The fall

Support for democracy is falling.

In practice, “democracy” has always been rule by the left. They fix the electorate as needed, by expanding it, “educating” it, applying political repression, or bringing in a new people to replace the old people, so as to ensure a vote for current leftism. Which gets ever lefter. And current leftism has been getting crazier and crazier, faster and faster. Which requires ever more drastic measures to massage the electorate to obtain an acceptable result.

Lockean doctrine implied a democracy of property holders – since the only legitimate activities of the state were to defend the realm and uphold property rights, and allowing non property holders to vote would obviously undermine property rights. In Whig history, the restriction to property holders and the importance of securing property rights gets forgotten.

In Whig history Lockeanism was triumphant in the Glorious revolution, which supposedly established the supremacy of parliament. Perhaps it did, but Lock and his patrons were exiled. If those in power were Lockeans they were forced to remain mighty quiet about it until the early 1800s in order to avoid the wrath of the divine right monarch.

Divine right was still live when George proclaimed that God had appointed him regent. This resulted in Trump/Bush levels of derangement on the left, and the entire Victorian era and the resulting emancipation of women and destruction of marriage can in large part be understood as an effort to retroactively destroy George the Fourth. His filthy slut wife is still today written up as a long suffering saint, and hence all women are saints, and only wives are ever wronged, never husbands. We are still today suffering under a propaganda offensive created to delegitimize George the fourth. The left is still today half cracked on anything King George related. Anything your read in official history related to King George the fourth is half lies and half butthurt madness.

Whigs got the decisive upper hand when King George’s reign ended – and two years after his death instituted lockean democracy limited to property holders. Which property restriction was progressively diluted resulting in the election of lefter and lefter governments, until in 1918 they gave large numbers of non property holders the vote, who promptly proceeded to vote against property rights. So the period where Lock’s doctrines were actually in effect was about fifty two years, from 1832 to 1884. Britain went from kingly and aristocratic rule to democracy of the propertyless with an intervening period of rule by the property owning classes of about fifty to ninety years, from 1832 to 1884, or from 1832 to 1918.

This was classical liberalism, libertarianism, which is a reasonable and sane form of leftism. But it did not come to power by itself, could not come to power by itself. It came to power in coalition with two evil and crazy forms of leftism, hatred of colonialism and the doctrine that women are angels, which doctrine of women as angels was used as a bludgeon against King George and the Aristocracy, and continues to be used as a bludgeon against King George and the Aristocracy, even today.

Pretty soon the evil and crazy left devoured the sane left. Since women are angels there is supposedly no need to coercively enforce chastity on them, and the marital contract only needs to be enforced on men, not women, Enforcing it on women is supposedly just misogyny. The result was what you would expect, a massive wave of female promiscuity and adultery, for example the whore Florence Nightingale and the slut Queen Caroline, and a vast horde of illegitimate children.

A lot of libertarians believe that if we refrain from subsidizing fatherless children, we will not have fatherless children. Victorianism proved this false, with far too many women giving birth in dark alleys in the rain. If you don’t have a welfare state to support fatherless children, you have to do what the Victorians failed to do, forcefully coerce women to behave chastely, subjecting them to the authority of responsible male adults with authority to use corporal punishment. We wound up with a welfare state in large part because the Victorian failure to police female chastity with male authority and physical coercion resulted in an intolerable torrent of bastards.

The United States is a more complicated story, because, until the war of Northern Aggression, things happened state by state. Whigs generally came to power in the American Revolution, but not always and everywhere, so came to power somewhat earlier in America than in Britain. In America, Lockeanism, democracy restricted to property owners, generally had a short life. To get acceptably leftist governments elected, had to enfranchise the masses. And then had to enfranchise even more of the masses. And then enfranchise women. And then had to bring in the third world to replace legacy Americans.

Religions are synthetic tribes. So we are always ruled by a theocracy, defining religions broadly to include quasi religious doctrines like communism and proggism. But proggism, the religion descended from whiggery, itself descended from puritanism, has become ever more evil, ever more insane, and is getting crazier faster and faster. This is inevitable in a state religion that lacks an archbishop and a grand inquisitor to prevent holiness spirals. If adherents of a belief system took power, the way for the next guy to take power is to adhere to that belief system only even more so and with knobs on top.

So the day inexorably comes when proggism shall fall, and with it democracy.

Lockeanism was a pretty good idea – but ultimately it was a mere tool to power, and rapidly got left behind in the holiness spiral. The good ideas got used up, and the ideas remaining are demolition of Chesterton’s fence. When your ideology takes power, it becomes a state religion, and you are going to need an archbishop and a grand inquisitor to prevent your ideology from being devoured by those holier than you are.

You have to have someone whose job it is to stop holiness spirals, to officially discredit those who preach more than the required level of holiness, to ensure that those possessing state power are sufficiently holy but not holier than the King, the Archbishop, and the Grand Inquisitor.

88 Responses to “The fall”

  1. averagechump says:

    Damn that’s a lot to absorb

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      A.C.,

      It’s because “Jim” is synthesising a point I brought up a few weeks ago. That is found through this link: http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/recap-on-global-warming/#comment-1466221

      The point is about aristocracy, though it is still up in the air, where it concerns this blogger whether the point will stick, to be left to fall aside because it is too burdonsome, in relation to the edgyier material that motivates many who like to run blogs. (I haven’t updated my own in probably half-a-year.) You may see that he is bringing up edgy Confederate sympathies in this one, but in fact, such edgy-ism really does hobble one’s understanding of the pertinent issue. I do surmise that within another fortnight this will go back to banging on about Kings, Emperors, and Inquisitions (is somebody who uses the word “Latitudinarian” in a positive way allowed to propose the latter?).

      But my comment from Nov. 13th is about aristocracy, and the way the Constitution forbids it. I have come to the conclusion that the aristocracy is more important than the king, or is at least more critical. No king without an aristocracy, necessarily formalised…However, there is such a thing as an aristocracy without a king. There are many Christians who are smart regarding certain immutable tenants of theonomy, but shy away from constant proposals of legalising the institutions of hereditary power, a.k.a. nobility or aristocracy. That is likely because they avoid political philosophy, since Mr Locke is a topic du jour… They’d rather that Christian obedience work in a hierarchical way to establish the political codes, and maintain that a king is less than ideal… But how should a Christian allow that aristocracy itself should be forbidden? The proposal of kingship in the records of St Samuel the Prophet suggests the arguments for getting a king, an individual whose authority would negatively replace God’s in some instances… But the Prophet doesn’t mention the hereditary titles of aristocracy which are to be assumed to be already in place: perhaps more research is needed. Perhaps the huddle for the current-day warmth of respectability is the reason for such inability among any contemporary pro-white type (the only that matter), at all.

      However, such ignorance was not always the case, and the writers of The Constitution (document) did not forbid explicitly a king, A.C., because they knew that if they cut off nobility at its root, hereditary power of varying degrees, then there would never be a king. And, so it may be seen that the fundamental issues come not post-Confederate rebellion, but lie at the legal code which forbids the national mechanism of aristocracy. Indeed, it is better to talk in such terms, to be preferred over kingship, because a king is often too glorious. When glory surfaces, a mad rush of respectability clouds the necessary procedure with too much chaos. Give the glory to God. But a king of one day, could be an emperor of another. Take for example the well-known borders of the Kingdom of England, and recall that in earlier times there would be smaller kingdoms instead. There would be Northumbria, Essex, East Anglia amongst the rest. The king is not the structure. He is, sometimes, the crown. The nobility is basically the inflexible skeleton.

      In the 1770s, to get revolutionary France to give military aid to white Americans, the radical proposal to do away with formalised hereditary power was included in The Constitution (document). Unfortunately, people of the current-year are not able to think flexibly enough to realise that critiquing the institutional laws of hundreds of years ago is not a character attack on the patriarchs, and so dance madly around avoiding the proposed constitutional amendments that would change such clauses forbidding formalised hereditary power. That different circumstances require different rules to play by, so not to be victims of the enslaving Environmentalism of historicism. The whites who will win are those who undestand that there are no devils amongst the patriarchs, but that there were no angels either, but maybe that there were some saints.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

      • Robert says:

        Does a “good” aristocracy have to be hereditary? Or should I ask, will a non hereditary aristocracy always tend to the left? Or will a hereditary aristocracy always tend to the right?

        I think it would be easy for Christians to get behind a family that consistently performs godly, who consistently produces godly children, that consistently pushes the government to the right. Those families are very few and far between, I can’t even think of one.

        “Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach – men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
        C S Lewis.

        • Mountbatten says:

          Great comment Robert, i do not think i have the intellectual weight to envision what the right singularity will look like, well aside from total patriarchy and restricting the right to vote to those who have done military service and are not currently living off public welfare.
          I think that ultimately having a functionial, hereditary, constitution- and law abiding aristocracy would be a nice bonus, but not a necessity.

          For I believe that the great conflict in Modern Western Society is not between Proles and Aristocrats, but between tax consumers and tax producer, between those who actually produce goods or provide services for their fellow citizen (services and goods that are actually demanded from the market!),

          and those who are just fed and provided for with circuses to prevent them from rioting and also to have a permanent Underclass as an ally for the left
          or far worse, the self appointed brahims of the (non-MET) academia and the pressitude who help to establish und perpetuate the leftist singularity by attacking and desecrating the nation state and corrupting and changing christianity and christian texts

          • Cavalier says:

            If you’re going to call them Brahmins you might as well talk about Optimate+Dalit vs. Brahmin. And the Brahmins, being the small rootless international clique of the 21st century, are unsurprisingly founded and infested by jews, though in truth is mostly what might be called white jew, i.e. white people selected-for on the precise same basis as jews were once selected-for (times 100): nerdishness, effeminacy, verbal intelligence, neuroticism, and priestliness. Totally cohencidentally, they also specialize in the precise same value-extractive professions, employment which allows them to skim off the top of the wealth flows like the parasites they are: law, finance, religion, government, medicine, and merchant-ing.

            And subversion. Let’s not forget the specialty in subversion.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I can’t believe that, in 2016, there are still people who don’t understand that “proles” is nothing more than an endless flood which includes all of the third-world non-whites who could potentially be brought into one’s country so as to affect the results of voting.

            • Mountbatton says:

              A.J.P, i would like to suggest to you to read Baron Rothshilds autobiography, the “proles” and the “profane” includes everyone not them

            • Mountbatten says:

              A.J.P, I would like to suggest to you to read Baron Rothchilds autobiography (before they perhaps start to change it), “proles” and the “profane” refers to anyone not them

              In Yesterdays post at 5:27 pm I could have also used the word plebeians instead proles and it would have made no difference.

              We are dealing with Anarcho-Tyranny here my friend!

              There is no middle class, only servants and overlords

              Every “deplorable” is a prole, you A.J.P are part of the “proles”, and so is in thruth your local police commissioner, the professor at your local university and your average intelligence officer

              The dividing line is between tax producers and tax consumers,

              not your identity or your class consciousness or whatever buzzword marxists use to describe societal strata.

              And in the end the “endless flood” is only a symptom, not the root cause of the death spiral of the West.

              But that does not mean there is no hope or that we could never break our chains if we would start to organize, red pill those around us in the real world, and fight the meme wars till the stratosphere!

              Spread the thruth and let the pretty lies perish!

              onwards and upwards,

              Mountbatten

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                >And in the end the “endless flood” is only a symptom, not the root cause of the death spiral of the West.

                Not all symptoms are created equal.

                A people are a nation; change the people, and you change the nation. Concordantly, the only way to truly and permanently defeat a nation is to replace a people. The essence of warfare is genocide. It is driving out an enemy from his land and repopulating it with your own. It is killing all military aged men and raping their women, taking them for yourself.

                Demographic is destiny.

                • Mountbatten says:

                  You are right P.C,

                  Demography is destiny and that is why we have to act, but driving out all the foreigners who are tax consumers (a majority of them) or who are not willing to totally submit to their host nation and adopt the Christian faith (so in net sum ie. in western europe around 99.9% of them) will not be enough.

                  We have to permanently abolish the cathedral and all of its false laws.

                  And we must also try to create permanent safeguards against a second leftist takeover.

                  A possible road map could look like this: clear the church of false shepherds, defeat the cucks and neo-nazis in our own ranks (for in the end their belief system is founded socialism and socialism sucks) (although you could skip this step if your movement is already strong enough, because having no enemies to the right is an advisable strategy, having to constantly fight off usurpations by skxpe hating, genocidal nut-cases or LARPers is not and neither is internal right-wing signaling spiraling out of control a la khmer rouge), restore the Patriarchy (non-negotiable, because as you presicely said demography is destiny!), eradicate marxism (and of course all of its bastard offsprings)

                  And I also think we need a Grand Inquisitor (or a council of grand inquisitors), defining what is sufficient (and the hard limit to) right wing holiness be it the 50’s or before 1700.

                  The tricky parts are red pilling enough people and gathering enough support in order to defeat the cathedral and to let all the pretty lies perish, for the mind control mechanisms of the cathedral are surely mighty

                  And of course we must try to accomplish all this things without it all spiraling out control and creating a Leviathan or an Orwellian nightmare and thus becoming the very thing we had sworn to defeat

                  (allthough currently the accelerating demographic and religous death of the West far more likely and deserves far more energy, push back and counter-insurgency than some hypothetically bad outcomes)

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Robert”,

          Your comment is of course insulting in that you believe you found a loop-hole in my substantive comment in the lesser-used definition of the word “aristocracy.”

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

        • EH says:

          I didn’t read the comment to which you replied, but I would say an aristocracy has to be genetic, but the test for membership is merit, with parents’ merit only considered to judge to what mean your children can be expected to regress. So some bonus for good family on top of merit, which is inherited, but not entirely reliably. No birth-order qualifications.

          I think a good scheme would look something like this:

          the factors of merit would be roughly:
          *ethnic/national membership and patriotism, (required)
          *intelligence – above ~130 (1 in 50) in verbal, math, spatial;
          above 150 (1 in 2500) in one of those (required) (higher for viscount, earl)
          of those, conscientiousness not in bottom 20% of that group

          of these, hire from the top on a weighted metric made roughly of:

          25% intelligence
          25% conscientiousness
          15% competitiveness
          15% special skills
          10% upper class or otherwise highly accomplished family
          10% looks, charisma

          as measured in standard deviations on tests / criteria that reasonably reliably measure those, or for the intangibles at least aren’t way off.

          I’d make the first three grades available as a first title, with viscount having about a top 1 in 12,500 requirement on one of verbal, math, or spatial IQ, and earl having a top 1 in 60,000 requirement. (Those being necessary but not sufficient scores for having viscount or earl as a first title, hiring from the top on the weighted metric for open positions being the primary criterion.) Viscount or earl could also potentially be achieved by any baron as later titles. Higher ranks of nobility would be awarded on the basis of competition and accomplishment. Titles of Duke and above would only be available to those eligible to be Earls as a first title, Marquess would be possible for hose eligible to be Viscounts as a first title.

          These should have governmental-level incomes/budgets and powers proportional to their rarity. Assuming 1 in 10,000 is a baron, about 300 times the per-capita income (3%), with higher ranks through duke each ten times as rare as the last with an income five times as high, for a total aristocratic tax / estate income burden of about 6% of the economy, and an additional princely / royal / imperial burden of about 12%. (Ballpark estimates- there might be 1 in 5000 barons, five times fewer for higher ranks with three times higher income, with a 30% total GDP fraction, for example, or a system where their personal income is separated from government spending, etc.)

      • Mountbatten says:

        “In the 1770s, to get revolutionary France to give military aid to white Americans, the radical proposal to do away with formalised hereditary power was included in The Constitution”, “great” “insight” “A.J.P” , so apparently the French Revolutionaries of 1789 built a time-maschine, then coerced King Louis XVI to put pressure on the Founding Fathers, so that they put away with the aristocracy that “was included in The Constitution” , you know for evil leftist gains of course.
        “A.J.P.” either you are currently tripping and you need to get your shit together or you are just a goverment agent

        “best regards”
        “Mountbatten”

        • Cavalier says:

          [Censored for being stupid, irrelevant, and boring]

          • Mountbatten says:

            Yes your right cavalier, the snarkiness in my comment was unworthy and out of place.

            A.J.P. I appreciate the fact that you are defying and questioning the cathedrals narrative, I just tried to keep certain points made by your post in the realm of reality

            And Cavalier, I do not share or appreciate your anti-semitism, for the root of all the problems of the West are a lack of patriarchy, putting “muh aryan goddess” on the pussy pedestal and giving her, tax consumers and draft dodgers the right to vote, lack of faith in Jesus Christ ( and the constant compromising, changing of the holy teachings and the corruption of the church by traitorous false shepherds), a complete lack of transparancy of many fields of the goverment, corrupted laws and of course the permanent goverment, the cathedral, the compromised and corrupted pressitude and various other forms of cancerous marxism

          • Cavalier says:

            “[Censored for being stupid, irrelevant, and boring]”

            I thought it was pretty funny, Jim. I mimicked Perrick’s stupid, down to that stupid way he puts quotes around the person he’s addressing, evidently quite successfully too.

            “Mountbatten on antisemitism and yours truly”

            You must be replying to the wrong person, Schlomo. I don’t believe in “antisemitism”, which in reality is just the normal and healthy response to exposure to jews.

            Lack of patriarchy is not the root of all our problems. Patriarchy didn’t die a natural death, patriarchy was killed—systemically and deliberately. To bring back patriarchy first we must identify the fingerprints on the murder weapon.

            With regards to Christianity, it is dead; science killed it, deism was just a step in its retreat from omnipresent creator god to empty universe, and Darwin dealt its killing blow.

            “muh aryan goddess”

            I think you’re misattributing again, but I don’t mind setting you straight. Put simply, White women are objectively the most beautiful women of objectively the most beautiful human species, especially the White women with golden hair and bright blue eyes. Everyone recognizes this; if they could get away with it, every shitskin from here to Africa, Arabia, India, China, South America, and everywhere else would invade stampede Europe, solely to take the White women, especially the ones with golden hair and bright blue eyes. Fortunately, White women having half-breeds is relatively uncommon because despite our (White men’s) feckless refusal to cleanse the Earth of filth, paving the way for the White man’s destiny to make Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, India, South East Asia, and the Middle East great the same way that White man made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great, most White women recognize miscegenation as evolutionary suicide.

            Most importantly, however, only White women can give birth to White men.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              All religions have always been plainly untrue to the most intelligent people. But people will try hard to believe plain untruth if it is useful. The church died because it stopped providing capable men with quality wives, not because science proved Jesus couldn’t really have turned water into wine.

              • Cavalier says:

                The church stopped providing men with suitable wives in 1965, or thereabouts, though it limped along for a while, continuing to provide exceptionally capable men with quality wives until about 1985 or 1990.

                Christianity was based on a creator god intimately involved in his creation. Though the evolutionarily important bits of Christianity were the social parts, not the “empirical reality” bits, when science began to explain the world in rational scientific terms, the spiritual authority of the church began to diminish, though certainly it was in no great danger of imminent death. The Founding Fathers were deists, a là the watchmaker, i.e. the universe is machinistic rather than miraculous, but when Darwin explained the evolution of man, there was no longer any residual reason to think that god had created man in his own image. Thus Christianity died.

                That the smartest people go to the theological seminary commonly known as Harvard to be educated in the dominant religion of the day and do in fact become faithful adherents of the dominant religion of day puts the lie to your assertion that intelligent people are somehow immune to religion. Intelligence is neither inherently truthful nor inherently dishonest. Only science is inherently truthful, as it empirically tests its claims against the cold harsh glare of reality, and if Jim is to be believed, and I rather think he is, science has been getting progressively less and less truthful since the Royal Society was subjected to the authority of Harvard.

                • Cavalier says:

                  mechanistic

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  To the extent that people who go to Harvard are genuine, Harvard does not get the most intelligent people.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “To the extent that people who go to Harvard are genuine, Harvard does not get the most intelligent people.”

                  Yes, but Harvard is at the head of the snake. It pulls from the top 2-4% or so of intelligence and the top 0.5% of the connected. Intelligence != sensibility. Intelligence can be deluded just as often as it is truthful, especially intelligence intensely concerned with social signalling.

                  Harvard+other Ivies+MIT+Caltech+UCBerkeley+a few others+and some minor outposts in major state schools encompass most of the top 2% of raw cognitive talent.

                • jim says:

                  Harvard+other Ivies+MIT+Caltech+UCBerkeley+a few others+and some minor outposts in major state schools encompass most of the top 2% of raw cognitive talent.

                  This used to be the case, but I don’t believe it to be the case any more.

                  Harvard dumbed down not only the SAT but also the LSAT – which implies that its students could not handle the old LSAT.

                  With the removal of analogies from the SAT it has ceased to be an accurate indicator of IQ.

                  Theoretically the LSAT is an indicator of IQ, but it is crammed at the top. It accurately measures the difference between 100 and higher, but not between 115 and higher. You need to be ordinary smart, but if you are more than ordinary smart, smarts do not help your score that much.

                  Because if it was not crammed at the top, coeds would be massacred.

                  Let us take a look at old University Entrance Exams:

                  The Edinburgh University Calendar – Page 231
                  books.google.com/books?id=DxgLAQAAIAAJ
                  1892 – ‎Snippet view – ‎More editions
                  The examinations in English, Latin, Greek, and Elementary Mathematics will be the examinations in those subjects at the University Entrance and Bursary Examinations. … (Candidates are recommended to read Macdonald’s Higher Geometry, Wilson’s Solid Geometry and Conic Sections, and Casey’s Sequel to Euclid, as partly indicating the scope of the examination in Geometry

                  How many Harvard grad do you you think could handle an exam featuring questions based on Macdonald’s Higher Geometry, Wilson’s Solid Geometry and Conic Sections, and Casey’s Sequel to Euclid. Indeed, how many could cross the bridge of asses?

                  If we still hit university entrants with solid geometry and conic sections, only one in a hundred would be female, if that.

                  Any attempt to select the elite on merit would produce results that are grossly racist, classist, and sexist – when recruiting for engineers, very few Dravidians and almost no females pass fizzbuzz type tests, though oddly some blacks do.

                  And it does no good to select the smartest two percent of white males and the smartest three percent of white females, because then it becomes painfully obvious that almost none of the white females can handle the material that the white males can handle. The only solution is to stop selecting the smartest x percent of white males.

                  Which is what our universities have in fact done.

                  Back then elementary mathematics was solid geometry and conic sections, today it is addition and subtraction with the aid of a calculator.

                  This reflects both dumbing down, and a reinvention of what science and mathematics is so that mathematics focuses in areas where female disadvantage is less severe. Intellectual areas where the discrepancy between men and women is too obvious stop being intellectual areas.

                  I am pretty sure if we still required solid geometry and conic sections, our universities would not “look like America”. They would look like white male America with some east Asians and high caste Tamils.

                  That analogies are out of the SAT indicates a lot of Harvard grads cannot handle analogies, let alone conic sections, which is to say, dumb as rocks.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “To the extent that people who go to Harvard are genuine, Harvard does not get the most intelligent people.”

                  Yes, but Harvard is at the head of the snake. It pulls from the top 2-4% or so of intelligence and the top 0.5% of the connected. Intelligence != sensibility. Intelligence can be deluded just as often as it is truthful, especially intelligence intensely concerned with social signalling.

                  Harvard+other Ivies+MIT+Caltech+UCBerkeley+a few others+and some minor outposts in major state schools encompass most of the top 2% of raw cognitive talent.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I think it’s probably true, else where are they going? I mean, they missed me, not that I’m a great intelligence, but I’d be comfortable in the not-math courses of a college of the top couple percent. It’d be very discouraging if my experience were not rare but common. Though upon reflection I probably got the better end of the bargain, bumming around folding sweaters with the…gratifications…involved therein.

                  I wouldn’t pass any math exams from the olden times, though. I hit the low 700s on the math portion of the SAT with what I was taught of basic algebra—some graphing stuff, exponents and logarithms, factorials, combinations and permutations, some pi circle things which I barely remember, and that’s about it—and quite a lot of intuition and best-guessing, but I’ve never even touched any real geometry or conic whatevers. They simply started so late, took so long to cover the material, and made it so ridiculously painful that I still hate math in the depths of my gut. I don’t mean this to be a lamentation of my years in a supposedly “good” school (and a couple years of just-as-bad 40k/yr private school), I’m just relaying my experience. So, no matter how bad you think it is, I can assure you: it’s worse.

                  But fizzbuzz is stupid simple.

            • Mountbatten says:

              On your post at 12:27

              What pathetic response Cavalier:

              no substance just status signalling

              and answering your last paragraph (lol): “but muh aryan goddess is biutifuul *snob* snob*”
              Being aesthetically pleasing does not earn any brownie points, ingeniuty, honest hard work and industriousness does ( aesthetics over substance in arts andbthe daily dealings of a nation is an inherently leftist position) and no one is denying the logical fact that only White women can give birth to White men, get off your medications cavalier

              I am of course not advising to neither disregard the aryan women nor their plight.
              But the first step in order to save Western Civilization is the TOTAL and ABSOLUTE restoration of the Patriarchy, which could be simply established by abolishing all the corrupted family laws that are currently supporting the status quo.

              But we have to kick in the pedestal and give them their proper place , an action that would take balls and virility, something an effete, gladly cuckolded (you are loving it),pussy-whorshipping catamite like you, “cavalier”, lacks

              As a matter of fact, neither the Patriarchy or Christianity are dead, all we need to do is to give the leftist and Neo-Nazis (a bastard child of marxism) a kick in the balls and a bullet in the head and to thouroughly purge the churche of false shepherds by making only the Bible in its purest form the center of doctrine

              The decline of West has its ROOT in a current lack Christianity (the Christianity of Charles the Hammer) and a lack of PATRIARCHY, which was facilitated by traitorous, cock-sucking, compromising, back paddling, leftist, heretical cucks, like your humble Neo-Nazi Schmuck self

              The current death spiral of the West is just it’s symptom, although it is advisable to (lets face it will be only temporarily) heal some of its symptoms , the cure shall, must and will start at the roots of our problems, by thouroughly rooting out all traces of marxism

              signing off as your personal Shit-Lord, “cavalier”,

              Mountbatten

              • Cavalier says:

                I’ve been accused of many things, but status-signaling isn’t one of them. Until now, I guess. Lol.

                Maybe you haven’t noticed, but women are different than men. _Men_ are valued for their intelligence, hard work, and honesty. Women…not so much. Come back to reality, dude. Feminism has warped your mind.

                You make it sound like patriarchy began with Cuckstainity, which…do I even need to explain how ridiculous that is? Also, Christianity is deader than a door-nail, and isn’t coming back. RIP in peace forever, Christcuckery, you will not be missed. Nietzschean aristocratic values are the future as they were the past, pre-Cuckstain values like VALOR and PITILESSNESS and CONQUEST. The White man is shaking off his Semitic baggage and returning to his Aryan roots, and Darwin is his prophet.

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

                Hail Darwin for showing us the way.

                P.S. Read some Moldbug, you tremendous flaming poseur. Cuckstainity is the ailment, not the cure–the disease, not the fix. The problem is too much Christcuckery, not too little of it.

                P.P.S. The great white fashy Empire just wanted to bring order to the galaxy.

                • Mountbatten says:

                  You response is really funny cav: “Feminism has warped your mind.”

                  “Nah massah there nothing wrong with the pedestal, I cavalier shine it every day!” (being a cuck must truely be a weird state of mind, but apperantly you still love it).

                  But putting that jab on your personal state aside, cavalier do you honestly believe that “the values of VALOR and PITILESSNESS and CONQUEST” are incompatible with Christianity ?

                  I would like to honestly recommend to you to read the Bible from cover to cover (get a Bible version that is as true to the literal text as possible), because I am under the impression that you are just repeating the talking points of the “right” (nowadays sanctioned) wing of the cathedral and various hellywood movies, the same cathedral that is bent on to destroy the Aryan races and has indoctrinated us (at least the younger generations) from the day we were born.

                  And ask yourself: Why is it that the cathedral is always attacking Charles Martels Christianity?

                  Is it because it fears true, unbowed, unbent, unbroken, uncopromising and uncorrupted Christianity as potentially powerful rival it would never be able to control?

                  A rival to the cathedrals power and their grip on all Western Societies?

                  Or is it because it is Gods own rallying banner against the enemies of civilization?

                  The best recipe for a functioning society?

                  And in order to answer the beginning of your 3rd paragraph:

                  The Patriarchy was codified through Christanity into Western society and thus into our own the aryan races and it was and still is the foundation of Western Civilization.

                  Patriarchy of course had already pre-existed before the birth of Christ, but history has proven to us that without God’s Laws Patriarchy is be as shaky as the false gods of the heathens, just look up what happened to the proud Spartans 300 years after the death of brave Leonidas, to the ancient Medes, the Persians etc.

                  And as your personal Shit-Lord has told you before, get of your medications.

                  Best Wishes,

                  Mountbatten

                • Mountbatten says:

                  *but putting the jab at your personal tastes aside,…

                • Cavalier says:

                  I suppose I should feel flattered that I’ve attracted my very own troll.

                • Mountbatten says:

                  I didn’t want to troll you cav , if I have insulted you by my jabs I want to apologize to you, just disregard the first two and the last paragraph of my 12:50 am post.

                  And while I am reading it again I have dicovered several mistakes in it.

                  I think I will end my very short posting career here and leave field to the honoured veterans

                  Au revoir and best wishes

                  Mountbatten

                • Cavalier says:

                  By all means keep posting. You were rather entertaining.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                Wasting time on appreciating the daisies that could instead be going more towards some instrumental goal is simply the price you pay for the ability to sense the divine and call it into being, raising our god up into the heavens to heights unimaginable by the mundanes.

                Beauty is the filter by which the patterns of the true and good are recognized, by which greater truths and greater goods are apprehended.

                A poor civilization is known by its ugliness, a great civilization is known by its beauty.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Speaking of those enslaved by historicism… How much foresight! You’re witnessing individuals who have not the creative spark to ever propose constitutional amendments that would do more than un-doing those amendments already enacted…

        A.J.P.

        • Mountbatten says:

          Then would you please be so kind and propose to us those amendments? Or what you would envision?

          • Cavalier says:

            AJP is the friendly neighborhood nut. He thinks that USG can be reigned in by constitutional amendments, as though the Beltway Behemoth abides by the writ of the Constitution, has for the past 150-odd years, and can be expected to if only more pages of meaningless jibber-jabber are added to its body long dead, buried, and rotting in the ground.

    • viking says:

      JIm
      i wonder if you caught this or its a coincidence?

      https://www.isegoria.net/2016/12/the-biggest-mystery-of-the-american-revolution/

      As you may have noticed i have reservations about moldbugs monarchy solution. Oh I get his arguments and see some validity to them but i think it is all a bit impractical.And have though a return to net tax payers being the only ones to vote might be a more viable solution to my many objections to monarchy.I think in todays world of meta and micro data and AI and robotics most of government could be privatized this deincentivizes power seeking in the government and might actually lead to a more unified population; do i relly care if my neighbor sends his kid to be taught about trannys as long as i can pull up an app and find a neo reactionary school for my kid.My guess is tranny schools will become rare. But whats also possible is the government whats left of it will be able to keep tabs down to the penny of who is and isnt a net taxpayer, who is and who isnt a qualified citizen and in order to vote the IRS issues you a ballot. Now imagine only actual net taxpayers can vote do you really thik they will be so frivolous with their own money?We would have to have a balanced budget amendment so they cant spend their childrens imagined taxes, and perhaps other restrictions on government scheems to print money. but the pont is no matter how insanely far leftist someone is they wont spend their own money on bullshit its other peoples and fiat money that drives leftism, because of fake money leftist dont have to face the reality a universe of laws.
      Now i have other objections to monarchy

      Its never going to happen,

      Americans at least will never ever
      submit to a king in fact leftists are the only americans that might.

      Euroman really doesnt have a history of submission to kings, his entire history is one of finding ways to do away with rulers, yes we have at times allowed ourselves to be temporarily ruled begrudingly but usually throw off the ruler at the onset of bad governance,

      we are a very independent race which has served us well since we can handle freedom

      a good king is hard to find and one that can throw good princes impossible

      democracy is not the problem its only of of many institutions leftist have pwnd to take over. religion, capitalism, science being a few others.

      democracy like capitalism is a market based solution that mimics evolution. It was devised to work as a meritocracy because aristocracy is a disaster. ok aristocracy works when a new man conquers the weak his very action makes sure hes worthy, but then the rot sets in and of course its disruptive. democracy is meant to avoid the bloodshed, but the weak have found ways to game the system, this is the only problem to be solved to make it work

      tweaking democracy a bit is politically possible people get that its unwise and unfair to have loafers voting on the size of their welfare checks or teachers unions annointing the mayors.They dont get throwing out the constitution and annointing a king, seriously dudes- yeah its fun to trigger leftfags but come on

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Offhand observation: europoids are the only peoples in the world in which demotism has been intermittently sustained for longer than a generational revolts worth because europoids, being more generally imaginative and eusocial in temperment than the other races, had a higher capacity for agency, and thus even the averaged idiocy of the populace managed to have a reasonable level of sense, and each average man managed to handle his own affairs with a reasonable level of prudence.

        Or iow, europoids succeeded largely in spite of demotism, not particularly because of it.

        • viking says:

          I think the evidence is pretty clear thus far openness democracy etc has been good. It may indeed now be our downfall, certainly its being used against us by people who dont believe its tenets.Its interesting those european countries who have had the least to brag about thus far are now the only ones with a sense of self-preservation.Most of european advancement has taken place during times of demotism of som sort. Now I think I made clear whats called democracy today where niggers vote for free shit is simply racial communism. I would argue that the marxist jews were so unsuccessful selling class communism that by the end of the cold war it would have all been over except their successes in the frankfurt school and KGB funded civil rights gave them a new lease ans they quickly realized they would have to import more niggers to make it scale.Just as they used christian themes to sell communism they added american themes to segua into multicultural marxism.The cuckserves actually believed hispanics would make good christian conservatives, that globalism was free markets, they believe it now.Its very hard to push a “racist” point of veiw on a chrstian or a libertarian or conservative they cant think that way without abandoning some foundational beleifs. But there are things that go deeper than these beliefs proto christianity and cuckservatism justice and fairness for instance . this is why i think you can ratchet back leftism without hoping for a collapse thats never coming. Youre not disenfranchising anyone permanently just until they contribute, no party is using dirty tricks to hurt you the people decided how to spend the limited money they have cops daycare hmmm, sanitation needle exchange hmmm school books public radio hmmm

      • averagechump says:

        The European has had kings for a long time, and has been fine with kings for a long time.

        “we are a very independent race which has served us well since we can handle freedom”

        No we are not fag. What the f**k is freedom? Freedom to the English is not the same as freedom to the American. People are bound by the laws of physics and chemistry. By this fact alone we have no freedom.

        Also, Democracy as we see it today is a product of classical liberalism, which is the original liberalism, hence it is leftwing. You’re demanding that a necessarily leftwing institution be tweaked in order that it may become more right-wing. You are a retard.

        Also, it’s clear you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. I don’t think you really know what constitutes “left-wing” or “right-wing”. I think you’re actually a liberal who is “concerned” about certain “far-right” ideas, and so you’re pitching your ideas in in order to stifle the changing tide. I don’t think you understand the limitations of democracy and why it has caused every single nation who has utilized it to shift leftward almost immediately.

        “Americans at least will never ever submit to a king in fact leftists are the only americans that might.”

        This sentence is an example of why you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t tell us what Americans will or will not submit to. You don’t know and I don’t know. Do you think the Founding Fathers would’ve expected our nation to submit to fag marriage so easily? – Do you think they would’ve expected us to submit to the ideas of transsexualism and feminism without any notable resistance? My guess is you’re actually a supporter of fag marriage, transsexualism and feminism. My guess is that you’re a closet faggot and you won’t admit it because you’re gay.

        Kill yourself now queer

        • viking says:

          where are you Im in brooklyn come say that to my face

          • viking says:

            [Censored for boring and irrelevant insults. If you insult someone on my blog try to be informative or entertaining]

            • viking says:

              you little shit for brains the proles didnt vite for any of that niggers and their jew masters voted for it whites consistently vote it doen pass referendeums and get the elites the fucking elites you want to bow down to the elites bring in the nikggers to outvote us because we wont vote for faggot s like you marrying other faggots like you.we wont vote for your bright elite ideas your fucking jewfag moildbug and his commie fag Land just want to experiment with their elite brainstorms some more fuck elite experiments fuck niggers and jews and little cocksuckers like you. you have no clue what america is like theres almost a billion guns every last former white military man is a far right extremist they are NEVER GOING TO BOW DOWN you are a larping faggot computer DND fag

              • jim says:

                They have been bowing down for some time.

                • viking says:

                  I dont know any like that I know brooklyn types who are on board with this they think they are winning with leftism. they have been brainwashed from childhood. i see despite 150 years of leftism at least half the voter and probably all the non voters are still refusniks. they are not bowing they are seething they are arming and organizing and yeah still hoping to find a political solution because civil war is really bad really bad think about the last one. The guys with the guns like me we know what war will be like.
                  I dont know jim this whole monarchy larping thing to me that a childs game thats never going to happen the reaction talks a lot about how close we are to destruction then has wasted ten years talking about things that are absurdly unrealistic

                • jim says:

                  I dont know jim this whole monarchy larping thing to me that a childs game thats never going to happen

                  History tells us that democracy is rare and usually disastrous, while Monarchy is normal and usually not too bad. If democracy has been seemingly stable over the last two centuries and not particularly disastrous, it is because it has been faked up to generate predetermined results. Since World War II, results predetermined in Harvard.

                • peppermint says:

                  If Trump can drive out the foreigners so my people can have careers and houses and marriages again, I will worship him as God-Emperor.

                  I know some part Jews who already worship him as God-Emperor because He alone offers to create peace between the Jews and the Aryans on this continent.

                  We have serious problems here, much more important than your economic concern that some people have more stuff than you or political power. Right now we need a king, whether he calls himself God-Emperor or Führer. I don’t necessarily want a war with the Jews if we can negotiate the 14w from a position of strength and maintain that strength going forward.

                  You will bow and worship as necessary for the 14w and for Kek the God of Memes and for WOTAN (Will Of They Aryan Nation).

                • peppermint says:

                  the response at the time to the liberty of the Founders was that that’s great for small settlements of settlers on the edge of civilization on a vast continent with only stone-age opposition. Today there’s no more land out there to homestead, Amazon reaches everywhere with supplies, and it’s not really possible to make most of what you need unless you want to live like a Mongolian. The White conquest of Siberia will look very different from the White conquest of Canada.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “If Trump can drive out the foreigners so my people can have careers and houses and marriages again, I will worship him as God-Emperor.”

                  Precisely, Peppermint.

                  (Would you respond to the question I left on your blog?)

                • peppermint says:

                  I don’t know anything about CFR :/

          • averagechump says:

            lol tough guy

  2. Cavalier says:

    I love your phrasing, your writing has a lovely way of sort of _turning_ and _clicking_ softly into place, though I am not a “legacy” American, and I spit on the word.

    Are you amenable to reviving the economics posts? Posts about rights, natural rights, historical analyses of pioneer America justice and economics? Musings on the Venetian model of governance? There are only so many ways to frame “left singularity”.

    • lalit says:

      Eh Cavaliar, what are you some sort of a Libertarian? Libertarianism can never ascend to power because as Moldbug has so eloquently explained. And any Libertarian community will quickly be consumed by a nearby state. A state is the most efficient way to organize people to plunder those less organized than themselves.

      • Cavalier says:

        The conquest and civilization of the North American continent is one the most significant events in world history, perhaps since the first Indo-Europeans swept out of the north and conquered most of the world and established the ancient civilizations 6,000 years ago. I am intensely interested in any thought that helps us repeat North America in the other areas which so desperately need it, namely Mexico, Central America, South America, and Africa, and Jim is perhaps the most original thinker I have ever known.

  3. Dave says:

    I can sympathize with the editors of Die Welt, because I feel the same way watching Venezuela today. The national life gets drab, then bad, then terrible, then horrific, then apocalyptic, and so on, yet Maduro and his gang stubbornly cling to power, thereby giving the impression that they, like the Kims in North Korea, have found the secret to eternal rule.

    • TheBigH says:

      Maduro and crew did a very good job creating their dictatorship. He armed the criminal elements in the street while disarming the middle class. The cops are only used against the middle class while the under class continue harasses, steals from, rapes, and lords over the middle without police interference. The Military is well taken care of and carefully screened for ideological loyalty. In time the middle class will be entirely destroyed and the country will starve to death but there’s a lot of ruin in a nation.

  4. lalit says:

    Hurray for Josip Vissarionovich Stalin, the killer of everyone lefter than him, holier than him.

  5. Ioannes Barbarus says:

    “Classical liberalism, libertarianism… is a reasonable and sane form of leftism”

    Who are you and what did you do with Jim?

    Libertarianism/classical liberalism, by the meaning everyone uses, isn’t what England had in the 19th c. That was closer to classical liberalism than what it had before, but not as close as what it had afterwards.

    Classical liberalism is the most committed to the disintegration of society, to the abolishing of authority itself, and to the replacement of all obligations with the consent principle. The most unstable leftism, the one which we are approximating closer and closer today, the abyss at the center of the holiness spiral.

    So on the contrary it’s the most insane form of leftism, as the purest philosophical form. It contains all the errors of its successors in concentrate, with the least contact with reality, the least compromise with reality, the fewest unprincipled exceptions. Classical liberalism spawned all subsequent political thought as various people adulterated it with doses of reality, except libertarians who chose zero reality.

    • Cavalier says:

      Well, classical liberals such as the Founding Fathers and their progeny had sufficient power and ample opportunity to do more or less whatever they wanted, and yet they never enfranchised women, nor permitted homosexuals to marry, nor deliberately imported 100 million foreigners in which to drown “ourselves and our posterity”.

      I would say that they pretty clearly had the seeds of Equality and Liberty and Freedom and Providence and all the rest, but the roots of those seeds had not yet descended deep into the dirt of stark raving madness and turned into a giant redwood forest.

      Rousseau, though, was a total nut. It’s really not in the least surprising that the French Revolution turned immediately into the Cult of Reason followed by the Reign of Terror followed by Napoleon in Russia.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      Most Classical liberals supported the traditional family, did not want women to vote, and wanted to keep the government to 5-10% of the economy. How did you get “most insane form of leftism” from this? I’m pretty sure the Classical Liberal era (1830 – 1880) was way better than both its predecessors and successors on every metric you want to look at whether its taxation, welfare, regulation, monetary stability, crime, peace, etc. Yes their fetish with democracy lead to problems later but the peak of the west was definitely during this era. Are you seriously arguing Libertarians are worse than leftists? Why do you think a lot of neoreactionaries are ex libertarians?

  6. Mountbatten says:

    Hey Jim, great article,

    but how do you know that for sure that Caroline was a raging slut, riding cock? The witnesses for the prosecution could have been bribed by King George, furthermore there were counter- witnesses for her defense at hand and ultimately, the trial against her was suspended. How could one know for sure that she was cuckholding the King of England with a jobless lowlife named Pergami?

    And aside from that, i would like to ask you, my Good Lord, obsequiously, how could someone as a western husband/man/fiance determine whether your wife is a cheating whore or just a regular disobedient brat, indoctrinated, thanks to a standard western upbringing, to equalism, wymens rights etc.? Well aside from catching her in flagranti?

    Cheers Mountbatten

    • jim says:

      Because her cock carousel continued to generate embarrassing and increasing publicity long after the divorce case.

      For example she attended a ball naked from the waist up, and departed from the ball to her hotel with a man she met at the ball.

      Pretty sure my wife never went to a dance naked from the waist up.

      • Mountbatten says:

        Bare Breasted at a ball at the age 53? Yikes! But do we have definite written contemporary proof or just rumours as her defendants claomed? That being said, Caesars wife should of course be above suspicions.

        But asking you graciously my Good Lord for an advice for young men: how do you know whether your wife is a cheating whore or just a disobedient brat? Aside from rumours and suspicion?

  7. Zach says:

    The biologist in the second link is terrifyingly brilliant. Wow.

  8. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Hey Jim, as a long-time reactionary-leaning libertarian reader / lurker, I would like to ask you a question about Victorian era illegitimacy. Do you have any concrete statistics about the % of children in Victorian England / 19th century America that were born out of wedlock? My impression from reading the literature of that time was that illegitimacy was pretty much zero by modern standards, e.g. not 30-40% like it is now but more like 2-3%. I agree with you that patriarchy needs to be reestablished to prevent an IQ / population collapse but without a public education system teaching feminism and cuckolding the father’s authority, a marriage system where women are rewarded for cheating and millions of fake affirmative action jobs for women won’t traditional marriage be automatically reestablished without state intervention? My impression was that 19th century America approximated such a system and had very high fertility.

    Also another quick tangential question – what do you think of the gay germ theory?

    • jim says:

      No, I don’t have statistics, I know that people of the time felt that the levels of illegitimacy were horrifying and intolerable, and this created pressure for what we now know as the welfare state.

      won’t traditional marriage be automatically reestablished without state intervention?

      I don’t think so. Marriage was sustained by Church and society in the face of forceful opposition and venemous attack by the state. Now Church and society are also hostile to marriage.

      Further, it is almost impossible to have too much patriarchy. Even when women were legally property, as after the fall of the Song dynasty, women tended to get their way to an extent that was detrimental to family formation. All a man can do to you is kill you, but a woman can make you immortal. So women are just naturally more powerful than men in their proper role as wives and mothers, and tend to top from the bottom, regardless of how little power the law gives them.

      If I don’t beat a woman it is because she does not want me to beat her, if I beat a woman, it is because she unconsciously does want me to beat her. I am a dancing monkey on a chain, and would be even if women were legally property.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        “No, I don’t have statistics, I know that people of the time felt that the levels of illegitimacy were horrifying and intolerable, and this created pressure for what we now know as the welfare state.”

        Oliver Twist being an obvious example:

        “Orphaned by his mother’s death in childbirth and his father’s unexplained absence, Oliver is meagrely provided for under the terms of the Poor Law and spends the first nine years of his life living at a baby farm in the ‘care’ of a woman named Mrs. Mann.”

        Oliver Twist is described as an orphan, but he was an orphan, his father presumably being still alive. Rather, Oliver Twist was a bastard.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Jim, I buy that a libertarian solution (no affirmative action for women, no child support, private education but also no state enforcement of patriarchy) will have more fatherlessness than 18th century patriarchy but I’m just trying to find out if the differential is significant by looking at the absolute level of fatherlessness in Victorian and 18th century England. I don’t think it is and I think using Cathedral propaganda isn’t a great source because as you know even if things are fine the Cathedral will lie as much as possible and try their best to find a poster boy. Even if fatherlessness was equal in Victorian period and 18th century I’m pretty sure the Cathedral would write some BS to get traction. The Cathedral also wrote a ton of books in the late 1800s about how bad the poor were doing to gain support for welfare state like “How the other half lives” which if you read will shock you by how great poor people behaved then. Maybe I’m still blue pilled but I think it’s better to have the 2-5% of females who are suitable for the work place working even if this does decrease genetic quality a bit in the very long run. That being said I strongly prefer your solution to actual gender relations in any time after 1920.

        I agree Church and Society are hostile to family formation now but would they be if we removed the presence of the state in marriage, education, affirmative action, etc? The reason I bring this up is that there are definitely high fertility groups like Mormons which would have a lot of kids if the state got off their back. Don’t you think they would become the majority through conversion / differential fertility pretty fast once leftism is gone? Even Rural China has a reasonable fertility of 2-3 kids which is pretty good when you consider the government was instituting one child policy until recently and all that took was family pressure and low levels of government education. I find it hard to believe that women could ride the cock carousel if all affirmative action jobs were removed and men actually had the option of traditional marriage.

        How did feminism impede family formation in traditional China? Women in traditional China were buying their husbands concubines as presents (and this was the case before Song Neo Confucianism) and went to jail upon divorce. We could use some of that impediment. Obviously there were some betas who still got controlled by their wives but do you really want them reproducing if they can’t even control women under a Neo Confucian environment?

        Also going on another tangent what do you think of Randianism (modified to be pro family) as a state religion? I think its pretty impervious to leftism due to being very pro capitalist and stable due to having a holy book. Seems a better bet to me to have a state religion which isn’t based on a creator god given modern realities but curious to know what you think.

    • TheBigH says:

      >Also another quick tangential question – what do you think of the gay germ theory?

      I have a old black acquaintance that told how his friend went from straight to gay after being raped in prison. The guy spent his time picking up men for a few years after coming out of the pen instead. I think the gay disease theory is worth studying, but it won’t be studied in the west.

      • jim says:

        Makes biological sense. You undoubtedly know that Toxoplasma gondii causes mice it infects to become sexually attracted to cats. (The mouse gets eaten, but the Toxoplasma survives being eaten and gets to engage in sex inside the cat) So it makes sense for a disease transmitted by gay sex to turn people gay. Surely easier to make humans homosexual than mice felinesexual.

        • TheBigH says:

          > You undoubtedly know that Toxoplasma gondii causes mice it infects to become sexually attracted to cats.

          That I did not know. It was always described to me as the mousing seeking cats out, but they always left off the sexual attraction bit. Probably hits a bit too close to gay attraction thus had to be purged from casual literature.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          I think the theory is that some males are born with low levels of testosterone which makes them susceptible to the germ once they are exposed to it through gay sex or whatever, not that everyone can be infected (it only applies to exclusive gays, not Ancient Greeks with low levels of disgust who had 5 kids after getting married). It’s pretty implausible that something which pretty much sterilizes you can be passed down purely genetically.

          What really made me convinced of it was research showing that homophobia had a higher chance of being genetically inherited than homosexuality (twins have ~40% correlation when everything else is 99%) and that a lot of hunter gatherer groups have no concept of homosexuality. This suggests to me that there is a genetic component but the main cause is probably a virus. Which makes the leftist argument that everything is non genetic except homosexuality pretty ironic.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            By the way Jim, I think you should do a post on this theory sometime. I think it’s a pretty interesting theory and would start a good discussion.

        • Alfred says:

          I read about the parasite taking away the fear of cats, not making it sexually attracted to cats.

          • jim says:

            I cannot provide a link, but I have read it stated, in scientific jargon, not quite as plainly as I have stated it, that the mouse is sexually attracted to cat urine, and to cats themselves.

  9. thinkingabout it says:

    Speaking of women and angels – It seems to me that the very concept of angel has something very feminine in it. I find it hard to visualize an angel who isn’t feminine in personality.

    Is this is a prog-era retrofitting of the original concept of angels?

    • jim says:

      Prog era retrofit to the original concept of angels. Check all pictures of angels before George enraged the left by announcing himself appointed regent by God.

      Most 18th century and earlier angels are male or androgynous. I only found two plausibly female angels.

      • thinkingabout it says:

        I wouldn’t have believed it a few years ago, but now, after seeing progs making the most outrageous distortions to the truth on wikipedia and the mainstream media, I admit I have no clue how to determine what’s true and what’s not in the historical record.

        Most recently, I was stunned by how they turned the Carrier plant deal into “evidence” that Trump was into crony capitalism.

        • jim says:

          It is true that angels have always been somewhat feminine, but they have nonenetheless been overwhelmingly male.

          Compare 19th century depictions of angels with eighteenth century.

          Deeming all men wicked and all women good was an unfortunate side effect of deeming George wicked and all the women around him good.

    • Erik says:

      Jim is correct; in addition, let me suggest the genre of Michael trampling various demons and dragons as a place to find visual references of masculine-looking angels.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael4.jpg

      (Angels are technically sexless in the Bible as they do not reproduce, but they appear male and are referred to as male.)

  10. Glenfilthie says:

    Jesus, Jim! It’s like trying to take a sip of water from a fire hydrant! I want your assurance that you are interpreting history here, and not revising it! I will be checking your work! 🙂

    That dissenting sociologist is next. If you boys are BSing… you are doing one very thorough job of it!

    Keep up the good work men – but Filthie is watching you…

    • jim says:

      I tend to forget links, some of which I read a very long time ago.

      Check my work, and if you find some interesting links, share them with me.

  11. george strong says:

    Do property holders include those whose property is mortgaged? Or only those who own their land free and clear? Thanks for any reply.

    • jim says:

      I would favor giving the vote to any head of household with a mortgage well above the waterline – mortgage about sixty percent or less of total assets. Also limit it to dads, soldiers, cops, rentacops, and mercenaries.

  12. Abelard Lindsey says:

    Reading this blog suggests to me that the “aristocracy” that you are proposing would be comprised of competent people in the Robert Heinlein sense. Whether someone is a net taxpayer vs. being a net tax consumer seems to be the most logical determinant of who gets to be a part of this new aristocracy. Having a hereditary component makes sense only if one assumes that the traits that lead to Heinleinian competent people (e.g. cognitive ability, executive function) are genetically determined. If not, hereditary basis makes no sense.

    Bio-engineering is advancing very rapidly. It is likely once the genetic co-relates for cognitive ability and executive function are identifies, some people will use CRISPR to increase these traits in themselves and/or their kids. Would the aristocracy exclude these people? If so, would these people be free to leave (e.g. seasteading, ultimately space colonization) your society?

    I assume that the aristrocratic society that you propose would create more opportunities for upward mobility than our current society. If it does not, I see no point in pursuing such a thing.

Leave a Reply