid was the central government fighting racism. They felt that when local authorities did the separation, they were being racist, so the central government would do the separation in a more humane, civilized, and caring fashion. And when locals ignored this and did the separation themselves, they got whacked.

      Apartheid was anti racism, and anti racism is anti white.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        You see Waco but miss the thousands of extremely fertile and surprisingly influential Mormon complexes. Orania is a great community, too. Manorial management is timelessly effective, just like walled small towns or urban jungles. Basically, anything hostile to cars is friendly towards civilization. It forces conservatives to live near leftists and put them in their place.

        Charlottesville failed because the protesters weren’t actually locals familiar with the cops. They weren’t truly marching on THEIR OWN STREETS. They were hostile invaders and were treated as such. Busing in protesters isn’t even especially effective for the left. Black Lives Matter and the Ferguson riots probably got Trump elected.

        • jim says:

          Mormons have a state government in their pocket. How do you get there from here? If whites in South Africa had a state government in their pocket, they would have been fine.

          A government is necessarily a manifestation of the will of a tribe. A large tribe is necessarily synthetic, thus adoptive kin, thus necessarily a religion.

          In order to have the South African government in their pocket, whites in South Africa would need their religion in their pocket. And they did not have that. Their religion hated them and sought, and still seeks, their extermination.

          • Simon says:

            This misses the point. Whites in South Africa did have a state government in their pocket and did not turn out fine.

            • jim says:

              White people in South Africa did not have the government in their pocket.

              The government in South Africa was the enemy of white people, and has been the enemy since the Boer war.

              • Simon says:

                > since the Boer war.

                Your causality is backwards.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                The fundamental problem is that whites imagine politicians to be the government, and they think voting changes the government. If they marched in the streets as locals (not like Charlottesville) and focused on networking with judges and bureaucratic elites, they would see political success. Politicians just pretend to do things. They put on a show.

                The missing link is that whites aren’t doing rank and file, low status bureaucratic work. Ordinary, day to day clerkship that exposes the elites to them personally. They can become elites themselves in the next generation, but you have to start somewhere.

                • peppermint says:

                  This is completely backwards and makes no sense. Our revolution in valurs would have everyone see real work as a source of status like we do, while puritans and jews see real work as proof of impurity.

    • pdimov says:

      >If they were actually reactionaries, they would have densely populated “urban rural” manorial outposts

      That’s racist.

      >It shouldn’t be hard to find a single sympathetic Asian judge who could humiliate the ANC government


      • Anonymous Fake says:

        4 year old article. In a few decades, yuppies will see Orania as a prestige cultural location just like Swiss alpine villages or San Fransisco neighborhoods. High local population density surrounded by low density expanse is SWPL crack.

        Judges are ordinary humans, too. They’re the de facto rulers of the West and immune to political pressure, but they know and see who their neighbors are. That matters more than any election.

        • pdimov says:

          The Asian judge will do what exactly, and when the ANC government ignores him, he’ll do what exactly?

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            He’ll enforce the law against the government in the exact same conspiratorial manner as any other judge in the West. I don’t know how, but it just happens. Andrew Jackson was a populist freak fluke.

            Just remember that politicians love status and prestige, and only the most ironic peacock personality can improve his image by attacking elite institutions like law schools. This pushes the limits of even an ANC demagogue. It’s far easier for politicians to screw over pathetic voters with the attention spans of goldfish than to mess with the court system.

            It’s all about leverage, not mass. South African whites could live as comfortably as Jews if they played their cards right, and urban culture is a key element to political power. They also need a kind of healthy snobbery in the face of underclass thuggery, something the British elites mastered that the Boers never did. That’s how they ruled India.

            • pdimov says:

              >I don’t know how, but it just happens.

              These things just happen against whites, and they just happen against Christians, but they tend to not just happen for them. It’s probably just a coincidence.

              But what do I know.

            • jim says:

              > He’ll enforce the law against the government in the exact same conspiratorial manner as any other judge in the West.

              No he will not. And if he tried it, would be ignored.

            • Singh says:

              Lol Brits didn’t rule India they simply paid better & with that your entire narrative collapses

        • peppermint says:

          The puritans will invade, replace the local culture with bullshit expensive versions and all black clothes, then import diversity so noble savages can sell them some tasty food.

          Puritans need to be beaten severely. They need to be told that instead of wearing black clothes to prove their purity, they should whip themselves and show off the welts. They need to be told that instead of eating overpriced gross small-batch by a rank amateur or mass manufactured versions of food, they need to drink bleach to prove how cool they are. They need to be told that instead of building ornamental and other garbage to prove they have the leisure time to waste on garbage while hiring diversity to do the real work, they should plant a tree to hang themselves in.

  12. Anonymous Fake says:

    By the way, the new Chinese cities are designed with automated cars and full surveillance in mind. They want to win the future. They aren’t going to let underclass urban proles overthrow their civilization simply because they physically dominate urban elites. Western conservatives, on the other hand, love their disorganized strip malls and cul-de-sacs and pathological privacy. They aren’t even trying to create a world order competitive with the left.

    Cities are basically the legitimate form of democracy, for what it’s worth. Voting for representatives from the distant suburbs without doing anything yourself is a rigged caricature of democracy.

    • Simon says:

      Hard to win the future with a TFR<1

    • S.J., Esquire says:

      ***Cities are basically the legitimate form of democracy***

      Cities are awful, soulless, horrid places, end of story.

      I always get a kick out Yanx who seem to think that “white flight” explains the entirety of suburban sprawl. Of course white flight from inner-city blaques was/is a real phenomenon, but – suburbia and (sub)urban sprawl are just as real here in Canadia, even in lily-hwyte burgs, and the reason is fundamentally because Germanic people are not bug people, and we want space and closeness to nature. That won’t change, nor should it!

      It’s arguable that Roissy’s glory days are behind him, but the best new idea I’ve seen from him in a while is that the alt-Right needs to devise ways to reinvigorate small(er) towns. Fuck cities, there’s no need for them in the era of the internet.

      • Q says:

        >space and closeness to nature

      • jim says:

        Obviously, white people like to have room. But in most countries, the underclass is banished from the centers, which are high value locations occupied by high value productive people. It is obviously insane to waste the center of the city on people disinclined to work.

        Suburbs exist everywhere, but the normal arrangement, barring state violence against white people suppressing self defense, is that the locations that are the highest value for high value work, are the whitest locations, and the underclass living on welfare and crime is banished to the outskirts, where land and housing is cheap.

        • StringsOfCoins says:

          Don’t forget the state literally buying up property in the city and then renting out large 3 bedroom apartments to “diverse youths” for $80 a month right next to people paying $1500 a month for a one bedroom.

    • jay says:

      They would also have to demolish all the ugly structures and architecture and build beautiful classical structures and buildings in its place.

      Wipe out the filth, ugliness and vibrants.

  13. Alrenous says:

    The faster former victims of the Republicant virus give up the paper ballot and adopt the lead ballot, the better.

    I find it a little optimistic to conclude it’s happening so quickly, but I’ll be pleased to find I’m wrong. Has anyone bodyslammed a reporter recently?

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      The least Republicans could do is restore a real city like Cleveland or St. Louis or most especially Detroit, which was actually starting to turn into an alternative to the Eastern Establishment before they militarized the blacks against a possible rival.

      Conservatives fail at building cities, and it makes their claim of “building the country” sound dubious. But to fail at retaking a city is just embarrassing. There isn’t a single deep crimson dot on the map of America that could serve as a core conservative control center.

      The left didn’t seize power by entryism so much as the conservatives quietly abandoned the public institutions for seemingly no reason. Even the universities, which are worse than worthless both ideologically and economically, are highly lucrative institutions simply because they have awesome population density and thus power.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        Population density is an effect, not a cause, of the universities being highly lucrative. In fact they are highly lucrative because they serve as the gateway to high earnings. They absorb the accumulated surplus of thousands of suburban households around the country, in exchange for dangling the hope that Junior’s sheepskin will land him a good-paying job. With fewer and fewer good-paying jobs these days, and those concentrated in expensive cities, there might be room for another player to assume that gatekeeper role, compete on price, and gain power by tapping that same surplus. It’s no sure thing, though: besides the massive government subsidies directed to the universities, the Right has historically been hopeless at showing the kind of coordination that would be necessary.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          Some of the best paying jobs are just ordinary blue collar jobs, but worked 60-80 hours a week at age 16 with a GED. The lifetime investment earnings come out ahead of white collar jobs that require expensive college degrees. Of course, conservatives (or anyone else) will never say this to students in high school when it matters most. Only us internet reactionaries will tell the truth that schools are made to replace family, and they have done this so effectively by now that they don’t have to promise lucrative careers anymore to lure in more suckers. Conservatives who send their children to school won’t ever tell them the truth, that they don’t really care for them that much.

          In some sense, the right is relatively more coordinated from the left, but it’s just harder to organize when any location that matters to you is at least 45 minutes away in too many directions. Leftists can organize so much easier just because everything they need is a 5 minute walk away.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            Some of the best paying jobs are just ordinary blue collar jobs, but worked 60-80 hours a week at age 16 with a GED.

            The data do not bear out this assertion. If you go to and sort by annual mean wage, the only one in the top 50 that anyone would have a prayer of landing without a college degree is that of IT manager.

            And if the Right were remotely as coordinated as the Left, by your logic any relatively compact town that voted Trump would have active Rightist groups to match the myriad leftist groups that infest the country even out in the suburbs. Yet that’s manifestly not the case. The Right has a coordination problem.

            • StringsOfCoins says:

              You have failed to understand the comment you have replied to. I’m sorry about that.

              Let’s lay out a blue collar tradesman who gets started at 18. By 25, in my profession, he will be making $100k a year. Yes by doing icky low status actual work instead of useless fake, but oh so high status, “work”. Now take your average masters degree in chemistry bugman. By 28 he’s $100,000 in debt at 5% interest and makes $50k a year. Meanwhile the tradesman has several children while the high status college “educated” person is struggling to pay for his studio apartment and used Honda civic.

              I don’t expect you to understand this, however, as your ego will jump in to protect your own idea of your own status.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                The weirdest part is that one would think the bugman mindset would lend itself to calculating the exact net present value of a career, and thus decisively choose a prole job that Marx described as alienating, but in reality simply attracted the aliens among us, the bug people.

                Somehow the bean counters now find themselves in less than optimal careers, to say the least, while the instinctive meatheads who work and invest earlier in life virtually accidentally made the right choice not just by their own standards, but by the bugman’s too.

                • Jack the Knife says:

                  A dollar is imaginary and temporary, but a gene is real and forever. It follows that a human’s status is defined as how close he is to slipping out of the gene pool and into the culling field. Hence the sinking sensation you feel in your stomach upon contemplating doing the dirty with a fatty.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jack is right. Rednecks get human females. Bugmen get jews and other mystery meat and are required to say they like it.

          • Q says:

            The only problem with blue-collar is that the work is humiliating and physically taxing and a young worker’s pool of potential mates is positively abysmal.

            • Simon says:

              What an absolute load of rubbish.

              • Q says:

                Which part?

                I guess airline pilotry isn’t physically taxing, although the better computers get at flying, the more humiliating it will be to warm a cockseat for a paycheque, and they’re already pretty good and getting better all the time. I can’t think of any occupational counterexamples for humiliating or other occupational counterexamples for physically taxing…

                Mate pool: I once donned faded blue jeans and a ratty old shirt and conducted some in-field research. Boots on the ground, so to speak. Anecdotal experience would suggest an ongoing horror show of epic proportions.

                • Simon says:

                  Who looks at “blue-collar” work and comes to the conclusion that its main problems are that it is humiliating and physically-taxing? It is absurd. These are not problems.

                  In our society your job has little to no bearing on the quality of your potential mate.

                • Nerevar says:

                  What are you on? Women will ask about your career as soon as possible, and you better have a high status sounding job title ready

                • Q says:

                  >getting dirty and abusing your body for money is not inherently low-status

                  >In our society your job has little to no bearing on the quality of your potential mate.

                  Clearly we live in different societies.

                • Roberto says:

                  Q abysmally fails to make his own case. It’s not that women necessarily reject blue-collar workers (in many cases that’s the other way around), it’s that blue-collar jobs have little to no women in them – if you work in a factory, for instance, your routine environment is basically a huge sausagefest, and therefore you have much fewer opportunities to meet chicks than a bugman wimp who works in a female-infestet cubicle-farm.

                  Inb4 “you’re not supposed to meet women through work” – yeah, no, it’s actually very common to do just that.

                • jim says:

                  It’s not that women necessarily reject blue-collar workers

                  Oh come on.

                • peppermint says:

                  Try being a bugman with soyface, a soy beard, and soy arms, vs wearing work boots. It is no longer the case that women want bugmen, unless they have steady employment in an office job. The reason it’s illegal to do a lot of stuff without permits is to neuter work boot men who build real stuff versus bugmen who can assemble a gaming pc for their mancave.

                • StringsOfCoins says:

                  The bugmen must tell themeselves that barren promiscuous college “educated” women on birth control are “better” women then the blue collar man’s stay at home wife wearing a size 2 dress after making five babies. Otherwise their feelz man. Peppermint don’t you care about their feelz?

                • Jack the Knife says:

                  “The bugmen must tell themeselves that barren promiscuous college “educated” women on birth control are “better” women then the blue collar man’s stay at home wife wearing a size 2 dress after making five babies. Otherwise their feelz man. Peppermint don’t you care about their feelz?”

                  You must live either in the past, the future, or a fantasy land.

            • BomberCommand says:

              >The only problem with blue-collar is that the work is humiliating

              And that my friends is the difference between Jews and Gentiles.

              • Q says:

                I think I’m beginning to understand why antisemites are scum.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Because you identify with khazars and he’s devalidating khazars?

                • Q says:

                  If by khazars you mean people of good breeding, then yes.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Ah, thats what they all say.

                • Q says:

                  Yeah, and in fact I’ll also take an elite Nigerian over a white trash tailer park denizen every time.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  That mindset has been tested and found wanting by history; not a stable equilibrium, easily exploitable holes in the ideological firewall for ‘critical analysis’ (leftwards memetic mutation).

                  Cuckism may come in many subtle flavors; including cuckism with window-washings of superficial elitism.

                • jim says:

                  Anti semites are distracted by the matador’s cape. The problem is not Jews, but that whites are inherently and naturally in conflict with whites, that cooperation is hard.

                  But scum? No. Generally decent people. Anti semitism reflects a belief that people are naturally cooperative, therefore failure of cooperation needs to be explained by evil thought rays emanated by hostile Jews.

                  People who believe this tend to be naturally cooperative, tend to be good people.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Not scum, merely low-class. If you had a speck of worth as an elite you would immediately know the difference, and your noblesse oblige would oblige you to stay silent. Instead, you reveal yourself and your relatively low status with your petty whingeing. Those of good breeding need not go on about good breeding; it is self evident.

                  The “elite” Nigerian’s son will eat your son and rape your daughter, but at least no one will confuse you for low class. Except the truly elite upper class, of course, but your lessers will all know that you are their better, am I right?

                • peppermint says:

                  Does the soy boy, leaving his part time job or internship where he’s expected to do the work of any mud or womyn “employee”, ever stop to think, I’m better than this, none of this could have been built by my great great grandfathers if they had been working like this?

                  Yes, but instead of betraying near, his soft boomer parents, crazy boomer teachers, and professors, instead of blaming our allies and neighbors the jews or our burden the negroes and migrants, they blame The Corporations, especially bankers and media, maybe not including tech companies up until very recentlty.

                  Too many soyboys were flirting with our ideas so the left escalated the culture war, which immediately worked, but in the long term made the accusations against professors, media, bankers, and jews in general, that much more serious.

                  It is not yet time for the soyboy to reject the jew. It is, however, finally, time for him to reject his fake diet of soy, his fake schooling that gave him no practical skills, and even his fake profile on social media alongside the fake news from the legacy media.

                  So he’ll hate Anglin. Because he’s not our hero. He’s the hero we deserve but not the hero we need right now.

              • StringsOfCoins says:

                After the managerial revolution and the destruction of Christianity hard work is no longer considered high status among the elite, since the elite don’t actually do any work at all. Hard work being high status is a Christian value and hence must be destroyed by our new elite. The managerial class. If we went back to actual Protestant value and assigned high status to actually working hard the elite and their bugman strivers would be low status, hence miss out on their chance to be lucky number fifteen for some thousand cock stare sterile, but high status, college girl.

                Luckily our elite cannot reproduce.

              • I think this is a good example that the social niche that is called “jews” is actually multiple intersecting things.

                There is this classic complaint of the Polish peasant against the Jewish shopkeeper, very much like the complaint of the Malaysian peasant against the Chinese shopkeeper, “he is making more money than me with less sweat and can outsmart me and fleece me – this is not fair! Any business trick I don’t understand is per definiton dishonest cheating.” Which is easy to sympathize with but damn – it is a tough world and there is no promise that the businessman of your own ethnicity will not do the same.

                This is also kind of similar to what many blacks have against whites. No wonder that often the same blacks hate jews too.

                There is the other thing, jews social niche as “rootless cosmopolitans”, effectively trying to dissolve strong ethno-tribal bonds – and this is probably entirely different than the previous thing.

                So anti-semitism is pretty often a weird combination of these two complaints. Sometimes you get the second, where if you just replace “jews” with “liberals” you get a good normal hard-conservative complaint.

                Sometimes you get the first, where if you just replace “jews” with “capitalist” you get, well…

                I mean, I am not unsympathetic of the complaint of the peasant, given how my maternal grandpa was one. The whole fuck-your-competitor and fuck-your-customer-if-competiton-lets-you-get-away-with-it mentality is insare to the peasant. The peasant, like my grandpa, thinks if my neighbor is raising onions this year then I am raising tomatoes so we don’t compete and both can make a living selling it on the local farmers market and we can keep being friends and invite each other to our kids weddings and so on.

                He does not think like capitalist, that if my neighbor is raising onions this year then I will also raise onions, sell it cheaper than him, undercut him, force him out of business and buy his land and employ him working it for peanuts, hahaha! That is precisely what the the peasant calls “jewing”. He considers it antisocial and anticommunity and destructive as fuck. And yet – that is capitalism. Insane, maybe, but that’s how it works.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “There is the other thing, jews social niche as “rootless cosmopolitans”, effectively trying to dissolve strong ethno-tribal bonds – and this is probably entirely different than the previous thing.”

                  Isn’t that a post-Enlightenment complaint? Previously people complained about with Jews converting people and hostility to Christianity.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >Insane, maybe, but that’s how it works.

                  Instead let’s give a monopoly grant to one peasant and then everyone who wishes to raise onions will shiv each other left and right until only one remains. Well, eventually he’ll get shanked too, but at least he’ll earn a fortune overcharging low-quality produce to the hapless customers. That’s how guild system worked. In Ancien Régime France there were literally guild wars that left thousands dead whenever some innovation appeared. You see, ‘competition’ in capitalism is competition in cooperation, producers ‘compete’ over who will cooperate with customers. When you eliminate such benevolent competition, i.e. competition in cooperation, you get real, cutthroat competition, where everyone’s trying to get into a few opportunities that are available — and fuck everyone else! So, what most people see as ‘competition’ in capitalism is actually defusing of competition.

                  The real problem is that “jewing” that you described isn’t what actually happens. The way “jewing” actually goes on is that the neighbor pays the politician to implement regulations that you can’t fulfill and so the law forces you out of the business, even though there are people who would buy from you regardless. And when such crony law-passing has been happening for a century-and-a-half you get all the practical effects of de facto having monopoly grants of old — there are very, very few opportunities available and people are trampling over corpses to grab hold of them…

                • pdimov says:

                  >And yet – that is capitalism.

                  TL;DR Capitalism is Jewish.

                  I read an article recently advancing this very point, but I’m too lazy to find it now.

                  >there is no promise that the businessman of your own ethnicity will not do the same.

                  Not in principle, but the odds did point that way. There’s the notion of noblesse oblige, as opposed to explicit teachings to the contrary on the other side.

                • jim says:

                  Scaling up cooperation is hard, and Reichskristallnacht makes it harder.

                  Focusing on Jews is a distraction from real enemies and real problems. And the biggest problem is not conscious enemies, but scaling up cooperation beyond the family and clan. The ensuing failures of cooperation look a lot like enemy action, but are generally not enemy action, and it is a mistake to think that they are.

                  Jews notoriously parasitize on the institutions of large scale cooperation, by creatively re-interpreting laws, contracts, promises, and private property rights, but the problem is not Jews. It is that these things genuinely get complicated even without Jews ingeniously elaborating on them.

                • peppermint says:

                  Niggers nigger rig things because they can’t themselves tell the difference between new paint on the visible surfaces and maintainability and safety.

                  Chinks put cadmium in earrings for little girls and melamine in baby formula.

                  The pound me too thing pointed out how creepy and weird jews are sexually, but it’s harder to say how what jews do in business is dishonorable, because sure there’s all these details but those are just a few bad apples, and any time a White complains he’s called a Tsarist pogrommer cum waffel-SS gazkammer engineer, uneducated, boorish, a player hater.

                  And so the Boers will die, then the niggers will, and then the chinks will own South Africa. Unless we can learn to be honorable again, quickly. It’s in our genes, we just need to meme it and it’s quite comfy.

                • jim says:

                  This is a brilliantly insightful comment, and I intend to steal it wholesale and turn it into a post.

                  It is often said that anti semitism is the socialism of stupid people. But there is no smart socialism. Cooperation is hard, and hard to scale up to larger groups. Hitler takes over international trade, is overwhelmed by complexity and detail, and winds up himself cutting of Germany from what it needs. Accuses the Jews of blockading Germany, but it was Germany that was blockading Germany. The problem is not greed, but complexity and detail, and when the man managing that complexity does a lot better than the man who is directly and visibly producing value, the man directly and visibly producing value feels cheated and robbed.

                  Capitalism works because private property breaks a large problem into smaller problems. When the state violates private property, as for example in banning freedom of association, it becomes overwhelmed by complexity, which looks a whole lot like being overwhelmed by left wing progressive Jews.

                  So, the peasant thinks, just kill the Jews and socialism will work.

                  This was falsified by the the Geman economic miracle swiftly turning into economic chaos as Nazi socialists ran out of other people’s money, and by German nazis stealing the food of Greek nazis and inflicting starvation on them. Nazi socialism did not work, swiftly turning into something very reminiscent of Venezuelan socialism. Venezuelan socialism was also motivated by resentment of a high functioning minority, resentment by brown skinned Venezuelans of light skinned Venezuelans, and its failure striking resembles Nazi economic failure.

                  The underlying theory that removing Jews would enable cooperation was falsified by the conspicuous failure of German Nazis to cooperate with Greek Nazis, and by economic chaos.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Focusing on Jews

                  “Capitalism is Jewish” not in this sense.

                  At bottom, the basic question is, do you have a moral obligation to hold both sides’ interests into account when striking deals, or is it not your responsibility to care for the other side? (Even if your higher IQ gives you obvious advantage in seeing how the deal benefits you at the other’s expense.)

                  The former is “white”, the latter “Jewish”. Since Jews are good in coming up with ideologies that rationalize what they feel, we get Ayn Rand, “rational economic actors”, “capitalism”, and so on.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “At bottom, the basic question is, do you have a moral obligation to hold both sides’ interests into account when striking deals, or is it not your responsibility to care for the other side?”

                  Yes. Very good.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  If you say goodbye to someone and know you won’t meet him again, the rational approach is, given the opportunity, to kill him and steal his stuff.

                • jim says:

                  Not so.

                  Everyone else will then figure you will do the same to them, so they will do the same to you first.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Well, you have to be appropriately circumspect about it.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  That is a problem people probably solved in the Stone Age. You only deal with people who have a bunch of other people who can guarantee their good behavior.

        • Q says:

          The whole thing of colleges as job certifications factories debases the college itself. The University is supposed to be a semi-feudalist center of learning, culture, and erudition, not a pseudo-capitalist jobs mint.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Wrong. The family is supposed to be the source of learning. Schools are not supposed to replace family life. They’re supposed to be a testing ground for merit such as to open up nice career choices for the most intelligent scholars to make the most money and reproduce the most.

            This isn’t happening. Educated white collar workers see their apparently impressive salaries ruined by urban cost of living bias, long working hours/commutes, student debt, and lost credit and investment opportunities with a respectable discount rate (like 12%) compared to dropouts who started earlier. People who take education seriously, largely due to bad financial information, ultimately reproduce less and the underclass which uses the schools as spawning pools reproduces more. Every generation looks stupider than the one before.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              >The family is supposed to be the source of learning.


              >Schools are not supposed to replace family life.


              >They’re supposed to be a testing ground for merit such as to open up nice career choices for the most intelligent scholars to make the most money and reproduce the most.

              What colleges were supposed to be originally was just that, a clearinghouse for a *collage* of scholars who provide scholarship for a small fee on various topics to an enquiring body.

              With the invention of the printing press, this role began to become increasingly superfluous; with the development of the internet, this role began to become especially superfluous.

              The *popular conception* of a university and what going to a university means is, essentially, as a test for a nebulously defined merit. Quite evidently, they are poorly positioned and ineffective for such a role.

              Employers and patrons *themselves* are much better positioned to test the suitability of a candidate for whatever office it is that they need filled.

              There’s a sort of mushy-mindedness on this topic, that is oft typical of a blue team socialists perspective on many other topics. It starts with an idea like, ‘wouldn’t it be great if we had smarter people rather than stupider people in charge of doing stuff?’ ‘Yeah that sounds great, who would disagree with that, so how do we do it?’ ‘Well lets just have everyone get together and go through the great big central sorter to test people for smartness…’ Irrespective of the fact that *that was already happening*.

              It was the poorly thought out desire itself, the efforts to *realize* that desire itself, that served to accomplish basically the opposite of what was desired.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                “a *collage* of scholars”

                Surely a collegium (an association)?

                The first ones had the tasks of educating priests and/or lawyers in particular. Paid by the students, as you mention.

                E.g., the oldest still active university, Bologna (1088):

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                I’d add that modern mass education through universities acts to shred social relations for each generation, by having a great number of the local youth scattered across the country instead of continue building the local society.

                This might be acceptable when 5-10% do it, but when 50%+ go to some higher education, it seems disastrous.

          • StringsOfCoins says:

            Supposed to be? According to whom? What they are are state control over the economy through granting credentials that allow you to work in a certain sector, and stupid useless degrees to make money off of the unfortunates genetically cursed with an IQ under 115. Which also includes most women. Since the leftist professor only has any status in class, due to the podium effect, the religion of Harvard and other universities must keep the flow of women into college high. If you were to have an icky low status working man in a bar, with a limp armed half faggot professor next to him, and a sweet drunk sloot was picking between them? Why how would she know that in a classroom everyone looks at him and hence have her lizard brain notify he vagina that there is a high status man not a weak low testosterone loser?

            What’s really funny is the guys like you who not only allow their daughters to go to college buy pay for it 😂

            • Q says:

              Coeducation is the death of education, which is why some things must be illegal to prevent defection, or what happens is the lemming effect: you might as well send your daughter to college, or she will immediately be of a class comprising literally almost exclusively two-digit IQ trailer trash. Similarly boys; you have to be a real piece of shit to deny your sons peers. Fucking them over for college is almost as bad as sending them to public school.

      • jim says:

        > The left didn’t seize power by entryism so much as the conservatives quietly abandoned the public institutions for seemingly no reason.

        I was there. Conservatives fled the universities for the same reason as whites fled Detroit: Actual plain old fashioned physical violence.


        Most of them were physically intimidated and had their offices smashed up, some of them whacked with clubs, knocked to the ground and kicked, etc. Police looked the other way. Courts ignored what happened, and each such incident disappeared down the memory hole.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          Let me just say that this violence occurred in a time when minorities really were minorities. If conservative whites wanted to hold onto the cities, they could have. If they wanted to rebuild safe new cities like Napoleon III’s reconstructed Paris, they also could have done that. No, they chose suburbia because they wanted it!

          The reality is that there is something physically wrong with conservatives on some level that they despise walking and healthy population densities. It might tragically and simply be an excess of upper body muscle compared to leftists. This matters with big populations and long time periods, like anything else in evolution.

          • jim says:

            This just is not what happened. Whites attempted to defend Detroit, police smashed them. Next thing you will tell me is that the fact that the wall is not built, that California courts overruled proposition 187, is proof that whites wanted to abandon Californa and in due course the US.

            There simply was a whole lot of violence directed at conservatives. Anyone who resists is deemed to not be conservative, but a racist or sexist, and therefore “spontaneous” violence against him does not count.

            Whites were burned out of Detroit, and if you tried to put out the fires, Racist.

            It is not that they fell in love with strip malls, it is that they were beaten up by organized groups of blacks, their homes were set on fire, and any attempt at organized resistance was smashed by the police. Detroit burned.

            Whites did not leave Detroit because they fell in love with strip malls. They left because it was on fire and there was blood in the streets. The removal of conservatives from universities involved less fire, but it was similar. Offices were trashed and smashed up, rather than homes being set on fire.

            There is plenty of right wing organization, but it is deep underground, because if you surface, as at Charlottesville, you get physically attacked, and then get in trouble for defending yourself, just as happened in Detroit.

            • Alrenous says:

              Cellphone cameras render the memory-hole strategy obsolete. Vietnam was won via 4GW, and now conservatives have the opportunity to win America the same way.

              • BomberCommand says:

                >Cellphone cameras render the memory-hole strategy obsolete.

                Did it? I saw what happened Charlottesville but the people on the other side saw an entirely different movie on the same screen and anyone who didn’t see their delusion was branded a racist. They called the dear a horse and you either agreed, shut up or had your life destroyed.

              • StringsOfCoins says:

                You greatly overestimate the ability of your common farm raised tax sheep.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              Whites and conservatives left Detroit and the universities over generations. There was plenty of time and there were plenty of opportunities to restore order, if they wanted it.

              The universities especially were full of the most intelligent nerds of all political orientations for a couple generations before the SJW’s finally conquered them via more of an osmotic process than a coherent plan.

              I suspect the elite conservatives figured out cost of living bias in the opposite direction and now want to play Fred Reed, or Jeb Bush. They abandon the West in favor of cheap living in Colombia or Thailand. The conservatives who remain aren’t the best, and they are stuck with the third worlders who also aren’t the best. The third worlders win at that kind of game.

              • Q says:

                >Whites and conservatives left Detroit
                >There was plenty of time and there were plenty of opportunities to restore order, if they wanted it.

                Pop quiz, multiple choice: which is the prime (not peripheral) reason that the Papists were cleansed from Detroit? A) nig streetgangs, B) potatonig police.

            • pdimov says:

              In a few years he’ll be telling us that South African farmers abandoned their lives and fled to Australia because they wanted to.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                South African whites still haven’t played the court system card to the best of their ability in the exact same way Jews use it in the West. The farmers are simply too far away from where the urban central courts are physically located. They can’t regularly march around outside and protest to pressure decisions to be in their favor like the left does, even when the left as we know it was relatively small and unpopular.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t believe this. The problem is that the courts have been systematically ruling against whites and for blacks for a very long time.

                • carlylean restorationist says:

                  hi ron paul
                  the rule of law is a dream. courts are run by men and interpret the law as needed for their view of justice. for detroit, combating white bourgeois resistance to positive change. in SA, same thing. they have ideals first, then procedural routines. cthulhu only swims left.

                • peppermint says:

                  > They can’t regularly march around outside and protest to pressure decisions to be in their favor like the left does
                  This kind of thinking brought us Occupy, the Tea Party, and Charlottesville.

                  Protests are how the left justifies actions it already wants to take. Right-wing protests can not possibly have that effect.

                  To humiliate protesters, compare them to anti-meat and anti-smoking protesters from two decades ago.

                • pdimov says:

                  Lawfare only works against white people, more specifically, against Anglo white people. Blacks don’t even have words for “rule of law” in their language, and SA probably uses the barbaric continental system, where a random judge in Hawaii can’t just override a government act on a whim.

                  Bribery could work, if the International Community doesn’t interfere. (“Corruption” is an English-only word too.)

                • pdimov says:

                  Right-wing protest theater can work if the local government (f.ex. a national government in Europe) can use them to justify a right-wing decision or policy.

                  This probably doesn’t work in the US because of the federal court system. Fortunately, we don’t yet have EU courts here. Or EU military.

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              Some of it known as “Devil’s Night”.

              The crimes became more destructive in Detroit’s inner-city neighborhoods, and included hundreds of acts of arson and vandalism every year. The destruction reached a peak in the mid- to late-1980s, with more than 800 fires set in 1984, and 500 to 800 fires in the three days and nights before Halloween in a typical year.[2]


            • John Sterne says:

              ys jim jews had enough power to direct the states violence against upright helped by then jews had propagandized the shit out of whites so they were unsure of their righteousness those bing closest to the jews the less unsure. but what you seem to no leap to from here is that this doesn’t change until superior violence is returned to the left long and hard until people see they have no real power but lies

        • foo says:

          Memory holed? The threats to Arthur Jensen and E. O. Wilson are matters of public record, listed on their Wikipedia pages, as are the various late-sixties campus takeovers. En masse clubbing and vandalism would tend to leave some traces in the documentary record, even in 1970s Australia. Revilo Oliver, for what it’s worth, seems to have gotten through the period unassaulted.

          • Q says:

            Something censored is something interesting. Something unsaid is something unknown.

          • carlylean restorationist says:

            wilson’s ordeal has been recast as understandable opposition to the dehumanising implications of sociobiology, which is now orthodoxy under the rebrand evopsych. he was attacked by conservatives in effect… all nonsense of course

  14. Anonymous Fake says:

    The right wing’s problem is that it ONLY VOTES. It has no contribution to the urban administrative, corporate, and government work forces. It won’t pay sufficient taxes so traditionalists with big families can afford to move to the cities and work for the major institutions. With neither labor nor taxes, the right wing only votes for morons who throw monkey wrenches into the system and wonder why the world despises them.

    It wasn’t always like this. Before the 1950’s, before suburban sprawl, conservatives lived and worked in cities just like anyone else and contributed to the culture and economy. In the 60’s, they actually stabbed urban conservatives (Old Left ethnic white Catholics) in the back with “civil rights” and ensuing white flight, all so suburban real estate values would bubble for a couple generations. Nevermind that this is demographic and institutional suicide. It beats walking.

    Trump is most significant for being URBAN. Conservatives have to figure out that commuting and obesity and absolute non-participation in rank and file governing jobs isn’t acceptable. Kicking back just to vote and trusting leftists to do all the work is a proven loser strategy, even if the leftists are actually naive and willing to try to implement conservative policy. They not just won’t do it, but they CANNOT. The culture is just too different.

    Suburbia somehow went from being a utopian fantasy to being a conservative tradition overnight. Television/Hollywood is a symptom of dispossession of the streets, the tail of the dog. Conservatives have to stop chasing the tail!

  15. some guy says:

    I think that the first point (that voting doesnt matter) is trivially obvious to anyone not blinded by willful self delusion
    but I think that the second point (that Rs are realizing that voting doesnt matter) is highly dubious
    Rs love to vote in my experience
    they are patriotic
    what is more American than voting?
    people dont even watch baseball anymore and i cant remember the last time I even saw an apple pie
    but democracy and voting? As American as it gets.
    so I don’t think Rs are giving up on voting
    but I could be wrong

  16. Bombercomand says:

    This is so true. Last time i voted was before the courts destroyed prop 187 in california. I guess I didn’t see the point after that.

  17. lalit says:

    So where do we go from here? Wait for a Caeser to happen? Or am I thinking Sulla?

  18. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Some very good signs on Twitter today. We shall see. Hope is finite, we’re not insane, but the cup isn’t empty yet.

  19. alf says:

    The voters tried so hard and got so far. But is seems that in the end, it doesn’t even matter.

  20. […] Republicans voters losing interest in voting. […]

Leave a Reply