Trump for King

This image, and this entire blog is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This is an outline of how President Trump might well become King Trump the first, if we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.

The world is sick of anarcho tyranny, and hungers unknowingly for the power and authority of Kings.

The recent election of Duterte, on a platform of his praetorians simply killing the bad guys out of hand without charges or trials, is an example of this hunger.

Now I hear some of you saying (and the progressives thinking but not saying out loud) that apart from being tough on crime, corruption, and governmental indiscipline, Duterte is a leftist and that is just a bunch of rice niggers, low IQ south Asians. White people are more civilized than that – perhaps a little too civilized for our own good.

In Australia, one of the whitest countries remaining, a few elections back, the election was on the issue of illegal immigration. Tony Abbott said he would stop illegal immigration.

The judges, of course, ruled stopping illegal immigration illegal. Tony Abbott ignored the judges. The net effect is that today, if you violate immigration law they send you to jail in Villawood detention center without bothering with charges or trials. From time to time the left whines about due process, and gets absolutely zero traction. Suddenly it was revealed that there is zero support for due process, that there are almost no voters who care about due process any more. And in particular and especially very few white voters who care about due process.

The purpose of due process was supposedly to ensure that the innocent do not go to jail, and the guilty do go to jail. But anarcho tyranny means that with so many laws, the innocent are bound to be guilty of something or other, while actual criminals are deemed the oppressed, and are coddled and protected by the state. Due process lets real criminals loose, mostly dark skinned real criminals who prey on white people, while imposing enormous and impossible legal costs on innocent middle class honest respectable people. For middle class people, due process is just the government’s way of punishing you when it cannot be bothered finding a crime to convict you of, even though with so many laws you have undoubtedly committed more crimes than you can shake a stick at.

White people just don’t like due process any more, for much the same reasons as Filipinos rejected it.

So in our current environment due process and judicial review is discredited, and lacks political support. In Tony Abbot’s Australia as much as in Duterte’s Philippines, it was suddenly and startlingly revealed that judges are simply all out of moral authority. No one cares about due process, because, under anarcho tyranny, there is no reason why they should care. It is not just a tiny handful of reactionary intellectuals thinking like this. It is pretty much everyone.

The point of due process was to prevent the King from treating repectable decent people like criminals. But now that we are all treated like criminals, people just don’t care.

Power divided can be power reduced. If the benevolent party controls all the food, or ninety nine percent of the food, as in communist China, today’s Venezuela, or Allende’s Chile, then you are toast. The result is at best severe oppression as in Venezuela, at worst mass murder on an enormous scale, as in China.

If however ninety nine percent of the food is controlled by ninety nine members of the one percent each of whom controls one percent of the food, then no problem. In this case, power divided is power reduced.

But if you need ninety nine approvals by ninety nine bureaucrats to build a house, you are more than ninety nine times as oppressed than if you need the approval of one bureaucrat, because you face a coordination problem between bureaucrats.

With one bureaucrat, you could hope to pay him off, formally or informally, by giving his bagman/consultant, say, a third of the surplus value you create by building the house. With ninety nine bureaucrats, they each want ten percent, so you just cannot build the house.

In this case, power divided is power increased, enormously increased. This enormous multiplication of oppressive power is another aspect of anarcho tyranny that leads people to hunger for the power of kings, they hunger for one man who could say “give me half the surplus value and build it” and who would tell the other ninety eight bureaucrats to take a long walk off a short pier. They hunger for a Duterte who would shoot the other ninety eight bureacrats behind a shed.

America’s smartest member of the ruling progressive elite tells us:

Investigating the reasons behind the bridge blunders have helped to illuminate an aspect of American sclerosis — a gaggle of regulators and veto players, each with the power to block or to delay, and each with their own parochial concerns. All the actors — the historical commission, the contractor, the environmental agencies, the advocacy groups, the state transportation department — are reasonable in their own terms, but the final result is wildly unreasonable.

Larry the prog worries that regulation, a multiplicity of veto players, makes government inefficient, and therefore unpopular, worries that he cannot get the bridge he needs to go to and from Harvard, and fails to see the glaringly obvious, that regulation makes the private sector inefficient.

I, too, have had to deal with a multiplicity of veto players, each with his bagman collecting his bribe.

And I do not believe that any of them were reasonable. That is just Larry the prog issuing the required pieties. All of them deserve to be shot. All of them were evil, corrupt, and insane.

Larry is pissed because his commute to Harvard is obstructed, blissfully unaware that Americans further from the seat of power suffer from the anarchy of government far more severely than he does.

In America, the presidency has gathered to itself enormous power, intervening in every small business, every household.

Husbands are thrown out of their houses, fathers torn from their children, thanks to the Department of Justice, which is theoretically answerable to the president. Women with husbands tend to vote Republican. Children with fathers tend to vote Republican. If the Depart of Justice has its way no woman will have a husband, nor any child a father.

Similarly the department of Justice arranged for white people to be burned out of Ferguson, forbidding the Ferguson police from protecting people and property, and forbidding collective self defense against collective aggression.

But the presidency is not the president. It is an enormous horde of bureaucrats that are theoretically supposed to obey the president, but which the president cannot fire, which results in anarcho tyranny. If the president could fire them, this would enormously increase the power of the president, but enormously decrease the power of the presidency, because one would be merely subject to one tyrant, instead of ninety nine tyrants.

In practice, the bureaucrats tend to treat the president as their public relations boy, rather than their boss. And if he fails to run good PR for what they have already decided to do they will smack him around the ears in the pages of the New York Times.

The bureaucrats are answerable to the consensus of their fellow bureaucrats, they have to be a square peg in a square hole, but the consensus is controlled by the consensus of the Ivies, and the consensus of the Ivies is controlled by the consensus of Harvard.

And as we have seen Harvard does not much like Trump, and to judge from his list of Supreme Court judicial candidates, Trump does not much like Harvard.

For Trump to rule, for Trump to accomplish any of his goals, the president has to subjugate the presidency, a process that will inevitably require massive firings, and some actual violence against those who decline to be fired. Quite possibly some Duterte style sudden violent deaths that no one is inclined to investigate because everyone knows what an honest investigation would reveal.

Trump will need to get rid of some turbulent priests.

The president’s power is so very great as to diminish the power and effectiveness of democracy thus we see a tendency to dynasties – the attempted Kennedy dynasty, the attempted Clinton dynasty, and the Bush dynasty.

An enormous increase in the power of the president, which will happen if Trump succeeds in firing those bureaucrats who do not obey him, would pretty much guarantee dynastic rule. Trump would govern for eight years, then be succeeded by his sons.

So we would have a system that was nominally democratic, but actually hereditary and monarchic. Such a difference between actual and formal power is necessarily corrupting and destructive, because such government operates by lies. To remedy this corruption, one of Trump’s sons would have to declare himself King Trump the third, and his predecessors King Trump the first and King Trump the second.

So for Trump to become King in substance, and eventually King in name, he has to seize the power to fire the fireproof.

Which, given that he has support from the military, the praetorians, the cops, the rentacops, and the mercenaries, and that judges do not have much support from anyone, is quite doable.

If Trump says “You are fired”, and security frog marches the offending presidency bureaucrat out of the building and does not let him back in, has that bureaucrat not been fired?

If HR attempts to keep paying the bureaucrat, apply the same measure to HR. If judges rule the firing illegal, do like Abbot and Duterte, and tell the judges to take a long walk off a short pier.

Thus could Trump exercise the power of Kings.

And if he wants to build a wall and deport anchor babies, that is what he needs to do, he needs to exercise the power of a King, for otherwise the presidency will not permit the president to act.

And if Trump exercises the power of Kings and does so competently and bravely, if he is worthy to exercise such power, Kings shall in due course ensue. I will then apply for the job of Grand Inquisitor when the time is right.

Tags:

174 Responses to “Trump for King”

  1. Aurelius Moner says:

    I’ve long thought that a “Velvet Revolution” was well within bounds of possibility – probability, even, with the right push and the right compliance.

    I think the decent folk of this county understand at this point, that our goose is cooked unless we simply say, “enough,” ignore the “rules,” and depose, deport and decapitate as necessary.

  2. B says:

    >we see a tendency to dynasties – the attempted Kennedy dynasty, the attempted Clinton dynasty, and the Bush dynasty

    Some tendency.

    Two total failures at dynasties and one case of a presidency passing between a father and a son with a catastrophic drop in quality from one to the other, followed by !Jeb.

    I’ve seen no indication that any of Trump’s kids have anything impressive to offer.

    If anyone is cut out to be an American monarch, it’s Gaylord Thiel.

    In any case, the cycle of history does not go from democracy to monarchy except through anarchy, and the guy who comes out on top in anarchy is typically not some fop tycoon with a spray tan.

    Speaking of concrete predictions (which are an improvement on the typical What Shall Be Done?-style posts here,) how’s Aleppo doing? Assad having a victory parade on a white horse yet? It’s almost June, you know. I remember back in December you were promising that IS would get run out of Raqqa any day.

    Also, the deadline for our Orthodox gay marriage bet is coming up soon.

    • jim says:

      Seems to me my predictions for Aleppo were right on target. I predicted that Aleppo shall fall unless Turkey openly invades with its conventional regular military ground and air forces. Aleppo is damn near falling, and Turkey has openly invaded with its conventional regular military ground and air forces.

      I also predicted no guerrilla war, and there has been no guerrilla war – if there had been guerrilla war, Turkey would not have needed to openly invade.

      The capital of Islamic state has become a ghost town. Islamic state in Syria is shriveling.

      • GameOn says:

        The Syrian government has major manpower problems. The Alawite are very westernized and thus don’t produce enough children. They’ve lost a huge chunk of their young male population and even when they finally win I don’t see how they can hold the country with their current birth rate.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      “In any case, the cycle of history does not go from democracy to monarchy except through anarchy, and the guy who comes out on top in anarchy is typically not some fop tycoon with a spray tan.”

      Uhhhh… Julius Cæsar, Pompey Magnus, Mark Antony, and Octavian Cæsar were super-rich celebrities with private armies. They were shitlords too, even.

      Octavian famously tagged Cleopatra with the “Whore of Egypt” linguistic kill-shot. So that even if he lost The Battle of Actium, the Romans would still be pissed off enough to have Octavian (or his avengers) send another force after the Whore of Egypt and her pool-boy.

    • sol says:

      Try harder B.

    • peppermint says:

      Orthodoxy doesn’t have gay marriage because Putin banned Cathedral NGOs.

      Regarding Aleppo,
      (1) Turkey didn’t send in the tanks, and Saudia Arabia didn’t send in the tanks
      (2) Suddenly people stopped talking about getting a permanent peace treaty between Assad and the FSA
      (3) the ceasefire agreement allowed the terrorists to resupply, but it also allowed the government to make gains elsewhere
      (4) https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/massive-convoy-syrian-army-reinforcements-arrive-aleppo/ they’re routing troops through Aleppo to other areas, implying that they think Aleppo is a safe place to drive through

      • A pint thereof says:

        “Orthodoxy doesn’t have gay marriage because Putin banned Cathedral NGOs.”

        I thought “orthodox” in this case alluded to the Jewish orthodox? i.e B claiming the orthodox Jews would never sanction fag marriage, Jim saying they would.

        Or maybe not. Could someone clear this up?

          • A pint thereof says:

            No, I’m referring to B’s statement above:

            “Also, the deadline for our Orthodox gay marriage bet is coming up soon.”

            He’s talking about Jewish Orthodox here, isn’t he, not Christian Eastern Orthodox? I assume Peppermint seems to think it’s Eastern Orthodoxy, with his allusion to Putin, but that doesn’t make sense.

            I think it’s Jim’s contention that the Jewish Orthodox _will_ permit homosexual marriage at some point, just with their usual Talmudic justifications. I think it’s B’s contention that they wont.

            • jim says:

              Yes, they will say they are not performing gay weddings, but recognizing, solemnizing, and acknowledging gay relationships. Or some similar piety.

          • pdimov says:

            Yes, you’re right, I didn’t look at enough context.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Trump chose to have his sons with the most attractive possible women rather than the most capable possible women. The male equivalent of women favouring anti-social dark triad features over the ability to peacefully earn a salary.

      • Brit says:

        Melania Trump speaks five languages, appears to win over everyone she meets, and is described as “supportive wife, great mother and a lovely person”

        Trump many months ago at his rally asked everyone “do you believe in the gene thing?”, and mentioned his father being a professor.

        Language ability has a weak correlation with total IQ, and I have not met Melania, so I cannot know for sure, but seems it to me that Trump would have had good judgement.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          While Melania Trump may not be the stupidest person ever, that is not why she was selected.

          • Anglican says:

            Well you know, those Presbyterians and Calvinists in general with their retarded decision-making abilities…

    • B says:

      Moving the goalposts and throwing up squid ink. Sad!

      • jim says:

        So what goalposts do you have in mind that makes your analysis correct rather than a pile of inane idiocy that has been decisively refuted by events?

        Your theory was based on the invincibility of guerrilla warfare. My theory was based on god favoring the big battalions. Big Battalions one, asymmetric warfare zero.

        If two sides are asymmetric, the weaker side is crushed like a bug, unless an outside power has a thumb on the scales, that outside power usually being the American state department.

        Which can require the Pentagon to fight with both hands tied behind its back and its right foot wired to its jaw, but cannot impose similar requirements on Russian military forces.

        • B says:

          >Your theory was based on the invincibility of guerrilla warfare.

          Liar.

          >Big Battalions one, asymmetric warfare zero.

          Where are those front lines in Aleppo? R

          ight about where they were 6 months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map

          A couple of goat villages have changed hands, but the two sides remain wrapped around each other.

          >but cannot impose similar requirements on Russian military forces.

          Which is what makes it so darn perplexing that Aleppo still has not fallen to those big Russian battalions, let alone Raqqa.

          Oh, right, it’s those Turkish armored battalions that charged into Aleppo as you predicted.

          What do you think Trump would call you if you gained prominence? “Crazy Jim”?

          • jim says:

            Where are those front lines in Aleppo?

            Their nominal position is held in place by the need to avoid humiliating the state department and the Turks, but actual power is in the hands of the Syrians – which is, you will recall, what I predicted for Raqqa, though not for Aleppo.

            And what is happening in Raqqa? Has not fallen yet, but hollowed out. Which is what I predicted for Raqqa.

            You, however, predicted that Aleppo and Raqqa would not fall because aysmmetric warfare is so wonderfully effective. Where is your asymmetric war?

            You predicted that asymmetric warfare would be going strong in Syria by now.

            Oh, right, it’s those Turkish armored battalions that charged into Aleppo as you predicted.

            https://www.rt.com/news/342800-erdogan-syria-border-clearing/

            Turkey has been intervening in Syria with conventional troops in a cautious semi furtive manner and is threatening to intervene more openly.

            If they have not actually charged into Aleppo, they have been rattling sabers and making reconnaissance in force, crossing the border while avoiding large scale conflicts between Turkish and Syrian forces.

          • pdimov says:

            There’s been a ceasefire, so the map provides little entertainment nowadays.

          • B says:

            >the need to avoid humiliating the state department and the Turks

            Whose need, Assad’s? The Russians’? Sure. Didn’t you just say the State Department had no power against the Russians?

            >Has not fallen yet, but hollowed out.

            As measured by what, CNN reporting from downtown Raqqa?

            >You, however, predicted that Aleppo and Raqqa would not fall because aysmmetric warfare is so wonderfully effective.

            Liar. Where did I predict that?

            >You predicted that asymmetric warfare would be going strong in Syria by now.

            Yeah, on the off chance that the Syrian regime was able to reconquer the Sunni areas, I predicted there would be an insurgency. Assad’s guys have not been able to reconquer the Sunni areas, so it didn’t even get to that point; you don’t need to fight an insurgency if you have a conventional war going.

            >in a cautious semi furtive manner

            Translation: contra your predictions, conventional (as opposed to SOF) Turkish forces are nowhere to be found in Syria, except for in brief trips into border areas by small elements.

            Anyway, you could predict the earth falling into the sun next week, and then next week explain that you meant that it would be an unusually hot day and lo! the air conditioner does seem to be making a lot of noise. Sad.

          • peppermint says:

            I think Russia pulled out so the Kurds wouldn’t be able to bait them into open war with Turkey before they were good and ready. But, they’re evidently giving MANPADS to Kurds.

            I expect the EU to collapse within the next few years, NATO to disband, and Russia to liberate Constantinople to be an international city and protectorate, while handing the west coast of Anatolia to the Greeks and keeping the north for themselves making the Black Sea a Russian lake; an eventual agreement handing much of ISIS land in Iraq and Syria not to mention Kurdish areas in Iraq, Syria, and eastern Turkey to a new Kurdistan, with maybe a land locked Turkish rump state in the middle.

            I think the Russian pullout forestalled the utter collapse of anti-Assad forces, perhaps with the goal of leaving the conflict festering and Turks dreaming to provide a causus belli for that kind of remapping.

          • pdimov says:

            “The plan is to simply flatten rebel held Aleppo as they flattened Grozny, and that project is near complete.”

            I’d think that the plan was to cut Aleppo from Turkey and then wait, instead of having to kill everyone, hence the ceasefire _after_ said cutting. The rapid depopulation you mention seems to support that.

            • jim says:

              A bit of both. But whenever rebel held Aleppo gets new weapons, they tend to revert to flattening.

              Obviously the plan was to starve them out, but oddly there seems to be plenty of food in the rebel held area, so that is clearly not working, perhaps due to “Humanitarian” aid.

    • Brit says:

      Trump’s son has posted on /pol/. What else do you need?

  3. Mark Yuray says:

    The only problem with this post is that the blonde girl at God-Emperor Trump’s feet has no ass.

  4. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    I, for one, am looking forward to volunteering for the Trumpista death squads.

    Time to clean house and settle scores.

  5. peppermint says:

    There’s this TV show that’s popular right now, Broad City, about a half-jew and a half-nigger who run around New York City acting comically irresponsible, just like the nigger heroes of the stories that our commie scumbag teachers used to read to us in elementary school. I know about it because my gf and her friends like it.

    I know a half nigger who’s moving into a sweet apartment on a housing voucher and I have to pretend to be happy for her. I’m a pretty good actor, but it’s tough.

    I know a bunch of older men who are out of work who think it’s still the ’70s and they must be doing something wrong on their applications or whatever. They get mad at me when I point to the labor force participation and tell them there aren’t jobs for White men.

    Younger White men know that they need to keep their heads down, work twice as hard as their mud “co-workers”, show up whenever they’re told on a moment’s notice, and smile.

    If you’re a mud person, or a woman, or a faggot, there are organizations looking out for you. If you’re White, there’s only one organization that kkkares.

    We can do this the easy way, with Trump legalizing a non-paramilitary KKK organization and generally liberalizing the laws regulating what kinds of freedom of association are permitted to allow Whites to compete, or the hard way, starting by lynching everyone who was involved in primary education 20 years ago.

    You can’t just tell people that they’re White and they deserve to be cucked because of what their ancestors did. Helping us tell Whites that we’re White is the dumbest thing the Jews ever did, even worse than ruining cuckstainty.

    • “You can’t just tell people that they’re White and they deserve to be cucked because of what their ancestors did. Helping us tell Whites that we’re White is the dumbest thing the Jews ever did…”

      Funny thing is, this exactly mirrors my own experiences. When I was an even younger chap, I never really took note of my “whiteness” nor did I recognize the differences between the races until the MSM began to double-down on its messages of “white privilege”. Now here I am reading a blog like this. Go figure.

  6. Steve Johnson says:

    Like due process, the only reason for a democratic government is because it produces acceptable results. In a country like the pre-1965 United States it’s a workable way of papering over differences by allowing competing groups to take turns handing out government spoils.

    A hundred years ago progressives discovered that Alexander Fraser Tytler was wrong and that democracy couldn’t be hijacked simply by each group voting itself money out of the public treasury so they tried the same exact strategy they’re trying now – they imported what they thought were low IQ groups to be permanent government dependents. It turns out they were actually mostly wrong about Italians and Irish but the idea was right. Since you can’t hack a democracy in a white country with just bribes to voters they imported ringers. If you accept democracy then you’re accepting dispossession and eventual genocide.

    If the electorate is already changed enough that Trump can’t win then that’s a huge sign that democracy is over.

  7. Oliver Cromwell says:

    A stable regime also needs a state religion, and to place damnatio memoriae on the old religion.

    Anarcho-tryanny is increasingly understood to exist by individuals in a blind, half-conscious way. But is no mass movement that articulates that anarcho-tyranny exists and that suppressing it is its aim.

    Conservatives typically fail because they are not trying to control the institutions. Therefore today’s conservatives believe in the radicalism of yesterday. To win, a new regime must make its ideology radicalism, the ideology that is taught to the next generation.

  8. Grotesque Body says:

    You spelled “Abbott” wrong, m8.

  9. jew613 says:

    Who is the girl on the left?

    For America’s sake I hope you are right that the period of Democracy is ending. It is an accursed system which always leads to horrifying tyranny.

  10. Mister Grumpus says:

    Thank you for this! I can get behind this 100%.

    I especially appreciate your observation/clarification that both the Philippines and Australia — in actual revealed-preference real-life — couldn’t care less about due process anymore, especially for blatant invaders and internal enemies (especially ethnically-obvious ones).

    I also appreciate your observation that in both of these cases, the welcomed de-facto ruler was an alpha-male with the instinctual allegiance — regardless of what the pieces of paper say — of the domestic “violence industry”.

    In all three cases — the Philippines, Australia and the USA — the law-abiding tax-payers all know that they’re being invaded, dispossessed and enslaved. Rapidly and successfully. With the HELP of their own governments.

    Any opportunity said law-abiding tax-payers get to turn a plausibly-deniable blind eye to someone repelling said invasion By Any Means Necessary… will be silently yet warmly accepted without complaint and rewarded with ever-clearer consent the next time around.

    It’s the Current Year. Everything is on the table now!

    • Corvinus says:

      Grumpy Pants…

      …”the law-abiding tax-payers all know that they’re being invaded, dispossessed and enslaved. ”

      Who are these law-abiding taxpayers? And how do they “all know”?

      ” the next time around.”

      Why do Neoreactionaries seem to wait for the “right time” to strike? Now is the time to detonate your dirty bombs.

      Jim…

      “This is an outline of how President Trump might well become King Trump the first, if we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.”

      Right, a white man engaging in a sexual act with a non-white woman. How anti-white. I thought the mixing of the races was frowned upon here. Hypocrite.

      “The world is sick of anarcho tyranny, and hungers unknowingly for the power and authority of Kings.”

      [Laughs] that’s why I come here, Jim, for the comedic commentary. The train is fine, the train is fine.

      “So in our current environment due process and judicial review is discredited, and lacks political support.”

      Jim, if that be the case, then lawyers and judges would be strung up and courts shuttered.

      “An enormous increase in the power of the president, which will happen if Trump succeeds in firing those bureaucrats who do not obey him, would pretty much guarantee dynastic rule. Trump would govern for eight years, then be succeeded by his sons.”

      What type of glue have you been sniffing, Jim? It’s amazing that you actually believe what you write.

      “I will then apply for the job of Grand Inquisitor when the time is right.”

      What would qualify you for that position if you allowed your son to marry into the Cathedral—a Roman Catholic no doubt!— thus proving that you have no control over the actions of your offspring?

      • Erik says:

        Fuck off, tard.

      • peppermint says:

        » the most traditionalist religion available to normalfags
        » the most traditionalist ceremony available to normalfags
        » the most traditionalist normalfaggettes
        » marry into the Cathedral—a Roman Catholic
        » Roman Catholic
        » Cathedral

        Ͼ(°◡°)Ͽ

        I mean, sure, this is the hazard of calling the Harvard Conspiracy the Cathedral, which is why I call it the Harvard Conspiracy when talking to normalfags. It’s not NATO, or the US/EU axis, because there are countries are in NATO and the EU which have rejected the Cathedral, in all major cases more or less in favor of their cathedrals at home; but on this blog, it’s the Cathedral, just as fascism is fascism amongst the chucklectuals but mostly associated through post-WWII repetition with the personage of scary mustache emo hair guy, except in the chucklectual serious magazines and books.

      • pdimov says:

        “Why do Neoreactionaries seem to wait for the “right time” to strike?”

        Because they are Neoreactonaries. Duh.

  11. Mister Grumpus says:

    > Women with husbands tend to vote Republican.
    > Children with fathers tend to vote Republican.
    > If the Depart of Justice has its way no woman
    > will have a husband, nor any child a father.

    That was The Bomb of you as well. Thank you.

  12. Mister Grumpus says:

    I mean dammit people, will you please take a moment to notice how FAST this train is already going? It’s like we’re duct-taped to a rocket.

    Just 12 months ago, did any of us see this coming? Was even one of us sure that This Could Be The Happening?

    And now our man is beating down the press right to their fucking faces, right on TV. Calling them “sleezes” and walking away stronger and more loved for doing so. Would Reagan ever dream of doing something like that? I mean holy shit.

    We’re duct-taped to a rocket car blasting down a ski-jump. Who in the WORLD knows where we’ll be in 12 months? How up-and-to-the-right does this hockey stick go?

    I’m just humbled, watching real life out-race my own imagination.

  13. Ron says:

    “And I do not believe that any of them were reasonable. That is just Larry the prog issuing the required pieties. All of them deserve to be shot. All of them were evil, corrupt, and insane.”

    That was so funny. So true, which is what makes it so funny.

  14. KingOfChu says:

    Slightly OT, RT had a news article about a really bizarre opening ceremony for the Gotthard Base Tunnel in Switzerland:

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

    I must say I find it really confusing, creepy, and don’t know what to make of it, it almost seems like an elaborate religious ritual of some kind. Perhaps like the ones of secret societies – or maybe I am reading too much into generic liberal degeneracy? What’s your opinion about it, Jim – other than the fact that your inauguration as Grand Inquisitor can’t come soon enough?

    • bomag says:

      “it almost seems like an elaborate religious ritual of some kind.”

      Secular atheists drift toward Druid sensibilities. You can note this in your local police and fire departments, who at one time had simple uniforms, simple markings on their vehicles, and simple procedures. Now the officers are cartoonishly attired, their vehicles are rolling graffiti, and there are lots of lights and shaken totems at their events: the scared villagers like a good cleansing ritual.

    • jim says:

      Sure it is:

      Angel with bare breasts: Parody of Christianity

      Girls in prison uniform marching and cowering: Parody of military marches

      Effeminate stage coach: Parody of national history

      Artificial landslides underground: Parody of man’s mastery over nature and the project of tunneling itself.

      Goat sex: Favorable, non parodic, depiction of demons and Satan as attractive and virile.

      Demons are not real in the sense that your uncle Bob is real, because you uncle Bob goes on existing whether anyone else believes in him or not. But demons are real in the sense that paper money is real, that governments are real, that corporations are real, in that they are real so long as people believe in them. And just as the imaginary value of paper money can buy you real things, imaginary demons, hating life and the living, can really possess people, and can really cause them to act self destructively.

      The artists who composed this were demon worshipers, and this ritual was demon worship.

  15. Jack Highlands says:

    I believe the Roman model is a good predictor of the civilizational cycle. If so, dynasticism in the Imperial stage is very different from monarchy in, well, the Monarchical stage.

    The basis of civilizational decay is largely genetic and quite irreversible over periods longer than a few decades at most. The Trump years will be a welcome counter-current interlude, but that’s all.

  16. Zach says:

    Pleasantly surprised this post wasn’t Jim shooting cum everywhere, because Trump is a man’s man! Yeah, go TRUMP!

  17. peppermint says:

    http://imgur.com/a/Jxbcn

    This is the Larz Anderson Memorial Bridge in Harvard Square. Bonus picture is a nearby mural.

    The bridge is restricted to to one lane each way during construction, which has been going on for over a year.

    • peppermint says:

      PS I love browsing Daily Stormer and calling for the mass execution of the Harvard faculty on Harvard Guest WiFi

      PPS I should have gotten a picture of the homeless guys who sleepi 50 feet away foment that mural across the street from the ten foot which brick all keepong them off campus.

      PPPS Not that any of us should rectify their mistake, but I wish the Bomb Brothers had hit the Kennedy School of Government, an easy target you can just walk up to without attracting suspicion, instead of shooting a cop trying to infiltrate MIT.

      • Eli says:

        I remember literally stumbling into a lecture by Larry Summers at Kennedy School, walking in from the street entrance, behind the TV cameras. No security whatsoever. That was less than 2 years ago.

        I actually really like Larry. H threw him under the bus for being not holy enough.

        The homeless love to congregate around the Coop store — some of them are hipsters who live “authentic” lives. Others are not. Several of them have been there for more than 6-7 years, like the Scottish guy who sits by Harvard Bookstore. The Yard closes at night. Central Sq is a somewhat disgusting place, but H Sq is overall pleasant.

        Either way, anyone expecting to see Sauron’s Eye there might get rather disappointed.

        There’s lots of very good, great researchers at H, who actually contribute in a positive way to American science and tech, as well as the humanities– nothing to do with politics . Suggesting otherwise is like throwing the baby out with bath water. It reminds me of a “lecture” given by a nigger not far from Times Square of NYC (again, got lucky to be the only Jew to stumble upon it), who was explaining to other attentive niggers congregated around him about the antinigger master plan of the Rothschilds.

        American Nazis remind me of that nigger. Dumb bottom feeders.

        • Jack says:

          >American Nazis remind me of that nigger. Dumb bottom feeders.

          I totally agree: the reason America is headed toward cultural annihilation is because it is governed by Nazis, and has been for the last 60 years. If those Nazis were replaced with enlightened Jews such as Eli here, maybe the disaster could have been avoided. But alas.

          • Eli says:

            This is not the argument I gave, you dishonest fuck. You can see that I mentioned treatment of Larry S. as despicable.

            What’s right now is not good, it’s bad. The Nazis will not make it better, though, only worse.

            There is a difference between being a nationalist or a fascist and being a Nazi.

            • jim says:

              Nazis are socialists, socialists are stupid.

              Nazis are, however, a lot smarter than Bernie’s fans, and would damage America far less. Bernie would do a high IQ Chavez. And if you think a high IQ Chavez is better than a low IQ Chavez, reflect on what happened to Haiti ruled by NGOs and Russia ruled by Jewish socialists.

              You might think a low IQ black Haitian thug is dumber than a high IQ Harvard educated NGO functionary, but a low IQ black thug knows that milk comes from farmers and houses come from carpenters, while high IQ Harvard educated NGO functionary thinks “you did not build that”.

          • Jack says:

            >What’s right now is not good, it’s bad. The Nazis will not make it better, though, only worse.

            Sure. That is why Moldbug has devised a scheme to save the world. How? Well, instead of Jews (and cucked SWPLs) having informal and restrained power, Jews (and cucked SWPLs) will henceforth have *formal and unrestrained* power; rather than functioning as a semi-official aristocracy, it is nigh time that the Jews become an actual, literal aristocracy with regalia and everything. According to Moldbug, Karl Boetel, and Antidem — men whose bloodline “is as Jewish as a Hamas birthday party”, Mark Yuray assures us confidently — there are approximately 0 potential flaws in this stratagem.

            So it is merely incidental that Moldbug has explicitly come out against Trump. For it is said: “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging” – and the Nazi-occupied government of America, which routinely silences Jews due to anti-Semitism, should stop what it is doing, and instead should allow the Jews a modicum of free speech. The evil Nazis (there are no good Nazis, they’re all evil) are wrong; the problem is not too much Jewish influence, on the contrary, the problem is that there is just too little Jewish influence (“guidance”, it is called) in the academia, the bureaucracy, and the media, because anti-Semites irrationally ban Jews from elite institutions.

            If there is one benevolent ethno-religious minority, which has suffered so much for absolutely no reason yet continues to abide by its sisyphean penchant, nay, by its Divine Mission to serve as “a gift that keeps on giving” to the uncircumcised and perpetually ungrateful Goyim, that is none other than the Jewish minority, which alone is capable and willing to reverse the White Genocide, and is already working out the finer details of securing the existence of Whites in the future.

            >There is a difference between being a nationalist or a fascist and being a Nazi.

            The former two groups may possibly, under some circumstances, be good for (((your))) interests, hence (((you))) don’t waste time calling them bad things on the internet and comparing them to niggers. In stark contrast, the latter group will never serve (((your))) interests, hence the entirely unprovoked kvetching about it. Eli allows the Goyim a certain degree of thoughtcrime, but don’t get carried away, will ya.

            The jig is up, Eli. This game you’ve been playing for the last 100 years of “think this because it’s good for me, don’t think that became it’s bad for me” is coming to an end. You’re no longer in control of Gentilic thoughts. The cat no longer resides within the bag – and the cat, Eli, is one nasty KITLER bent on vendetta againt whoever put it in the bag in the first place.

            You shouldn’t have done it, Eli. When your cousin, David Goldman, has taken shilling for Israel so far as to write that “Israel is not only America’s key ally in a dodgy part of the world, but the cornerstone on which the edifice of the American republic was founded in the first place” – one senses that the Jews have finally lost the plot.

            Where is the wind blowing, Eli?

          • pdimov says:

            “What’s right now is not good, it’s bad. The Nazis will not make it better, though, only worse.”

            Because we know that, always and everywhere, Nazis have made things worse. I saw it on History, so it’s history.

          • peppermint says:

            Awareness of the consequences of the new Darwinian worldview has increased since Moldbug, who never truly considered nations as the superorganisms they are, and thus wrote off White nationalism on the grounds that the Homo Economicus that he inherited from Imago Dei would never be able to coordinate that against the incentives to cuck their nation. Since cuckservaties are angry about being called cucks, we conclude that they are not Homo Economicus.

            What it comes down to is that Jews must not be allowed to do ethnic networking in our country while we are prohibited from it by the Civil Rights Act. Perhaps some Imago Dei cucks would agree and chastise the Jews, but under the new worldview, Civil Rights is the cuckoldry that needs to go.

            Nature abhors a cuckold; we must not be reduced to second class citizens in our own country. That is the core demand of neo-Nazis, and there is still a chance it could be met peacefully.

            As to the Harvard faculty of arts and sciences, they need to be whipped for lending credibility to that anti-White institution and the institution of higher education in general.

          • Jack says:

            Had Whites pursued their racial/ethnic interests as ruthlessly as Jews pursue theirs, the Elis of the world would have their Tefillin in a bunch. The very core of White Nationalism is so logical that it’s simply unbelievable that it took so long for it to appeal to a critical mass of activists. That inexorable logic being:

            1) Non-Whites are pursuing their ethnic interests; 2) Whites are NOT pursuing their ethnic interests; 3) this state of affairs is detrimental to Whites; 4) therefore Whites should start pursuing their ethnic interests.

            That is Kevin MacDonald’s argument concised, and though KMac’s theories are not faultless by any stretch, his reasoning re White Nationalism is spot-on. It’s just so clearly logical that once it is seen, can’t be un-seen. Once this basic truth is accepted, and the Jewish undermining of White interests is no longer under dispute, Eli has reason, or justification, to have obsessive fits of panic.

            If the wind is blowing, it could be a sign that…… a Storm is coming.

          • Eli says:

            Can a black or Mexican-heritaged guy who is otherwise a hard working, honest man (though not necessarily very smart) convert to being a “white” guy, even when he additionally buys into pretty much all of the other values? Obviously, no, according to the Nazi doctrine.

            Quite ironic. It is you who have nothing to offer anyone, but yourself. Your racial purity as mechanism for unification works only as long as there is someone who is not “white” to kill or get stuff from. Once this is accomplished, you will turn on each other, because one of you might be a Slav, while the other one might be a Romanian or a South Italian, or some mixture thereof. You’re calling that a coherent, long-term unifying ideology? You guys are even more stupid than the Wahhabis.

            Hey, Jack: I hope you do know that Slavs were classified as below Jews, Armenians, and Greeks in the Master Race ideology (though, I’ll give you the honor of being above the Gypsies)? Jews were deemed as necessary for liquidation as main competitors of Germans, but not as utter inferiors, unlike the Slav(e)s.

            Again: it is your Slavic bloodline that was supposed to be treated as, first, slaves, with, eventually, a final solution applied to as well. Hope you know. I think peppermint and his ilk might just decide someday that they are tired of you sucking their dicks — when they remember what “Aryanism” used to stand for. Then they, of course, will turn on each other: because some of them will be Irish, while the other ones are French, while still others might be German or English. What a mess.

            I, on the hand, am a proponent of a system that can build on what already exists and is workable: a system based on nationhood and attached laws, something that also includes Noahide doctrine, compatible with Old Testament. In such a system, one who does not fit, has to pay his/her dues, gets punished according to his/her crime, as adjudicated by permanent court. A nationalism that acknowledges sacred principles of citizenship, based on law and certain birth criteria (criteria that are not explicitly racial but are rather cultural and geographic, (even if these end up correlated with race)). It is not a perfect system, but it’s a system that’s a step up from what exists now and is certainly much better than the mess you’re advocating.

            Frankly, my “scheming” is fairly straightforward. If nations are indeed superorganisms, their cells need to behave according to a certain protocol. The thesis of Martin Nowak (of evil Harvard, of course) that it is not kin selection that matters, but group-cultural/group-trait one. Btw, you can see examples in biology: look up “mosaicism” and “chimerism” to ascertain that what matters for viability is compatibility, not strict sameness.

            As such, I am indeed advocating for a more enlightening Jewish influence: but not so much vis-a-vis Jews as a group of people classified by their genetic affinity; rather for the Jewish culture itself. Chabad.org is your resource. Start with the 7 Noahide Laws then go from there. Nationalism is rather compatible.

            • jim says:

              Noahide laws are the Old Testament watered down to be compatible with progressivism. They dumped the subordination of women, and retained the prohibition on sex with in laws to whom one is not related by blood.

              They enforce the cooperation between men in the task of earning a living by prohibiting murder and stealing, but fail to prohibit coveting, and coveting rapidly comes up with clever rationales that explain that murder is not murder and stealing is not stealing, as the Jews should know better than anyone, but strangely do not.

              They fail to enforce cooperation between men and women in the task of reproduction.

            • jim says:

              Can a black or Mexican-heritaged guy who is otherwise a hard working, honest man (though not necessarily very smart) convert to being a “white” guy, even when he additionally buys into pretty much all of the other values? Obviously, no, according to the Nazi doctrine.

              Obviously any doctrine that says that George Zimmerman cannot be one of us is a stupid doctrine. But equally, the doctrine stated by the Republican leader of the house he would be as smart as the rest of us if give the same opportunities, is stupid and evil. Most of us are smarter than he is, and that is just the way things are, not the result of evil racism. But few of us could shoot as straight as he could while being punched in the face. When the shit comes down, I would like someone like George Zimmerman at my back: Culturally white, a cool head in danger and a good shot.

              He may not be the smartest guy around, but he shot Martin directly through the heart while doing a quick draw, shooting from the waist, and while being punched in the face.

          • Jack says:

            I’ll answer you when I have time Eli, my selodka is not getting any redder and the onion won’t slice itself.

            A note, however: “Slava” from which the Slavs are derived means honor or glory, as in, when you hear that a village was razed to the ground but then discover it was just a shtetl of filthy Yids, you say “Slava Bogu” – the honor is God’s. Nothing to do with Slaves afaik.

            https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/slava

          • Eli says:

            I speak Russian freely, Jack (just FYI). My paternal grandmother is 3/4 Russian kulak/merchant and 1/4 English. I am 3/4 Ashkenazi. 100% Halakhically Jewish.

            I am perfectly aware that “slava” means glory, and that this is where “slavyane” derives from. Do keep in mind, however, that the origin of Germanic slave comes from “Slavs” — these used to be sold by the Varyags via Byzantium

          • peppermint says:

            Eli, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? It’s the current year, FUCKING WHITE MALEs know what who are, and if it comes to a race war, FUCKING WHITE MALEs have a pretty good track record.

            Ridiculous that you first deny that race exists, then offer to acknowledge that our nations exist as long as your sand hundred rule over them; this is more brazen than the disingenuousness Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf. If you’re really so desperate, you have nuclear weapons in Israel, so take your people and go home before we decide that if we can’t have a home neither can you.

          • pdimov says:

            “Then they, of course, will turn on each other: because some of them will be Irish, while the other ones are French, while still others might be German or English.”

            What a wonderful problem to have. I can’t wait.

            This “you whites don’t have an identity” business – which I can’t help but notice coming predominantly from a certain ethnicity – is funny given that “blacks” and “Hispanics” supposedly have a fully coherent identity and are rhetorically, and practically, treated as monolithic groups. “Asians”, too.

          • Eli says:

            peppermint: get over the hysterics. I’m raising the question of what glues your race together. If it’s the number of common SNPs, you are out luck. Barring the the question of existence of said technology, I’d think twice, nay thrice!, whether I’d choose a 4th cousin over a black Orthodox Jew convert whom I know to be a good Jew.

            According to kin selection and, I suppose, your understanding, you’d classify me as a “cuck” then.

            Let’s go further. What is more important for you: a fellow second-generation Chinese-American nuclear engineer or a white-trash burglary convict from Arkansas? If you choose the latter, then you are the bigger cuck in my book.

            If you think that the more natural principle of bonding (beyond, say, second/third cousin) is genetic similarity, you are the one in absurd position. Genetic “race” matters as an epiphenomenon, but certainly not as the basis for building a functional society, beyond a small tribal group/clan of circa 100 people.

            Even ancient Israelites had to have a common cultural glue in the form of law, custom, shared story, and Covenant (including the story thereof) — as inter-clan and inter-tribal glue. Which ultimately became Torah of the *nation* of Jews.

            • jim says:

              What is more important for you: a fellow second-generation Chinese-American nuclear engineer or a white-trash burglary convict from Arkansas?

              The Chinese nuclear engineer has less propensity to cooperate, is less trustworthy, than the typical white trash from Arkansas, though more trustworthy the burglar from Arkansas.

              And very few burglars from Arkansas are white trash.

          • Eli says:

            @pdimov: if I were talking to a bunch of Hispanics, I’d raise pretty much same arguments.

            With blacks (overwhelming majority of them) it is applicable also, but due to their low average intelligence, it’s very hard to explain things in a normal way. You need to talk to them in their language, and I am not good at that.

            I, actually, have no issues explaining those concepts to my Asian acquaintances (the ones directly from China). They know these things intuitively.

          • peppermint says:

            FUCKING WHITE MALEs know who is a FUCKING WHITE MALE just as surely as you do, and yes, I choose FUCKING WHITE MALEs over mud people every time, because FUCKING WHITE MALEs have been shown for the past 70 years, i.e. for the entire lifetimes of every FUCKING WHITE MALE in the country, that if FUCKING WHITE MALEs don’t hang together, they will surely be cucked or beaten to death separately.

            But this is retarded. There’s no point in arguing with the shadow of cuckstainty that is lolbergtarianism. The simple answer is that I love my people.

          • Eli says:

            Peppermint: if true, I both congratulate and issue condolences to you. You are one of the rarest examples of people with the mutation giving rise to green beard effect. We need to sequence your DNA ASAP.

          • pdimov says:

            Race is useful. Blacks are identified as blacks, Hispanics are identified as Hispanics, Asians are identified as Asians and whites are identified as whites by the Cathedral for a reason.

            Your arguments change nothing. The train is in motion, has been in motion for 50 years, perhaps more. Jumping up and down insisting that the French are not the same as the Irish – as if the French and the Irish don’t know that – is supposed to accomplish what exactly?

          • pdimov says:

            The green beard objection is nonsense. White babies recognize and prefer white people. But that can’t be true! Innate racial preference is not a thing! Because green beard!

            As I said, the Cathedral finds race useful. It’s smart, right? Ashkenazi smart. They must not have heard of green beards.

          • Eli says:

            Well, there are 2 modes of population partition. It’s either balkanization, a kind of confederacy, with a potential split altogether. Or it is a single nation forced into being one.

            There was a war about that in 1860s, and there might be another one.

            I am fairly agnostic at this point, as to what it can be. I am, personally, sympathetic to the “whole white nation” argument, as scheming as I might allegedly be. My point is a bit more deep: if you define white nationhood, you also need to support this notion with something a bit more substantial than common SNP and appearance, if you wish to have a longterm viable society. Godless Chinese have been much further ahead on this one than whites, but they certainly have had tough time keeping themselves together. Tech and strong government are changing this, of course. But Han, notice btw, are more about civilization than their squinty-looking eyes and color of their brethrens’ skin. They must know something, or maybe they’re just “fags/cucks.” 🙂

          • pdimov says:

            “My point is a bit more deep: if you define white nationhood, you also need to support this notion with something a bit more substantial than common SNP and appearance, if you wish to have a longterm viable society.”

            Unapologetic racism perhaps? This would set you apart instantly from the cucks and their attacks would provide the much needed cohesion.

          • Eli says:

            Unapologetic racism will get you there initially. *Maybe.* Then it will become its own signaling spiral, which is what I explained in the beginning. People (their own kind, white people) breaking into alliances, group/sub-groups, and attacking each other. The Wahhabi-like scenario of no longer valuing civilization. Which was (besides the good looks) what made the whites so interesting, after around 1400’s or so, past their Barbarian stage.

          • peppermint says:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOvqrrV_2k

            http://i.imgur.com/DetR3kP.png

            AJP’s Klan didn’t think White ethnics counted as Americans, but Moonman’s triple-K understands the principle of ORION. There are all manner of organizations that take care of all manner of mud people or women, cripples, and queers, but if you’re a FUCKING WHITE MALE, there’s only one Klan that cares if you live or die; support it or be a cuck.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “What is more important for you: a fellow second-generation Chinese-American nuclear engineer or a white-trash burglary convict from Arkansas? ”

            Ha!

            Was that second-generation Chinese-American nuclear engineer one of the guys who gave stolen US nuclear warhead designs to the PRC?

            Who is more important to you? Julius and Ethel Rosenberg or a meth head in West Virginia?

          • Eli says:

            That 2nd gen Chinese-American citizen (who does not speak Chinese) optimized centrifuge design and did a number of things to increase EROI of nuke plants from 50’s to 70’s. Thus, the meth head imbecile who never repented can pay less for his energy and food bill and spend more on higher-quality meth and hating on everyone on the Internet.

            Re Rosenbergs: As an American, I’d choose the meth head. But as Jew, I’d have to ask if what Rosenbergs did jeopardized the lives of Jews. Right now I don’t have the answer, but I might come up with one later.

          • Eli says:

            @jim: oh well, the man’s got to feed his family 😉

          • Eli says:

            I meant the talk, btw. As to Chinese being uncooperative, I’m yet to see evidence of that.

            • jim says:

              You will not see evidence of anything you do not want to see evidence of.

              Thais, who do not fear being called racists, have a wonderful collection of videos supporting the standard stereotypes of Chinese.

              Even the Chinese agree that the stereotype is true. If one chinaman is drowning, he had better hope a white man is among the crowd watching him drown.

              On the other hand, East Asian females are substantially more logical and more loyal to their husbands than white females, and if they might let the rest of the world drown, will not let family members drown.

          • peppermint says:

            rice niggers appear to be insectoid robots as they all cheat together without any human emotions of shame, but observing their interactions with Whites in a White society is not the right way to study them to determine if they are cooperative. They actually follow a polygamous logic, thus are willing to put melamine in baby formula to try to sell to each other. Many authors have compared them to Jews in their zeal to screw each other over to become the alpha chink, because the alpha chink gets chicks and beta chinks get to kneel and beg chicks for attention.

          • Eli says:

            Said zeal to screw each other most definitely reminds me of whites, both in Europe and in America, both old and contemporary.

            • jim says:

              You are in denial about the glaringly obvious.

              That Chinese are less cooperative than whites is as obvious as that women are weaker and less logical than men. Just look.

          • Jack says:

            >The Wahhabi-like scenario of no longer valuing civilization. Which was (besides the good looks) what made the whites so interesting, after around 1400’s or so, past their Barbarian stage.

            Ah, as expected. Whites cooperating explicitly for White interests actually undermines White interests and disentwines White civilization, preaches the itinerant merchant. Furthermore, males cooperating explicitly for male interests is “unmanly” and undermines male interests. (but Jews colluding for Jewish interests is perfectly fine!) This sort of argument is getting old now.

            >Can a black or Mexican-heritaged guy who is otherwise a hard working, honest man (though not necessarily very smart) convert to being a “white” guy, even when he additionally buys into pretty much all of the other values? Obviously, no, according to the Nazi doctrine.

            According to biology. You can probably find individuals of every ethnicity who are compatible with White civilization – but they will never ever actually be White. Similarly, if you have a feminine son you can cut off his cock and balls and inject him with estrogen and progesterone and call him Rose, but that won’t make him a woman. Zappa, take it from here:

            “Do you know what you are?
            You are what you is
            You is what you am
            (A cow don’t make ham. . .)
            You ain’t what you’re not
            So see what you got
            You are what you is
            An’ that’s all it ’tis
            A foolish young man
            Of the Negro Persuasion
            Devoted his life
            To become a Caucasian
            He stopped eating pork
            He stopped eating greens
            He traded his dashiki
            (“Uhuru!”)
            For some Jordache Jeans
            He learned to play golf
            An’ he got a good score
            Now he says to himself
            I AIN’T NO NIGGER NO MORE.”

            >Quite ironic. It is you who have nothing to offer anyone, but yourself. Your racial purity as mechanism for unification works only as long as there is someone who is not “white” to kill or get stuff from. Once this is accomplished, you will turn on each other, because one of you might be a Slav, while the other one might be a Romanian or a South Italian, or some mixture thereof. You’re calling that a coherent, long-term unifying ideology? You guys are even more stupid than the Wahhabis.

            A preliminary condition rather than a unifying ideology, but as long as this preliminary condition isn’t met, need an ideology to get to that point. Because you can’t have White civilization without Whites, and if this fact has to be conceived ideologically rather than par for the course, so be it. Besides, when the Goyim looked the other way, Jews were prone to intra-tribal and religious civil wars. Not in the current year (though the North African Jews in Shechunat Ha-Tikva *will* call you “ashkenazi masriach” or “russi masriach” regardless of your genes), but then I don’t see Britons duking it out with Germans in the current year.

            There was an Israeli kids’ show where they brought this Hebrew-speaking Negroid, not sure if Ethiopian or just random Nigger, a “comedian” so they say, who bixxed and nooded and then made the funniest joke ever: “you know all those Russians who came here, they’re all doctors and professors, but I’m asking you: if they’re all doctors and professors, who was sweeping their streets?” *thundering laughter*

            In your dysgenic melting pot there’s Mimouna and even Sigd, but Novi-God will be banned by your “brothers” in the next decades because it’s “foreign”, “gentilic”, “Christian”, and “exilic”, and you will accept that like the considerate cuck that you are. And American misfits like B will cheer up!

            >I think peppermint and his ilk might just decide someday that they are tired of you sucking their dicks — when they remember what “Aryanism” used to stand for. Then they, of course, will turn on each other: because some of them will be Irish, while the other ones are French, while still others might be German or English. What a mess.

            Yes, I’m sure Andrew Anglin will commit seppuku immediately upon realizing that his Irish ancestors were loathed by his English ancestors. No doubt about the matter.

            >muh Noahide laws

            Not gonna happen. The Goyim did not need Jewish approval of their nationalism before, nor will they need it in the future. What is needed is an incentive – and Eli, your cousins have produced plenty of just such incentives.

          • pdimov says:

            “Unapologetic racism will get you there initially. *Maybe.*”

            Good, much progress, we now acknowledge that racism *maybe* works and that people who make up nonexistent races such as la raza cosmica to serve as an unifying ideology *maybe* know what they’re doing.

            Now we just need to concede that cuckfaggotry *may not be* necessarily better for the purpose, based on the available evidence.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            >As an American, I’d choose…
            >But as Jew, I’d have to ask…

            Eli, you rabid anti-Semite, you! Dual loyalty is ridiculous and bigoted canard, don’t you know that?

          • Eli says:

            @Contaminated NEET: Hey imbecile, when I said “as an American,” I was merely doing a thought experiment. Fuck off.

            I am a Jew, and that’s where my loyalty is.

            • jim says:

              As, of course, your loyalty should be.

              The problem is not that Jews are loyal to Jews. The problem is Jews exercising political power in state and quasi state institutions of states other than Israel.

        • jim says:

          There’s lots of very good, great researchers at H, who actually contribute in a positive way to American science and tech, as well as the humanities–

          I don’t think so. Very few these days, and those that remain, like Larry Summers himself, are getting older.

          Harvard is selecting ever more strongly for progressivism, and progressivism is selecting ever more strongly for stupid, as for example Michael Mann, and what was revealed in the Challenger inquiry.

          • Eli says:

            It’s true that Harvard selects for (prog) self-censorship. However, it’s a stretch to claim that they are not hiring top-notch faculty. They do: from physics, to biology, to anthropology. As a matter of fact, they pay really good salaries for the right candidate, to even assistant professors. They manage to steal world-renown scientists from other universities, too.

            So, no, that is not true, or at the very least, Harvard is *still* one of the best places to do research, in all kinds of disciplines.

            Moreover, throughout human history, humans have pretty much always been censored and self-censoring to fit in with the powers that be. What is happening right now is nothing too out-of-the-ordinary. People know what they are expected to say or not to say. Even if evil, it’s not too complicated or capricious (with a few exceptions, as recent “safe-space” craziness has shown or what happened to Larry S when he was kicked out).

            Sure, it’s not good if they are sometimes forced to hire more women and minorities, forced by affirmative actions, but even that is not necessarily a killer, if the numbers are not too large. And do keep in mind: when it comes to Harvard, they can afford to hire the *best* female and black scientists (even if, in reality, their true absolute numbers are tiny). They might be not as good as equivalent white guy/Chinese/Japanese geniuses, but they are still on good level — again, as rare as they are. And yes, these gems will end up at Harvard/MIT etc, because the latter are the most prestigious institutions.

            Of course, as a result, it makes it easier for H and several others like it to claim (falsely) that there is no difference in intelligence or achievement between races/sexes, by virtue of being able to hire the best women and blacks, but this is a separate discussion.

            The whole Michael Mann situation is rather the result of lack of competition between civilizations. This erodes patriotism, which increases graft and waste and all kinds of ills, like promotion of careless staff and bureaucracy into positions of leadership, with underperformance being under-punished.

            • jim says:

              So, no, that is not true, or at the very least, Harvard is *still* one of the best places to do research, in all kinds of disciplines.

              Every single researcher recently hired by Harvard, regardless of his specialty, believes in a long long long list of stupid things, such as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, recent mass extinctions, no difference in average racial ability, women are as strong as men and as interested in sports, most rape claims are true, most rape convictions are just, homosexuals are just like regular people except for their bed partners, and so on and so forth.

              Therefore, every single researcher recently hired by Harvard is stupid.

              If Harvard was still smart, we could still build rockets. Key technologies, for example plutonium 238 batteries, have been lost. These days everyone with a pacemaker has to have frequent extremely dangerous surgery to change his batteries. Our newer fighter planes suck compared to our older fighter planes.

              It is harder for Americans to build buildings that enclose large open spaces, as the old style airports and shopping malls used to do – as the ancient Cathedrals do. Our buildings look like the past, not like the future. When the two towers fell, we could not replace them. Our buildings are uglier, shabbier, smaller, cruder.

          • peppermint says:

            » So, no, that is not true, or at the very least, Harvard is *still* one of the best places to do research, in all kinds of disciplines.

            and that is why justice demands that the faculty be horsewhipped if they don’t come over to our side before our victory becomes obvious

          • Eli says:

            >Every single researcher recently hired by Harvard, regardless of his specialty, believes in a long long long list of stupid things

            A counter-example: Joseph Henrich, recently hired from U of British Columbia:

            http://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/

            Btw, for peppermint specifically (he might enjoy):
            http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657

            • jim says:

              He asks questions that have right wing answers – and then gives left wing, which is to say blatantly stupid, answers.

              In the article linked to, he comes close to saying that enforcing chastity on women made things work, but neglects to actually say it. Supposedly, entirely about imposing good behavior on men, or perhaps imposing good behavior in a gender neutral fashion.

          • Eli says:

            Yes, a cuckstain, in other words. Shit research.

            Anyway, if you want to move past the nonsense, and have stomach for (albeit PC) polemic between Henrich and Pinker, check this out:

            https://www.edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection

            • jim says:

              On this Pinker is right: Group selection is insignificant.

              Cooperation has to benefit all parties – cannot be significantly altruistic. In this Pinker is correct. But Whites are good at this – better than East Asians. That there are racial differences in cooperation Pinker ignores.

              In the “debate” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmpSwbtWopM&noredirect=1 walk past all sorts of troubling implications and find only acceptable implications of a body of knowledge with no end of troubling implications.

          • peppermint says:

            » In suppressing intrasexual competition

            yes

            » normative monogamy reduces crime rates,

            pretty irrelevant

            » By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality

            all of these are obviously false

            He misses the point entirely. Monogamy causes men to cooperate with other men, leading to men capable to winning wars. Teach a sand nigger soldier a skill, he will keep it to himself because it makes him more valuable so he can get more wives. Teach a White soldier a skill, he will share it with his buddies so they can defeat their enemies, go home, and raise their children together.

            It also drives White women through brutal sexual selection to be the most beautiful women.

            The fact that he can sort of ask sort of the right question and get an answer that, by missing the point, relieves his colleagues who were worried about the answer, is the reason he is a Harvard researcher, and the reason he needs to be horsewhipped.

          • Eli says:

            What causes men to cooperate is not monogamy per-se, but between-group competition, which he (J. Henrich) and others (like Turchin) study. And this is discussed in other papers published separately.

            Reduction of intrasexual competition within society lowers the opportunity costs of cooperation between males. This directly goes into increasing asabiya, given what was stated in the previous paragraph (ie between-group competition mediated by warfare).

            Keep in mind what the scope of the paper is, and that it needs to demarcate what is actually being affected here.

          • peppermint says:

            » Keep in mind what the scope of the paper is, and that it needs to demarcate what is actually being affected here.

            If the paper can’t tell the truth, then maybe those forward-thinking Harvard intellectuals need to adjust the format, eh? Or maybe they’re just drooling morons with PhDs.

            » What causes men to cooperate is not monogamy per-se, but between-group competition, which he (J. Henrich) and others (like Turchin) study.

            Obviously false, most interactions are within the group. Cooperation at the village level means more efficient use of resources, which means the village gets to raise more children, which is the only way a White man gets to have more children, because monogamy. This is obvious. The fact that the Harvard asshat didn’t understand it is proof that Harvard academics need to be horsewhipped.

          • Eli says:

            And what selected for societies that practiced monogamy? In-between group interactions, too?

          • peppermint says:

            q: how did Whites evolve
            a: winter means White man needs to build a house and invite a woman to live with him. Woman can get a better deal from the next guy than to be second wife of first guy, codified as slut shaming since everyone resents bastards except for the father, including the mother. Monogamy takes hold, leading to selective pressure for cooperativeness because building up the community is the only way to have more children and grandchildren, and extreme selective pressure for beauty.

            q: why didn’t this happen to other groups in harsh climates
            a: feather indians, mongols, eskimos never developed houses. rice niggers became polygamous due to the collective farming required to grow rice, meaning rice nigger men turned into pathetic betas and rice nigger women turned into sluts trying to get nailed by the alpha and stay beautiful until menopause to keep the alpha’s attention to get resources for the rice niglets.

            q: why do Whites fill continents
            a: because Whites like to cooperate and build

            q: why do Whites win race wars
            a: because when Whites like to cooperate, then go and each take one woman. White stories are full of evil men who deceive good men to their deaths so they can marry some relative; sand nigger stories are full of evil men who deceive good men to their deaths so they can take their wives into their harems.

            q: why can anonymous Internet racists get it right when Harvard academics get it wrong
            a: because Harvard academics are namefagging, which is why universities are obsolete

          • Eli says:

            Peppermint the… Scholar!

          • Eli says:

            To throw a little wrench in your “cold climate, one wife” story. Minoans and Sumerians were monogamous societies. In fact it’s likely that the institution arose with the first sedentary farmers from Levant, who came into Europe via Anatolia circa 6000 BC.

          • Eli says:

            Proto Indo Europeans were likely polygynous, like pretty much all semi-nomadic pastoralists, including proto-Semites.

            Greeks and Romans were monogamous most likely because they mixed in the Minoan strata, absorbing the norms of the more autochthonous, cultured sedentary farmers residing in S Europe.

            Slavs and Celts were known to be polygynous till well into the AD.

          • peppermint says:

            I’m much less sure about the cold climate and build a house and invite a woman part of the theory than the obvious fact that the beauty of the White woman must have been developed as a result of extreme selective pressure for beauty, which must have come from monogamy.

            By claiming that proto-Indo-Europeans, a.k.a. Aryans, were probably polygamous, you’re thus denying that they were Aryans.

            This is utterly retarded, because it implies that somehow monogamy took hold in all Aryan cultures, despite the initial Aryans being polygamous, despite the other obvious fact that polygamy is preferred by other cultures that can accumulate wealth’, while the niggers of Africa have our modern sexual marketplace with strong independent wymyn who don’t need no man.

            • jim says:

              We know that the Aryans, when they were one people, maintained cohesion over long distances by aristocratic marriage – one lord would marry his son to the daughter of another lord thousands of miles away. For this to work, had to have monogamy in the sense that only the legitimate children of an aristocrat were aristocrats.

          • peppermint says:

            » slavs and celts were polygamous

            …and you know this because feminist research proved it, which was, of course, intended to

            (1) undermine the sex differences, since monogamy leads to more different sex roles, not less different sex roles

            (2) justify “swinger” “open relationships” to ’80sfags

            (3) and the “ethical polyamory” that has taken hold on OKCupid

            Since “swinger” “open relationship” “ethical polyamory” is not the way Whites are biologically inclined to do things, this leads to the obvious relationship problems that it is documented to lead to, problems that are ignored with prejudice by feminist researchers.

            If Harvard was actually interested in veritas, it would pay me to study the history of justifications for polyamory in the US and how polyamory ruins the lives of children, women, and men. This is why the entire Harvard faculty need to be horsewhipped. In addition, the fact that cuckstains have largely ignored the issue except to recruit on it is proof that cuckstains are vile anti-Whites whose sole animating desire is to see the White race cucked and destroyed.

          • Eli says:

            You’re talking about Mesopotamia well past the Amorite (proto-Semitic) invasion of circa 2100 BC. Things also changed for the Minoans, though I don’t know the extent.

            In general, monogamy implies very stable, less-warrior-like society, with most men engaged in artisanship/intellectual oriented endeavors. Obviously, a precarious arrangement.

            Pre-2000 BC, this was limited to only a certain kind of people. Certainly not PIE or PS. It most likely developed over thousands of years from descendants of Natufians, who spread through Mesopotamia, eventually, settled S Europe (West) and as far as the Indus Valley.

            https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganj-i_Dareh#/media/Ficheiro%3AFertile_Crescent_7500_BC_DAN.PNG

            Such arrangement was very precarious. When they were conquered by much more warlike pastoralists they would either be wiped out, or their cultures would undergo big changes.

            In S Europe and Iran (Zagros mountains, pre-Islam), they were probably more lucky. The pastoralists were probably not as numerous to alter the fundamentals of their culture. That’s why you still had pockets of intellectualism and monogamy left, pockets that bootstrapped civilization back up into flourishing. Greeks and Romans are the examples. Sassanian empire allowed property rights to women. Suspiciously close to reminding that the kernel of their society were those farmers of Elam who lived in the region thousands of years before Indo-Aryan conquest. Something similar happened to their relatives in the Indus Valley, who are ancestors of Dravidians.

          • peppermint says:

            » monogamy implies very stable, less-warrior-like society, with most men engaged in artisanship/intellectual oriented endeavors

            You seem to have accepted the evidence for White monogamy then, to turn around and call us effete for it. It’s pretty obvious that most men were farmers for most of White history. Rice niggers also have social stability and manufacturing, and they are betas, but they are also polygamous.

          • peppermint says:

            Connor: Why do I need to pray to the kike on the pike?
            Thomas: Because ((His disciples)) civilized your people, bringing them monogamy.
            Shannon: Monogamy is the only way I want to reproduce, thank you ((Jesus)).
            Sean: Thank ((Jesus)) for cities and chainmail, I am glad that we’re not using stone tools in between bashing each other’s brains out with clubs
            Thomas: Don’t you mean sending each other’s souls to Heaven?
            Sean: Of course. When I die I’ll get to see Grandma again 🙂
            Megan: I am glad that my future husband won’t be mauled in the wars we used to constantly fight.

            — sunday school, ca. 1000

            Kevin: I am glad ((Jesus)) taught us to accept these poor migrants.
            Ikechukwu: ooga booga
            Kelly: *giggle*
            Kayleigh: and I’m glad that ((Jesus)) taught us to accept homosexuals, if I was a homosexual I would want to ((love)) others in the way that I was born to
            Ogechukwukana: OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA
            Thomas, Ph. D: Please understand, children, that while we have made great progress in ((the Lord)), we must not then turn around and ignore the superior culture of our equals who are here to stay with us permanently.
            Brian: yes, ((Jesus)) is great, take my land, it isn’t mine anyway, it’s ((God’s)) green Earth.

            — sunday school, ca. 2000

          • Eli says:

            Christianity brought monogamy to those Indo-Europeans residing outside of South Europe, yes indeed. But some might argue that S. Europeans are not true whites, there goes your next battle for racial purity. Oops…

            Whether you want or don’t want to pray to some figure on a cross is a whole different matter. I am, personally, a fan reconciling Spinozism with panentheism, in light of the ontological proof, as explained by Godel. I look at the world as levels of emergent, unfolding law (of which human laws,are higher levels, with Halakhah the highest), very similar to what Martin Nowak himself wrote https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2014/01/13/how-might-cooperation-play-role-evolution/. I think that the Universe moves from prescription-to-description until the next structure unfolds, then the process repeats. Thus, you build ever higher-level structure: from 1&2nd laws of thermodynamics and virtual particles, to particles and gravity, to macro-objects like suns and planets to primitive life, to complex life etc.

            Your theory on the origin of European beauty is duly noted. My own theory, seeing that I’ve lived in Russia a good chunk of my life, is based on a different set of observations: Europeans are risk-takers, and Russians are the dumb variation on that theme (with the most intelligent being the Germans, of course). When you have men who are risk takers, they tend to get maimed and killed (especially, back in the day). This makes it likely that women outnumber men. Often by non-trivial proportion. You can see where the selection is going then.

            Russians still do a whole lot of crazy, idiotic stuff. No need to believe me, check Youtube. And that’s on top of old ills like alcoholism.

          • peppermint says:

            » Christianity brought monogamy to those Indo-Europeans residing outside of South Europe

            This is obviously a Christcuck lie, contradicted by basic facts of White physiology and behavior, as well as historical evidence

            » in light of the ontological proof,

            (1) God is defined as the greatest possible being
            (2) Existence is better than non-existence
            (3) Donald Trump is the greatest being in existence
            (4) Therefore Donald Trump is God
            (5) Hail Donald Trump, God-Emperor of the White Race, Avatar of WOTAN (the will of the Aryan nation)

          • Eli says:

            Alright, peppermint. No more sugar for you today.

          • Eli says:

            > For this to work, had to have monogamy in the sense that only the legitimate children of an aristocrat were aristocrats.

            Could you define this period and region more precisely? If you are talking about Europe of the Franks, post-Christianity — then OK, yes (still don’t see”1000’s” of miles). If you are talking about earlier period, especially, pre-1000 BC, you’ve got to bring some evidence here.

            My info, gathered from disparate but trustworthy (to me) sources, is quite to the contrary: the ruling Sassanian dynasty and its affiliated nobility — Aryans — practiced polygyny. In India, the Aryan Brahmin and Kshatriya also were polygynous. We’ve already discussed Euros, but I’ll mention again that the less acculturated arrivals from the Steppes — the Balts and Slavs, who emerged north of the Black Sea circa 6th century, were clearly polygynous societies, until Christianity changed that.

            There is nothing contradictory in kings marrying their daughters off to other kings and polygyny. There is the concept of “primary wife” and “secondary wife”/”lesser wives” and, yes, concubines. These are universal among many polygynous societies. The sons of a king are considered to be “primary issue” if they came from primary wife. It was customary to pass the title through those (with the oldest usually ending up the inheritor), but there have always been some exceptions (Old Testament’s Jacob vs Esau, for example + more).

            Sure, monogamy pre-dated Christianity. It is not the same as saying that it came with Aryans. So far, indications are that it was it was either Natufian-descended people, along the lines of proto-agrarian hunter-gatherers of Gobekli Tepe (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/150120-gobekli-tepe-oldest-monument-turkey-archaeology/), or it could have been an in situ phenomenon of the Greek civilization. I hold the former view, in light of the fact that some fairly remote&related agrarian civs (e.g. the Iranians of pre-500 BC, and Sumer pre-1500 BC) already gave a lot of rights to women — a smoking gun, IMO. (And, of course, in Aryan warrior cultures a woman was a piece of property to be sold and plundered.)

          • peppermint says:

            That’s right, rice nigger, it doesn’t matter what you can see with your lying eyes, what matter is what Confucius say.

            Confucius say, supeliol man, in legald to what he does not know, show cautious leselve.

            Your lying eyes could tell you that White women are extraordinarily beautiful, from the ages of 16 to 26 in particular, and that this must have come from extreme selective pressure to be beautiful, which implies that women who can’t get a good husband – this happens between 16 and 26 if it happens – don’t reproduce at all, which implies monogamy; while rice nigger females stay beautiful for longer – until their children are supposed to be grown up – because they need to keep their man’s attention in order to direct his resources towards their children. If only some Harvard researcher could write this up to be science data, right?

            Your lying eyes could tell you that post-christ christcucks, understanding that monogamy implies strict gender roles, tried to subvert gender roles by subverting monogamy, and tried both polygamy and nigger style sexuality with strong independent wywyn who don’t need no man, neither of which Whites were demonstrated to be suited for behaviorally, as demonstrated by the fact that “open relationships”, and single motherhood, left men and women and children miserable, as they could tell you if you would listen. But the fact that “open relationship” is now a dirty word, that’s not science data, is it?

            Your lying eyes could tell you that White men, when they meet a strange young man, think the stranger could marry his daughter and pay his pension, while literally no one else would ever think this, because they don’t have the evolutionary history of, not only not being able to get more women themselves but needing to build up their community if they want their grandchildren to prosper. but also of the daughter having a nontrivial chance of missing out in the dating market entirely, not being able to reproduce at all, if there aren’t enough good men in the area. But hey, that’s not science data either.

            Harvard has trained you to look for bullshit citations instead of thinking. This is why the entire Harvard faculty needs to be horsewhipped. Also, you’re a moron, raised by morons.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Jim says: “If Harvard was still smart, we could still build rockets.”

            The Church of Harvard can’t build rockets… but the True and Rightly Guided TechnoProphet Musk can. Orbital rockets that can land after sending payloads to orbit:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uztxi4fE94

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEz03Z8azc

            The fourth successful launch and landing of the SpaceX Falcon 9. The third successful launch and landing in a row.

            All Hail Prophet Elon Musk! Let the TechnoFaith replace the old and false Church of Harvard!

      • Eli says:

        Well, Jews cooperating is the right state of affairs, codified in the Old Testament, no less.

        Being patriotic was the premise I started out with, btw. What I am not convinced, however, is whether your love can be based on more than just hating of the Jew/Chinese/etc and, later, each other. I proposed that any sane civ has to be based on well-reasoned code of law and constructivist ideology that is about more than “whiteness” if it is behavioral traits that are long-term sustaining.

        On the upside, of course, unlike in Europe, Americans tend to speak common language, which might help your civ to get back up. On the downside, more than 50% of Amers are descendants of outright criminals and bottom feeders of Europe, which does not bode well for the all-white miracle, especially if things turn ugly. Also, I’m yet to meet even one educated, well off Nazi. And this makes makes me suspicious that your ilk are nothing but nigger-like whiny bottom feeders. I am yet to meet any engineer or scientist who espoused views like yours. I have, however, met nationalists, and am personally convinced that sane citizenry exists. But you guys will always remain confused bottom feeders, whether civilization remains or goes away. You are neither too smart to prosper in an advanced civ nor manly enough for a position of military leadership, when it goes Wahhabi mode and your all-white neighbor starts buttfucking you when he is done eating your dog.

        As to Jews in my homeland: I’m familiar with some of the issues. Putting people back into the right mindset is important. It’s a big part of nation building: to teach people to, if not love, have basic patriotism and camaraderie.

        A precondition for building and sustaining a civilization.

        • pdimov says:

          “On the downside, more than 50% of Amers are descendants of outright criminals and bottom feeders of Europe, which does not bode well for the all-white miracle…”

          Because of course descendants of white criminals have never in recorded history built a nice white country with an opera house.

        • Jack says:

          >What I am not convinced, however, is whether your love can be based on more than just hating of the Jew/Chinese/etc and, later, each other.

          This is rich coming from someone whose entire culture has elevated disdain for outsiders to Biblical proportions – literally Biblical, since Amalekites and Canaanites. Come on. Jews have always been one of the most xenophobic minorities since ever, and Jews don’t really like one another either. The reputation for ethnocentric morality and nepotism follows Jews wherever they go. If you consider yourself a civilization despite all that, surely Whites can pull it off.

          >On the downside, more than 50% of Amers are descendants of outright criminals and bottom feeders of Europe

          You see, inferior Goyim, the reason your country America has always been stuck in Third World backwards “pew-pew-pew I’m a cowboy” conditions is because it’s infested with White criminals. Evict the Whites! And replace them with LAW-ABIDING Orthodox Jews, who have had a stable civilization for 8,000 years and counting.

          >Also, I’m yet to meet even one educated, well off Nazi.

          How weird. Considering Nazis tightly control all the elite institutions and ban, blacklist, harass, dis-employ, censor, target, disavow, ridicule, fire, and silence everyone who dares voice the tiniest philo-Semitic sentiment, even on their private Twitter accounts, you would expect to meet plenty of those Nazis everywhere, proudly wearing their Nazism on their sleeve without hesitating to expose their Nazism before a strongly-identified Jew such as yourself, since Nazism is a mainstream view after all, thus no repercussions. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…….. Now if the situation was 6,000,000% reverse, you’d expect Nazis to censor themselves meticulously, especially around strongly-identified Jews, since they would want to avoid becoming utter pariahs – but since it isn’t, it’s a genuine mystery right here folks.

          >You are neither too smart to prosper in an advanced civ

          You do realize that Nazi Germany could have won, right? Though perhaps it doesn’t fit your definitions of high civ.

        • Jack says:

          I mean, just this morning, Donald Trump promised to “gas every single Christ-killing Hebraic cockroach” and the Nazi-dominated media praised him to the skies for that. Now, had he said something to the effect of “I love Jews”, the Nazis who control the political sphere, the media, and the academia would crucify him endlessly for betraying the Nazi ideals on which Amerikkka was founded. Which is why he would never say anything positive about the Jews – ever. That would be sheer lunacy.

          • Eli says:

            Of course. Destroying our enemies is important. Mistrusting and distinguishing from (though not necessarily hating) the non-Jews is an organic part. But we are also told to love the convert. We also have that whole part where we are called upon to love and fear God, and to obey and perform his commandments, to thank God for his lovingkindness to the pious patriarchs from whom we descended. We are also inspired by our special role in the unfolding infinity of this God’s universe. Etc. etc.

            So, we don’t base our whole ideology/lifestyle on hating the goyim.

            As to Nazi Germany winning: it could not have won. It was lunacy to start a war against the industrialized world. Germany got lucky that it got finished before end of summer of 1945.

            Germany could have won if it, from the very start, limited its objectives to just owning Western, Central Europe, and parts of Africa. Implementing such an objective required sanity: which was, by definition, what Hitler lacked.

          • Eli says:

            Also, it’s almost a certainty that Stalin would have attacked in a few years. How that would have changed the dynamics is hard to estimate.

  18. […] evolution. Brexit dominoes. Rise above. Rape wave blackout. Dysorganization. White guns. King Trump. Left terrorism (echoes). Live report. Ersatz meaning. Culturecide. SocJus dizziness. […]

  19. wellthen says:

    dude did you draw that image yourself? can’t find it elsewhere on the internet?
    or did you commission trump fan art?
    either way, wow.

  20. […] panic report (1, 2, 3). King Trump. Minority, Sanderista, and anti-war Trumpists. Politically incorrect (referencing). Numbers […]

  21. Learner says:

    Jim, you wrote in a comment that Harvard people/liberals need to believe stupid things such as “homosexuals are just like regular people except for their bed partners”.
    .
    Unfortunately, I was raised in a liberal atmosphere and the idea that homosexuals may have other defining characteristics is something I am ignorant of. In total humility, I ask for guidance in this issue. What is it that makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals? Thank you very much for your answer in advance.

    • jim says:

      Homosexuals have a very high death rate due to disease, drug abuse, suicide, sexual violence, domestic partner abuse, and violence in general. Homosexuals, like blacks, represent a significant and substantial danger of crime and violence to themselves and to non homosexuals in their vicinity, a hazard arguably substantially more serious than that posed by blacks.

      An upper class homosexual is a lot more dangerous than an upper class black.

    • peppermint says:

      Homosexuality is a sexual strategy, see https://peppermintfrosted.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/what-to-replace-sexual-orientation-theory-with/ and Revilo Oliver’s commentary on sodomy in Rome. The entire article starts on p.341 of America’s Decline https://archive.org/stream/AmericasDecline1983V2/OLIVERReviloP.-Americas_Decline_1983_v2 ,

      » As early as 186 B.C. the Senate, by a still extant decree, tried to
      » regulate the Bacchanalian rites of a cult that had been imported from
      » Etruria and used “freedom of worship” as a cover for nocturnal orgies
      » of promiscuity and perversion. Investigation disclosed that the alien
      » “religion” was really a secret conspiracy that worked systematically
      » to entrap and corrupt young men and women in adolescence, and
      » practiced, in addition to sexual profligacy, such associated arts as the
      » forging of wills and murder by poison. (For a full account, see Livy,
      » XXXIX, 8-19.) At that time, the Roman people were still capable of
      » moral indignation, and that social force, which alone can maintain
      » the health of a body politic, was far more efficacious than the laws
      » that were enacted to suppress the conspiracy. But other foreign cults
      » were soon imported to provide religious camouflage for depravity
      » and subversion. Even in the last years of the Republic, the Senate
      » tried five times (in 59,58,53, and 48 B.C.) to suppress the worship
      » of Isis, and it is not a coincidence that the man who most lavishly
      » endowed that Egyptian cult was the Q. Curius who was one of the
      » leading accomplices of Catiline.
      » The middle of the second century B.C. was the period of the most
      » earnest attempts at moral reform. It was probably in 149 B.C. that
      » the Roman people, on the recommendation of the Senate, enacted
      » the Lex Scantinia de stupro cum masculo. Male homosexuality was as
      » disgusting to the Romans as it is to us, and it is likely that most of
      » them were amazed and perhaps incredulous when investigation of
      » the Bacchanalian cult showed that a majority of the physiologically
      » male members were homosexuals, although the cult made available
      » to them a copious supply of young and libidinous women ready and
      » eager for anything. Whether a special law was enacted at that time
      » is not certain; it may have been thought that with the suppression
      » of the Bacchanalians and public awareness of such depravity, a
      » sufficient protection would be provided by paternal authority and
      » the contempt which men naturally felt for mares feminis simillimi.
      » The Lex Scantinia, which provided a heavy penalty for perversion,
      » remained on the books; there were prosecutions under it as late as
      » the Second Century after Christ and perhaps later. But the feeling
      » that had inspired it was gradually eroded, and although perversion
      » was never officially legalized, as has now been done in the State of
      » Illinois and will probably be done in the entire nation as soon as Earl
      » Warren gets around to it, the law became virtually useless. Before
      » the end of the Republic, Roman writers who wanted to be thought
      » “intellectual” and “sophisticated”, imitating the literary fashions
      » of Alexandria, which was the New York of the ancient world, did
      » not hesitate to confess – perhaps falsely in some cases – that they
      » were paederasts. And, paralleling what happens in the United States
      » today, one of Cicero’s correspondents thought it a delightful joke
      » when a homosexual pervert was prosecuted under the Lex Scantinia
      » before a presiding judge who was himself a pervert.
      » There is reason to believe that this strange aberration, which
      » men find it difficult to understand and which nice people think
      » it improper to mention, was as corrosive of Roman society as it is
      » of ours, where few had any conception of the danger before R. G.
      » Waldeck’s article, “Homosexual International,” was published in
      » Human Events on September 29,1960.

      (1) Rome had freedom of worship, and queers hid in temples. Freedom of worship is not part of the glorious American experiment, it is part of the ancient Aryan way of life
      (2) Rome had queers who were scheming for power and convincing young women to throw themselves at them just like we do
      (3) Rome even had Harvard-tier intellectuals pretending to be bi or pedos to get at that pussy

      • peppermint says:

        next time I’ll indicate paragraph breaks with double guillamettes instead of trying to insert whitespace into HTML

      • Learner says:

        While I can agree with Peppermint’s reasoning that (passive) homosexuality is a strategy (not only a sexual one, but also a social one: you are esentially sexually obedient to higher ranks in order to improve your ranks and help your relatives, not necessarily to get at pussy), that’s not enough to discard it or to discriminate against homosexuals. After all, heterosexuality is another strategy, too.
        .
        Jim’s case that homosexuals have a higher death rate seems more powerful. 1 in 3 homosexuals in Washington have AIDS, as reported even by left-wing New York Times. Apparently, black homosexuals’ death rate is very high. That doesn’t seem to be the case among Europeans. A Danish study put death rates in (homo-)married homosexuals at just a third over married heterosexuals’. That’s significant, but it’s not a huge difference. I mean, hard-working life ends at 55 for most people. If anything, homosexuality means *lower* health costs for the nation as a whole, since your diseased life ends sooner. Homosexuality could also mean some political drifting to the left, but I have met so many right-wing homosexuals that I am not sure that’s a significant effect.
        .
        I think a case could be made against homosexuality in terms of demographics. Homosexuals are very inefficient at breeding and caring for children. While it is not unreasonable for a heterosexual couple to have 3-4 children and care for them all their lives, the greater promiscuity among homosexuals and their lack of genetic affinity to the children assigned to their marriage means they will, at most, have a couple of them, and each spouse will only care for their real, genetic-affine child (much like when someone marries a divorced parent). In that sense, an epidemic of homosexuality is demographically catastrophic. But so is an epidemic of heterosexual promiscuity, too.

        • jim says:

          A Danish study put death rates in (homo-)married homosexuals at just a third over married heterosexuals’.

          I would guess that something like 0.001% of male homosexuals marry and remain married for longer than is strictly necessary to épater le bourgeois, thus this number is unlikely to be meaningful.

          The marriage is usually over by the time the couple has finished pissing on the altar.

        • pdimov says:

          There’s also the small matter of spreading STDs (and improving their resistance to antibiotics.)

        • peppermint says:

          It is imperative, for civilization, and thus, to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children, as well as for eugenics, so that the beauty of the Aryan woman shall not perish from this Earth, that all social and sexual strategies other than the social and sexual strategy of building cities for the children you birth and raise, must be thwarted.

          To note that homosexuality is a social and sexual strategy and not merely self-defeating is to recognize it as a threat and advocate for its suppression. If “gays” actually existed, they would agree with the above imperatives, bear their cross in silence, and build for their family and nation if not for their own progeny.

  22. […] says: “Trump for King… and here’s how to do it”. First, formalize due […]

  23. peppermint says:

    Intellectuals, being defined as those who can overcome their instinctual world-view, have long thought themselves superior to the average White man for that reason.

    If the Protocols of the Elders of Zion aren’t a Christian forgery, and the mention of “Darwinism, Marxism, and Neitzscheism” is telling in this regard, then they are the elitist musings of a self-licking asshole.

    Taking the mathematical fact of Darwinism seriously, we understand that every emotion and every instinct of the average man is adaptive, and therefore intellectuals that ignore these instincts and emotions, at great effort, are not to be therefore be lauded, but mocked.

    And finally, we can recognize that, while the average man can’t understand the PDEs behind modern physics, the average man can intuitively understand biology, the history of the White race, and demand that Whites not be cuckolded by being second-class citizens in our own country.

    White nationalism, far from being impossible to coordinate, is inevitable.

    • peppermint says:

      The common thread between opposition to lolbergtarianism and communism, and the whole induhvidualist/collectivist dichotomy, is opposition to cuckoldry.

      Commies want to cuck the taxpayers with transfer payments.

      Lolbergtarians want to cuck Whites by keeping Whites from collaborating as a nation so they can be outcompeted by mud people who do act collectively.

      Our economic policy needs to be non-cuck-ism, based on the theoretical foundations that nature abhors a cuck and societies based on cuckoldry are inherently unstable. However, this analysis does not prohibit temporary cuckoldry, like taxing the fuck out of Boomers, GenXers, and older Milennials who failed to produce White children to give transfer payments to Post-Millennial White families, a program to end when the Milennial Obama voters die off.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Libertarianism is the belief that no one should cuck anyone else.

        Plenty of whites want to cuck other whites, e.g. the poor want to cuck the rich. Trump seems to want to cuck the Chinese, which doesn’t seem very likely to work but has made him very popular with low aptitude whites.

        White unity isn’t a solution to cuckism.

        What is needed is a society that selects for people with pro-civilisation traits, who will be disproportionately but not exclusively white, and will not include all whites.

        If the government does the selection, the government will hack the selection function to produce more government clients. So the market should do the selection.

        • peppermint says:

          Then why do libertarians support cucking Americans with open borders and free trade agreements that let capital go overseas?

          White unity is the only solution. Everyone else has unity and we can either compete with them or get cucked.

          You’re just another induhvidualist cuck traitor with half-remembered cuck lottery of birth theology. How’s transgenderism working out for you?

          This treason of the intellectuals, in which they are gathered in one place in their formative years and systematically lied to, browbeaten, terrorized, and bribed into treason or silence, is why universities must be shut down.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Free trade agreements don’t cuck anyone, they’re mutually beneficial.

            Immigrants wouldn’t cuck anyone either given all the other policies libertarians want – no voting, no transfers, legal private discrimination.

            Some libertarians like Bryan Caplan demand tens of millions of new voters and welfare recipients which is inconsistent with the rest of his libertarianism. This is a problem with Caplan not libertarianism itself.

            I want a society in which more intelligent, creative, contract-abiding people outbreed less intelligent, creative, contract-abiding people. Sure, whites have these traits to a greater extent than blacks, so importing lots of blacks in that sense makes society worse. However not all whites score high in those traits, and right now society is selecting for the worst whites. If America were pure white, with no immigration, it would be a better society than it is now but still on a downward trend.

            I am not an American and in my country not so long ago there was a brutal intra-white kinda-civil war between the stupidest, least creative, least contract-abiding whites and their high-status patrons, and the upper middle class. Get rid of non-whites and the Left will move on to eliminating the best whites while paying the worst whites to breed out of control and exempting them from criminal law.

            The Left loves depravity, not non-whites. Get rid of the Left and non-whites wouldn’t be a problem. Give rid of non-whites and the Left will still be a problem.

            • jim says:

              Free trade agreements don’t cuck anyone, they’re mutually beneficial.

              A “free trade” agreement that is primarily about investment, patents and copyrights, rather than about containers of actual goods moving through ports, does cuck people. A free trade agreement that lets foreign goods into America in return for letting American copyrights out of America does cuck people.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Even unilaterally admitting foreign goods does not cuck Americans. Access to import goods is the benefit, not the cost of trade.

            • jim says:

              True, but irrelevant. We have a ruling class that is hostile to the production of physical things. Consider for example their hostility to fracking. “Free Trade” agreements in practice exhibit this hostility. They just don’t like Americans making stuff and selling it.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            If the US did not have free trade agreements I do not think that the bureaucracy would ease up on permitting production in the US, possibly at all, certainly not enough to do more than just substitute for the lost import goods.

            As you yourself have pointed out, the bureaucracy cannot coordinate to permit production even when it wants to. Hence the Harvard bridge.

            Furthermore I don’t think that physical production is particularly hated by the elite, I think all production is hated by the elite. Physical production is just an easy target due to high capital costs of entry, and the fact that the elite understands it. As the internet moves from something only understood by the top 10% by mathematical ability and set up as a distributed mesh network, to a handful of large point servers operated by massive corporations for the use of normies, the internet is increasingly being stamped upon too.

            • jim says:

              I am disinclined to believe that a document that is thousands of pages long is a free trade agreement and makes trade more free.

              Rather is is a collection of favors for special interests, and I doubt that the interests of American workers are represented.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I do agree that these documents are not mainly about free trade. They are mainly about regulatory harmonisation.

            In the long run, their purpose is to increase the viability of regulation by producing a loose cartel of states that all impose the same regulations. Roughly, their purpose is to make sure that no Berlin Wall is needed by making West Berlin just as crap as East Berlin.

            But this is a very different harm to the originally proposed harm of permitting Chinese goods access to US markets/permitting US customers access to Chinese goods. To the extent these agreements do that, they are beneficial.

          • peppermint says:

            — Free trade agreements don’t cuck anyone, they’re mutually beneficial.

            Bullshit. Has been known to be bullshit since the ’90s.

            — Some libertarians like Bryan Caplan demand tens of millions of new voters and welfare recipients which is inconsistent with the rest of his libertarianism. This is a problem with Caplan not libertarianism itself.

            Bullshit. Ayn Rand was a welfare-driven migrant and with the archives of Liberty Bell and Instauration open we can see that libertarianism was always a hoax to keep Whites off nationalism.

            — I want a society in which more intelligent, creative, contract-abiding people outbreed less intelligent, creative, contract-abiding people. Sure, whites have these traits to a greater extent than blacks…

            Traitior.

            You seem to be stuck in the ’90s, so I’ll go ahead and assume you’re a genXer. I hope you meet some Mexicans or Arabs soon, they would be happy to listen to your views on race and nation.

          • pdimov says:

            “— Free trade agreements don’t cuck anyone, they’re mutually beneficial.

            Bullshit. Has been known to be bullshit since the ’90s.”

            I’ve still not come across a sensible argument against free trade, defined as “keep tariffs at zero.”

            Autarky would have made sense if it worked, but it doesn’t/didn’t.

            • jim says:

              Free trade, defined as keep tariffs at zero, is fine – see Singapore and Hong Kong, though there are arguments against it, in that skills and high tech businesses have large externalities. Also, governments simply need to raise money.

              However, free trade, defined as agreements several thousand pages long with special interests writing every paragraph in those thousands of pages is not so good.

              Now if we had actual free trade, might be time for a debate on the externalities of industries that supply skills and technology, but we do not have actual free trade.

          • pdimov says:

            “I want a society in which more intelligent, creative, contract-abiding people outbreed less intelligent, creative, contract-abiding people.”

            There exist intelligent, creative and contract-abiding people who use their creativity and intelligence to come up with intelligent and creative ways to screw you without apparently violating any contracts.

          • peppermint says:

            pdimov, in Eastern Europe you may not understand what it’s like to be in a room full of Indians or Arabs or a neighborhood or bus full of Blacks.

            They do not want us. If we do not want ourselves, we will surely disappear.

            The West has been pursuing universalism like a teenage girl for the past 500 years. Cutting doesn’t help. It’s time to break up for real, or commit suicide.

          • pdimov says:

            “pdimov, in Eastern Europe you may not understand what it’s like to be in a room full of Indians or Arabs or a neighborhood or bus full of Blacks.”

            I do. Despite common misconceptions, that’s, in fact, not rocket science.

            What I don’t understand however is what you’re replying to.

  24. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Hispanics, Afros, Hymies, Wops, Gooks, Chinks, Akbars, and all other sundry leagues of nations who current reside in american soil and, on some occasion, will claim affinity with that body, if convenient to stay hooked up to the white-golden goose, are each and all perfectly free to be as conservative or reactionary or libertarian as they like; in their own countries.

    ‘What about me?’ Says the dusky fellow traveler. ‘Well I suppose we could make an exception,’ says the cucky white.

    If you like america so much, go ahead and fill the world with Americas, nothings stopping you.

  25. Freereel says:

    https://www.instagram.com/babesfortrump/

    Trump supporters are attractive.

  26. “Before he was elected, few believed Duterte would succeed in turbocharging the economy. He is doing just that, despite being underestimated. More importantly he is doing that with absolute disregard for the “establishment”, for norms, and for conventions. Which begs the question: when norms, conventions and the establishment have failed again and again, perhaps openly flaunting them is the only approach that works (as much as this would lead to nervous breakdowns by the entire tenured economist establishment). In which case it is worth asking if the “US version” of Duterte would not lead to similar “greatly unexpected” results for the US economy?”
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-24/philippines-donald-trump-surprises-critics-unleashing-long-term-economic-boom

Leave a Reply