Trump plan to stop (nonwhite) immigration

The Trump plan broadens the Overton Window by speaking the unspeakable.

Ann Coulter says “I don’t care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper. http://bit.ly/1EvT3Ja

Of course ending immigration is enormously popular.   Everyone is unhappy with the program to turn all white nations majority nonwhite in the fairly near future, but no one dares say so.  The program  will turn whites into a market dominant minority, and market dominant minorities usually get genocided or ethnically cleansed sooner or later, as for example Zimbabwe and large parts of South Africa.

The ideology justifying the eradication of whites is already in place and taught at every school.  White males cause poor performance of women and nonwhites by thinking evil thoughts at them.  They do this because they are just hateful and malicious.   For example after blacks acquired Detroit, whites, out of sheer hateful malice, turned it into a third world hell hole by thinking evil thoughts at it.  Since no amount of thought reform seems able to halt these evil thoughts, obviously white males have to be eradicated and white females bred with nonwhites.

Of course it is possible, that as in latin America, whites can manage the decline so as to avoid the usual fate of market dominant minorities.  In most latin American countries, people believe that they are all one race, and anyone who notices that they are not is apt to fall down several flights of stairs in a one story police station.   But I am not seeing any military, political, ideological or social preparation to manage the transition.  People continue to throw lighted matches into what will soon become a pool of gasoline.  Recall what was done to the Tutsi in the Congo with the full military and political support of the Cathedral.

Trump’s plan, despite being outside the recent Overton window, is oddly moderate. No plan to halt welfare for illegals, no plan to forcibly remove illegals already here.

Further, Trump’s plan relies on the cooperation of the courts, who will surely not cooperate.  Australia found it necessary to bypass the courts and  use direct military power, and use what are officially regional processing centres run by “civilian contractors” but are in fact prison camps run by the military (yes, those civilian contractors).

The Trump plan resembles the various anti immigration initiatives of the Australian labor party, which failed because of hostility and forcible resistance by government employees, and fraud and defiance by the courts.

Presidents cannot do $#!& unless they are prepared to use the military, as the Australian government finally did.  And the US military has become so PC in its upper ranks that it is far from clear that it would obey such orders.

Tags: ,

87 Responses to “Trump plan to stop (nonwhite) immigration”

  1. CamelCaseRob says:

    One of the first things to do is to get rid of all those PC military commanders.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      And since Donald Trump and his friends who share Trump’s views are billionaires… They can buy a few remaining flag officers as well as a few judges.

  2. Lars Grobian says:

    Why do you think Obama has taken such care to purge the higher ranks of the military of officers who are loyal to core America?

  3. Mister Grumpus says:

    “Presidents cannot do $#!& unless they are prepared to use the military, as the Australian government finally did.”

    You implied this in an earlier post about Australia, and I must be learning something because I caught it then as well.

    Australia resorting to military action is them silently admitting as a society that they’re too weak to resist invasion, even mentally. So they have to quietly ask the military to do it for them, but in a plausibly-deniable way, so that society can still status-signal at cocktail parties about how awful those Navy people are, protecting us like that, those ethnocentric phallocentric brutes.

    Radix Journal expressed this well in their “Pool’s Closed” piece where they said that a white’s worldly success is wholly dependent on how deftly he navigates racial hypocrisy. You have to say the right things, but you have to do something else, and in just the right ways. To say the right things and actually believe them is suicidal.

    I’m pretty far gone down this slide myself, to be honest. I have trouble imagining a (theoretical) white country that makes a public point of keeping itself that way. How exactly could such a country actually DO that, I wonder?

    • fnd says:

      The liberals are the real racists cuckservative meme is in reality that liberals are post modern racists. Enable bad policy for non-whites while condemning badwhites and living in white bubbles. It’s not a healthy version of racism since it relies on sins like abortion for example.

      • jim says:

        The trouble with “liberals are the real racists” is that they own the word. It means whatever they want it to mean. Easier to embrace “racist” as just an insult term for whites.

        • fnd says:

          cuckservatives are like MRA. MRA takes “classic feminism and equality is good” for granted while cuckservatives takes “racism is bad” for granted

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Word. Assumptions assumptions assumptions. I need a pair of those “They Live” magic glasses that does nothing but let me see my own assumptions. That would be all the superpower I ever need, really.

            Speaking of which…

            I wonder what assumptions is NRx is built upon?

          • Dr. Faust says:

            classic feminism is the assumption that women have always been oppressed by men. They reject this concept.

            They do support equality which makes them left and progressive.

        • Koanic says:

          Specifically, Confederate whites.

          Let’s not forget Progressives conquered the South before they conquered the world. And had a hell of a time doing it.

      • peppermint says:

        Brilliant. You’ve insulted and perhaps confused them by calling them racist. Now what?

        Well, both sides agree that there is such a thing as “racism”, and it is a bad thing.

        So what is “racism”?

        Let’s ask a panel, including a Black, a Hispanic, an Asian, and a White woman, for some perspectives.

        We’ll start with the dictionary definition, “belief that races exist, see also white supremacy”

        White woman: Like sexism and every other ism, racism is part of the systematic oppression that Able White Straight Cis Men impose on everyone else, who they hold in contempt.

        Black guy: Racism is when Whitey says we commit more crimes and are less intelligent. Don’t look at the facts, look me in the eye and tell me that you’re not racist.

        Hispanic guy: Systematic racism is part of the white privilege that allowed the Gringo to build Gringo cities in Aztlan that we are still systematically denied access to.

        Asian guy: Racism is unheard of in Korea. This is a problem that belongs to Western civilization.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          First filter:
          Can anyone think of a single non-white language that even has a word for “racism”?

          Second filter:
          And of those instances, do they primarily point the word at themselves? Or rather, does their word’s definition include/imply that it’s only something that other people feel/think/do to THEM?

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Mister Grumpus”,

      You seem to be very inquisitive! But that is fine, in fact, I think I have at least one answer for you…The delegation of functions in a working and not declining society is an important idea for Neoreaction. The issue that the priest-class has taken over administration is an issue that comes up a lot, for example. Indeed, the ecclesiarchy, albeit in a generally secular or atheist presentation, is where the ruling class gets its decisions- that is why it is called The Cathedral…

      But, back to the issue of the delegation of functions. The question comes up: where then, should the decision-making, especially at the direct and practical level, come from? Sure, the Church should have influence, but should it be the ones who put ideas into practice? And, a lot of us have noticed how there is a really big lack of masculinity in today’s world, in masculine virtue and in masculine behaviour.

      Traditionally, “Mister Grumpus”, there has been a system of dividing the nation into three distinct groups or estates. And the one that the king is from, the sovereign, or however you like it, is the second estate. The second estate, perhaps most relevantly, is the place where military function comes from. Most people will tell you that the military is also a place where masculine virtues come from and certainly, and if nothing else, there would be a correlation between mandatory physical fitness and testosterone levels.

      So, the question I ask to you now, is: Would empowering the military more often and to more important tasks be a way of moving into a functioning and growing society? Mightn’t more power to the military be a way of getting an overeager priest class, The Cathedral, back to its proper place of strengthening families through valid sacraments, etc. rather than injecting its moralising into every piece of political agenda?

      My friend, there will always be socialites who affect a “can’t be bothered” attitude when it comes to the actual work that needs to happen for the nation’s survival. Realise that that is mostly a personality thing, and that the very socialites themselves would even be a bit surprised that you would take them that seriously for any assessment of policy.

      There is some good reading through this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I appreciate the intellectual attention.

        > So, the question I ask to you now, is: Would
        > empowering the military more often and to
        > more important tasks be a way of moving
        > into a functioning and growing society?
        > Mightn’t more power to the military be a
        > way of getting an overeager priest class,
        > The Cathedral, back to its proper place of
        > strengthening families through valid sacraments,
        > etc. rather than injecting its moralising into
        > every piece of political agenda?

        If there’s one thing I’ve learned so far it’s that

        A: I’m not well-enough educated on The Real Shit to give comment to this that’s of much absolute value, and also

        B: Not that anyone important is asking me anyway.

        But while we’re here, my best answer to your question is a general “yes”.

        When Pinochet took over from Allende, it was a windfall for the Chilean people. Both standards of living and fairness-in-general shot right up (funny how that works). The Cathie’s will go on about a few homo’s getting locked up and whatnot, but they won’t mention the poor Chileans who had actually been forced into CANNIBALISM under Allende’s socialist/price-controlled Social Justice Paradise.

        And this is inevitable, this fall-back to Brute Force after all the more-genteel institutions (laws, courts, markets, charities, etc) have been hog-tied from actually helping anybody. Because order implies hierarchy, and hierarchy is the absence of Social Justice.

        As for our personal futures, just imagine when the EBT food-stamp cards “go dark” someday, whether from bankruptcy, or hyper-inflation, or some diversity-hire accidentally unplugging the server, or rather deliberate mass-Manchurian-Candidate sabotage-instigation. Mostly-disarmed cities like New York or Chicago will go Full Zombie Apocalypse and people will cry out for someone with a gun to save them the Dark Tsunami. That might be “the military,” or it might simply be a crowd-funded mafia/militia a-la Mogadishu, or some confederation/stand-off thereof.

        (Or maybe the gun will be in the other hand and they’ll just liquidate us straight into the ovens Zimbabwe-style.)

        Every year that passes, this looks ever-more-attractive to Whites like me. “Martial Law” quietly sounds like “White Rule” because Darks can’t organize shit. The question is whether the White glue-logic remnant in the military will obey its Obama-Sharpton-La-Raza masters, or rather sign on with some Colonel Qadaffi character. Beats the crap out of me, but by talking about this stuff now, today, we can help nudge the future to that latter and safer direction.

        So anyway. I’m trying to say that we don’t need to discuss what “should” here, but rather simply try to predict what likely “will”, and start to make decisions from there. Does that make me sane, or just a coward? I don’t know.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Defeatist, which is different than being scared. It’s sort of like masochism…Pretty gross.

          A coward is some-one who looks for cover but the masochist wants to be caught out in the rain.

          A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            I don’t think he sounds defeatist or cowardly. Some happening is going to happen. Whatever form the happening takes, whether or not it is less anti-White, it will extract less resources from Whites and give less resources, at least per capita, to subhumans, if only because the maximum is being taken and given right now.

            So when it does LaTrina is going to have to move from the urban core to some intrinsically less valuable place, whether her six Tyrones are going to be fed by EBT and whether it will be possible for her to have another by Shitavious is going to be called into question.

            Realistically, there are a few scenarios, ranging from the final destruction of the Aryan race, no longer through ruinous taxation to support replacements and miscegenation but open killing, to Menachem Moldberg’s plan, an offer to scale back the taxes and the street crime jihad in exchange for open acceptance of Jewish domination.

            And then there are the Nazis.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Is that like a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews?

            http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/the-white-mantra/

          • peppermint says:

            I don’t get you, AJP, sometimes you’re Mantra-thumping, and sometimes you’re Bible-thumping.

            The Nazis were the good guys, and would have been the good guys even if they had killed six million Jews. Today’s milennial neo-nazis are also the good guys.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Against the deadly cancer called Social Justice, I see the Nazis as an intense form of chemotherapy. But I prefer radiation therapy…

        • Corvinus says:

          “When Pinochet took over from Allende, it was a windfall for the Chilean people.”

          Yes, the “miracle of Chile”, compliments of internment and torture and the subjugation of people’s free will, as well as lining his pockets. Recall that the Cathedral known as the United States government put him into power for their own designs.

          “As for our personal futures, just imagine when the EBT food-stamp cards “go dark” someday”

          
The banksters won’t let that happen.

          “whether from bankruptcy, or hyper-inflation, or some diversity-hire accidentally unplugging the server, or rather deliberate mass-Manchurian-Candidate sabotage-instigation.”

          I’ll wait for the movie to come out.

          “Mostly-disarmed cities like New York or Chicago will go Full Zombie Apocalypse and people will cry out for someone with a gun to save them the Dark Tsunami.”

          You have quite an imagination.

          “Beats the crap out of me, but by talking about this stuff now, today, we can help nudge the future to that latter and safer direction.”

          (Ding, ding, ding). Exactly. TALKING about it. Because when the general public read neo-reactionary materials, they comprehend fully how “pie in the sky” are these projections and pronouncements and prognostications.

          • jim says:

            The Miracle of Chile was not only that prosperity replaced hunger, but that freedom replaced fear – which freedom and fearlessness outraged and horrified progressives every bit as much as the end of slavery in China outraged and horrified them.

          • jim says:

            “Mostly-disarmed cities like New York or Chicago will go Full Zombie Apocalypse and people will cry out for someone with a gun to save them the Dark Tsunami.”

            You have quite an imagination.

            Plenty of people crying for the man with a gun in Detroit, Ferguson, and Baltimore.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The Miracle of Chile was not only that prosperity replaced hunger, but that freedom replaced fear…”

            Observably false. The Miracle of Chile was a totalitarian operation–the privatization of business and government operations, coupled with extreme nationalism, at the expense of individual liberties. While assuredly Chile prospered financially through economic freedom, political freedom was non-existent, cultivating an environment of fear.

            Nuance escapes you.

            • jim says:

              “The Miracle of Chile was not only that prosperity replaced hunger, but that freedom replaced fear…”

              Observably false. The Miracle of Chile was a totalitarian operation–the privatization of business and government operations

              Privatization is the opposite of totalitarianism, for totalitarianism is defined as everything inside the state, nothing outside the state.

              But far more important than privatization of material things was privatization of thought, that under Pinochet people were able to speak their own thoughts, rather than having to echo the words of their masters, that most things ceased to be political, and hence people were no longer required to have a politically correct view on those things. Repression that makes politics forbidden is far less intrusive, far less repressive, than repression that makes politics mandatory.

              Under Allende, people were required to speak the correct view on everything. Pinochet merely required that they shut up about certain things.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Privatization is the opposite of totalitarianism, for totalitarianism is defined as everything inside the state, nothing outside the state.”

            Pinochet’s regime embedded privatization as a key feature of its totalitarian regime, which penetrated into all aspects of the Chilean life and had an articulated, widely disseminated ideology.

            “But far more important than privatization of material things was privatization of thought, that under Pinochet people were able to speak their own thoughts”.

            Observably false. Tens of thousands of Chileans were arrested for merely speaking their minds against Pinochet’s policies.

            “…rather than having to echo the words of their masters, that most things ceased to be political, and and hence people were no longer required to have a politically correct view on those things.”


            
The Chilean people were to take only ONE political view…Pinochet’s. Anything else was deemed a threat to his authority.

            
“Repression that makes politics forbidden is far less intrusive, far less repressive, than repression that makes politics mandatory.”

            Corrected for accuracy —> Repression that makes politics forbidden is intrusive to one’s liberty mandated by citizens themselves to engage in political matters.

            “Under Allende, people were required to speak the correct view on everything. Pinochet merely required that they shut up about certain things.”

            Which equates to the same thing. Both men arbitrarily made it so that A and B were to be openly discussed, not C. When people spoke about C, they were taken into custody, mysteriously disappeared, or murdered.

      • Corvinus says:

        “But, back to the issue of the delegation of functions. The question comes up: where then, should the decision-making, especially at the direct and practical level, come from? Sure, the Church should have influence but should it be the ones who put ideas into practice?”

        What church? You do realize there are a plethora of them, correct? So you have to be more specific. Moreover, you are assuming the people after the reboot will be more inclined to have a church become involved in secular matters. What makes you think this way?

        “And, a lot of us have noticed how there is a really big lack of masculinity in today’s world, in masculine virtue and in masculine behaviour.”

        You will have to define these terms, because, like racism, they mean different things to different people.

        “Traditionally, “Mister Grumpus”, there has been a system of dividing the nation into three distinct groups or estates.”

        A EUROPEAN tradition, not an American way of life. What makes you believe this 3-tier system will be an option, especially going back to a monarch? That idea is long since past, son.

        “Mightn’t more power to the military be a way of getting an overeager priest class, The Cathedral, back to its proper place of strengthening families through valid sacraments, etc. rather than injecting its moralising into every piece of political agenda?”

        Exactly why this system fell flat on its face.

        • Korth says:

          You haven’t been reading this blog for very long, have you? In the past Jim has written several posts on ecclesiology, the need for ritual and moral guidance and why we need an inquisition.

          http://blog.jim.com/culture/theocracy/

          • Corvinus says:

            I have read the blog long enough to know that Jim is essentially packaging totalitarianism.

            Such an arrangement in the past could operate considering the majority of people were illiterate farmers who feverishly clung to religion. Something magical happened along the way…progress and civilization.

            If you wish to believe in this fairy tale notion that the reboot will inevitably take place, and certain areas of the world will be come Jim’s version of paradise, are you prepared to gut pregnant women of your ideological enemies? Are you willing to lay waste to cultures you deem to be repugnant?

            • jim says:

              I have read the blog long enough to know that Jim is essentially packaging totalitarianism.

              Democracy has failed catastrophically. Anarchy is easy, and likely. Unfortunately orderly anarchy is hard, and unlikely to happen in a multi ethnic multi religious society. That leaves Caesar.

              Democracy is an illusion. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. Priests are OK, but the trouble is that holiness competition among the priests is sending the official state religion of progress to ever escalating heights of madness. Time for warriors.

            • jim says:

              If you wish to believe in this fairy tale notion that the reboot will inevitably take place, and certain areas of the world will be come Jim’s version of paradise, are you prepared to gut pregnant women of your ideological enemies? Are you willing to lay waste to cultures you deem to be repugnant?

              Inequality is natural, so does not require the gutting of pregnant women.

              Equality can never happen, so the endless efforts to make it happen require ever increasing levels of terror and violence, as recently demonstrated in Congo, Ceylon, and Rwanda

          • red says:

            >Time for warriors.

            We don’t appear to have any.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Democracy has failed catastrophically. “

            Observably false, considering dozens of nations employ this form of government. ALL forms of governments have its benefits and drawbacks.

            “Anarchy is easy, and likely.”

            Considering human history, anarchy has been a mere blip on the radar. People seek order and justice through mutual interests; hence, the social contract. One needs to only observe the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution to bear witness the perils of anarchy.

            “Unfortunately orderly anarchy is hard, and unlikely to happen in a multi ethnic multi religious society. That leaves Caesar.”

            Who was, ultimately, stabbed for his treachery.

            “Democracy is an illusion. We are always ruled by warriors or priests.”

            
Warriors in representative democracy being business owners and those in high finance. Always have been, always will be.

            “Priests are OK, but the trouble is that holiness competition among the priests is sending the official state religion of progress to ever escalating heights of madness. Time for warriors.”

            Where are those warriors that you have high praise for? What are their qualifications? Are YOU or Mark Citadel “warriors”?

            “Inequality is natural, so does not require the gutting of pregnant women.”

            Is gibberish your second language? Warriors historically have gutted pregnant women, as the unborn represent the next generation of rebels.

            Regarding “equality”…son, political equality is a global phenomenon. Ain’t going anywhere.

            “Equality can never happen, so the endless efforts to make it happen require ever increasing levels of terror and violence [, as recently demonstrated in Congo, Ceylon, and Rwanda.”

            Regions that historically have been unstable, as tribal groups vie for control.

            “Comes the hour, comes the man.”

            Are you man enough Jim, or is it merely talk on a blog? Show us…

          • Steve Johnson says:

            You’re back to using “observably”?

  4. k says:

    During one of Trump’s speeches, he invited a black man on stage to tell a horrifying story about his son getting murdered by an illegal immigrant. At one point, he said (paraphrasing): “the neighborhood used to be all black, now it is mostly Latino”. More or less a plea for segregation (albeit in the most politically safe context)!

  5. Red says:

    If Trump is serious about his plan then he probably plans to use the American police state to achieve it. NSA blackmail, FBI harassment and asset seizure. He’d have to make himself a dictator to pull it off, but most Americans would probably go for that. Better the dictatorship of a ceo than the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. The America empire wants to continue, but we need a Caesar to do so.

  6. Dan Kurt says:

    re:”And the US military has become so PC in its upper ranks that it is far from clear that it would obey such orders.” Jim

    If one wants to learn exactly the higher ranks of the military have been turned into leftists and compliant politicians one should read this book:
    The Path to Victory by Don Vandergriff ( I purchased the Hard Bound in the early 2000s. A new second edition was recent released. Get a free PDF copy on the internet here:http://avrjpdf.vidasus.eu/the-path-to-victory-americas-army-and-the-don-van-61770266.pdf

    John

    Dan Kurt

  7. vxxc2014 says:

    Lets get a vigorous President who doesn’t hate America in and see what happens. Right now that’s Trump.

    As for the upper ranks of the military being PC they say what they are told to say and if they believe in anything it’s parroting orders for their own good. You really think they believe PC? Does anyone really, especially on immigration? They believe in their interests like everyone else.

    If you think any Flag Officer approaches the power of the President real or statutory and they won’t get fired see General MacArthur. They say and perhaps think whatever is prevailing. If the American National Workers America First Party aka NSDAP is who’s in charge they agree. Just like they presently believe in women Infantry and females graduating from Ranger School. They believe.

    You do realize that disobeying orders is a 1 way street in the military…yes?

    If they believe anything it’s in defending the country [and their own careers]. It’s foolish to think they’d disobey such orders.

  8. vxxc2014 says:

    Jim/Et Al,

    Try and accept this may be some actual good news. I realize rays of sun bursting through the dark clouds isn’t the raison d’etre around here but it does indeed appear to have happened.

  9. Mark Citadel says:

    Let’s just say it. Whites in America are heading towards demographic death. Th examples of recent history (see South Africa and Zimbabwe) show that when white lose their political power to ethnics, which is what inevitably happens when they become a minority in a democracy with universal suffrage, they are subsequently driven out or killed in the most gruesome fashion.

    Other races have an axe to grind with Occidentals, and dehumanize us in all of their media. Do not think the stuff happening in Johannesburg cannot happen in Pittsburgh. Trump isn’t going to actually change anything on a practical level (the courts will stop him at a last last resort if necessary), but his antics are softening white people to the message:

    Your children and their children are in immediate danger
    You need a strong leader
    You don’t need politics as usual

    This can only be positive.

    • peppermint says:

      Can the courts really stop him?

      What happens if he decides to stop enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which is enforced by DoJ against state and local governments directly? The Supreme Court can rule that he has to enforce it. Then they need to get Congress to impeach him, and the Senate to remove him from office.

      A good president probably has the authority to scuttle much of the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ, but, the Civil Rights Act was written to give individuals standing to sue companies to maximize the climate of fear and do an end run around the First Amendment.

    • mukatsuku says:

      According to Moldbug’s theory, Republican victories only ‘stimulate the immune system of the Cathedral’. Thus we should support the Dems (while ignoring the whole political process and never voting). Even if Trump succeeds wildly, his revolution will be as transient as the Reagan Revolution.

      If Trump keeps America majority white, however, he will have proved Moldbug wrong. Odds are about 10 to 1 against Trump.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        I reiterated this point over at AmRen’s website. I think that Moldbug was correct, though I wouldn’t ever actually vote for a Democrat for moral reasons, but that we should not aid in the prolonging of the dominion of the Cult of Progress. This is what Conservatism does.

        However, we may be witnessing a weird exception to the rule, and that concerns a demographic ploy. It may be worth extending the period for a short amount of time if it were to give American whites a better chance of not getting their heads smashed in with clubs when the whole thing comes down. It’s so frustrating that we don’t know exactly when the epoch is going to end as well. I think we need at least another 8-10 years to actually have the framework of a Reactionary government-in-waiting built and prepared, so if extending the epoch slightly would give us that, this would also be a compelling factor.

        All this said, Trump is not likely to win, but his rhetoric has already helped our cause immeasurably. He has made farther right views more acceptable to whites.

        • Corvinus says:

          “I think we need at least another 8-10 years to actually have the framework of a Reactionary government-in-waiting built and prepared, so if extending the epoch slightly would give us that, this would also be a compelling factor.”

          So, are you going to lead this charge? What makes you believe that the masses whole-heartedly will support your style of ruling? How do you propose to tackle the immense rebellion that will inevitably take place in light of monarchial rule by an elite (whoever are those people)? What makes you think that when this glorious reboot ever occurs, that neo-reactionary IS the greatest thing since sliced bread? Are you prepared to murder millions of people, including women and children and the unborn?

          “All this said, Trump is not likely to win, but his rhetoric has already helped our cause immeasurably. He has made farther right views more acceptable to whites.”

          Regarding anti-immigration, indeed. A drop in the bucket.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “What makes you believe that the masses whole-heartedly will support your style of ruling?”

            Probably the best example of somebody completely missing the point imaginable.

          • Erik says:

            The masses be damned. The masses will do what the charismatic man on the idiot box commands. The masses will believe what the idiot box tells them; and the reactionary leader will tell the idiot box scriptwriters what they may say.

            You seem to have this strange idea that the masses are a source of power, an unmoved mover, that everyone else must answer to. We reactionaries find this absurd. Make an argument for this idea, rather then taking it for granted and then telling us about its consequences.

            Drop your democratic assumptions. Democracy is not the natural state of the world. We’re not proposing to put a reactionary layer on top of a democratic substrate. If we were, then you would be right to suggest we concern ourselves with the rebellion of the democratic substrate. But since we’re not, you should stop with the implicit assumption of democracy.

            I expect there will be a small riot or two against the neoreactionary government. It will be put down the way Richard Pink put down tribesmen, because where the democratic leader sees a riot as a perfectly legitimate and particularly loud voice in government that needs tending to, the reactionary leader sees a riot as a rebellion, and rebellions are for crushing with deadly force.

            Consider the Second American Rebellion (Civil War), if you are not convinced yet – somehow, the immense rebellion for secession was put down, and this in a democracy. That’s the reactionary plan for dealing with all riots. Kill, raze, burn, in the manner of the March to the Sea. It is provably possible by the simple fact that it has already been done. Yes, we are prepared to “murder” millions, although of course it won’t be murder if we win. Reactionaries will just treat riots the way the North treated the South as a matter of course, because the Reactionaries have no interest in the votes of the rioters.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            People are free to exit, free to leave any Reactionary State, free to wander the wasteland or try to insert themselves into other societies.

            Any attempt however to overthrow a monarch, to disrupt a true aristocracy, to kill a warrior caste, or to desacralize the divine mediations of the clerical class with base violence and brannigan, will be met with an uncompromising response.

            Why? Because we know what happens when this response fails to adequately materialize. We have had almost 300 years of death and destruction from Modernists. Untold genocide and humiliation perpetrated in the name of the people. When one knows evil, and has looked it in the face, it is man’s divinely ordained duty to defend and protect, to search and destroy.

          • Dr. Faust says:

            When we say bread and circuses what we mean is food and football/American Idol. The masses don’t matter, won’t revolt so long as they are not starving. The goal of the leaders becomes to keep the food coming at all costs and cheap entertainment available. Most people don’t really believe too much in anything, certainly not enough to die for.

            The chief difference between right and left thinking is between the nature of man. The right believes man is fallen. The left believes in an earthly paradise. The right works with nature by sublimating the desires and impulses of man into something productive. The left believes it can change the impulses and desires of man and get rid of all of the destructive parts.

            There will never be an earthly paradise. All attempts have lead to disaster. It is best to work with the nature of man as he is not as he ought to be.

            All functions of society once served to redirect destructive and violent impulses into other channels. Sports becomes sublimated warfare. The desire to dominate in man is sated by giving him a family, a wife and children to rule over. A career substitutes hunting. A nation, a cohesive, singular culture, religion, history, and ethnicity, provides the people with a sense of belonging and an understanding of their place in the world.

            People have not become enlightened. They are still as stupid as they ever were. They graduate college. They never read Homer nor study calculus. They can read but read trash like Twilight. They are not dumbed down. They were always this way.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The masses should not only be fed through their bellies, but through their souls. Perhaps, at this juncture, the latter is much more significant than the former.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The masses be damned.”

            Exactly why neo-reactionaries haven’t a prayer to put forth their agenda on a grand scale. Now, when you make that comment, you do realize that whites are part of the masses. Are you white? Are you not denigrating your own kind?

            Furthermore, are you inferring you are not part of the masses? Pray tell, what criteria do you possess that separates yourself from them?

            “The masses will do what the charismatic man on the idiot box commands. The masses will believe what the idiot box tells them; and the reactionary leader will tell the idiot box scriptwriters what they may say.”

            Until those masses wise up, which history has proven.

            “You seem to have this strange idea that the masses are a source of power, an unmoved mover, that everyone else must answer to. We reactionaries find this absurd. Make an argument for this idea, rather then taking it for granted and then telling us about its consequences.”

            Without the masses, leaders lack authority. It’s really a simple concept, one you fail to grasp.

            “Drop your democratic assumptions. Democracy is not the natural state of the world.”

            
I do comprehend that underneath the shiny veneer of democracy lay the ugly truth…the moneyed classes rule. However, the masses are able to work, play, and enjoy life. This process is human history—the forms of government, the types of economies, the development of societies and civilizations may change, but inevitably this immutable law of humanity reveals itself.

            “We’re not proposing to put a reactionary layer on top of a democratic substrate. If we were, then you would be right to suggest we concern ourselves with the rebellion of the democratic substrate. But since we’re not, you should stop with the implicit assumption of democracy.”

            That “democratic substrate” are millions strong. Better get some warriors.

            “I expect there will be a small riot or two against the neoreactionary government.”

            [Laughs] Try a couple hundred thousand “vibrants” charging like rhinos. Your merry band of 300 warriors will ultimately perish.

            “It will be put down the way Richard Pink put down tribesmen, because where the democratic leader sees a riot as a perfectly legitimate and particularly loud voice in government that needs tending to, the reactionary leader sees a riot as a rebellion, and rebellions are for crushing with deadly force.”

            I imagine you will be at the front lines when this scenario unfolds, along with some of your friends. Praytell, what armies have you amassed, Tyler Durden?

            “That’s the reactionary plan for dealing with all riots. Kill, raze, burn, in the manner of the March to the Sea. It is provably possible by the simple fact that it has already been done. Yes, we are prepared to “murder” millions, although of course it won’t be murder if we win.”


            IF, huh? Where is your confidence, boy?

            “People are free to exit, free to leave any Reactionary State, free to wander the wasteland or try to insert themselves into other societies.”

            Why would people leave their homes, their jobs, their way of life? They have a society they created, they are not leaving anywhere. Feel free to create YOUR society in some remote place of the world.

            “Any attempt however to overthrow a monarch, to disrupt a true aristocracy, to kill a warrior caste, or to desacralize the divine mediations of the clerical class with base violence and brannigan, will be met with an uncompromising response.”

            Again, will YOU be front and center, with guillotine in tow? That’s what warriors do. Are you a warrior, Mark? If yes, what are the metrics involved?

            For someone who clams to be an intellectual, you are difficulty responding to direct questions.

            “Why? Because we know what happens when this response fails to adequately materialize. We have had almost 300 years of death and destruction from Modernists. Untold genocide and humiliation perpetrated in the name of the people. When one knows evil, and has looked it in the face, it is man’s divinely ordained duty to defend and protect, to search and destroy.”

            Yet, reactionaries will create their own version of paradise on earth…through purposeful genocide and humiliation perpetrated in the name of the elite. Where is this army of acolytes, your rag-tag collection of toadies at your beck and call? Jim? Erik?

            • jim says:

              Until those masses wise up, which history has proven.

              Progressive history. Learn some real history.

              Once in a while, those seizing power have invoked the masses as mascots, but the masses seldom heard about it until far too late.

              In the 1848 revolutions, those seizing power actually believed their own rhetoric, that they were the masses seizing power – with entirely predictable consequences. Those seizing power in the name of the masses never repeated that error again.

            • jim says:

              [Laughs] Try a couple hundred thousand “vibrants” charging like rhinos. Your merry band of 300 warriors will ultimately perish.

              history is that over and over again, a handful of whites defeat enormous hordes of vibrants. They had black battalions of freed slaves in the Civil war, basically for political reasons. Militarily they were completely useless. All whites need is the will to survive – and that is what is in short supply.

              The masses are politically irrelevant, vibrants are militarily irrelevant. Africa is effectively empty, a land without people capable of defending it. It used to be defended by heat and tropical diseases, but now with DDT and air conditioning, there is no reason for the black race to continue to exist – other than whites losing the will to live. If whites were willing to survive and reproduce, they would push the blacks aside in Africa and scarcely notice their existence.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            The idiocy of this troll knows no bounds, but I give him props for at least taking some time in his critique.

            No, people won’t rise up en masse, what a ridiculous notion. You’ll be too busy killing each other, trying to scrape together an existence with few resources. What does history show? Over 7000 years of uninterrupted, blissful Tradition. This should be daunting to you. We have over 7000 years of precedence on our side. You have this measly little blip since the French Revolution.

            And your own statements betray your inability to put two and two together. Am I a warrior? Tell me, Corvinus, do warriors compose political tracts. How many soldiers in the Wehrmacht were theorists? Was Karl Marx a warrior? Did he lead the revolution against the Tsar? No. Ideas and currents are an animating force, and typically the theorists are dead before what they theorized comes to pass. There are plenty of men ready to do the dirty work, as there have always been, and your decaying society increasingly offers them no future, no hope of glory or respect. It’s only a matter of time and circumstance, little man.

            We don’t need or expect some wave majority, all we’d need is a committed cell. Masses are irrelevant and endemically stupid in fact. And you should take note that we as individuals don’t matter in the slightest. Mark, Jim, Erik, blah blah blah. You’re attacking names, because you could never hope to challenge the substance of this ideological current.

            “Why would people leave their homes, their jobs, their way of life?”

            Hahaha. Their way of life?! Their way of life will have been blown to smithereens long before we show up. When it comes to Progress, you really are a true believer. Yes, the West has only wonderful years to come. Of course.

          • Erik says:

            In Operation Dingo, approximately two hundred whites of Rhodesia with powerful white magic fought against over ten thousand vibrants of Zimbabwe. Outcome: Two dead whites, six injured whites, est. three thousand dead vibrants, est. five thousand injured vibrants.

            In Operation Focus, at the start of the Six Day War, someone had tried to give the vibrants secondhand white magic. It didn’t help; the Jewish air force defeated about three times its number in planes, attaining complete air superiority, and abbreviated the war to six days.

            [Laughs back]

            “Praytell, what armies have you amassed, Tyler Durden?”

            Nolo episcopari. I do not wish to be bishop, king, or general. I’m a peasant and I’m willing to be a soldier. I’m going to sign up for the eventual army, not amass anything.

            “Without the masses, leaders lack authority. It’s really a simple concept, one you fail to grasp.”

            I have grasped it, I just disagree with it. It’s a democratic concept. I am not a democrat.

          • Corvinus says:

            Jim…

            “Once in a while, those seizing power have invoked the masses as mascots, but the masses seldom heard about it until far too late.”

            The masses are the key to leaders remaining in power.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts

            “Those seizing power in the name of the masses never repeated that error again.”

            [Laughs] You are ignorant of history. The great dictators of the world spoke to the masses about a “great national revival”, with common folk front and center in taking command of their nation against some forsworn enemy.

            
Mark…

            “No, people won’t rise up en masse, what a ridiculous notion. You’ll be too busy killing each other, trying to scrape together an existence with few resources.”

            You undercut your own argument. If people are attempting to eke out a living due to limited food, shelter, and clothing, there is competition for such things; hence, there are competing groups who have formed allies on common ground. They rise up en masse due to perceived injustices.

            “What does history show? Over 7000 years of uninterrupted, blissful Tradition.”

            See, you make this assumption that, based on a historical paradigm predicated on perpetual cycles of shifting territories, it is inevitable that at some point in world’s future, some great calamity will erupt simultaneously in several locales, with groups committed genocide on a scale never witnessed before in human history, and amid the chaos a group of reactionaries doing their best Arnold impression stating “Come with me if you want to live.” Son, the moneyed classes have been playing the long game since the 1800’s just in case of this dire situation, and have several “break glass in case of emergency” contingency plans. Besides, today’s masses have access to information. Neoreactionary thought hasn’t a prayer to become mainstream, nor even a viable, sustainable option for the inhabitants of Earth in the aftermath of the reboot.

            “Am I a warrior? Tell me, Corvinus, do warriors compose political tracts.”

            Thucydides. Suleiman the Magnificent. Alexander the Great.

            “How many soldiers in the Wehrmacht were theorists?”

            Innovated combined arms tactics were their specialty.

            “Was Karl Marx a warrior? Did he lead the revolution against the Tsar? No.”

            Josef Stalin is the more appropriate example as a physical warrior. Regarding Marx, he was the intellectual warrior. Mao Zedong was both the physical and intellectual warrior.

            “There are plenty of men ready to do the dirty work, as there have always been…”

            So, where are they, considering that today’s “men” are generally effeminate and emasculated.

            “and your decaying society increasingly offers them no future, no hope of glory or respect. It’s only a matter of time and circumstance, little man.”

            Again, the assumption that neoreactionary thought will become the political flavor after the reboot.

            “We don’t need or expect some wave majority, all we’d need is a committed cell. Masses are irrelevant and endemically stupid in fact.”

            The masses, my friend, are catching on, compliments of the World Wide Web.

            “You’re attacking names, because you could never hope to challenge the substance of this ideological current.”

            This ideological current goes “drip, drip, drip”. It’s intellectual fantasy clap-trap.

            Erik…

            “Hahaha. Their way of life?! Their way of life will have been blown to smithereens long before we show up.”

            You offered two examples in which the aggressors had superior arms. Does your merry band of men have top-notch weaponry?

            “I’m going to sign up for the eventual army, not amass anything.”

            You’re going to be waiting a long time, I’m afraid, Tyler Durden.

            Now, let’s go back to your masses comment. You said the “masses be damned”. Ok, you do realize that you in essence put down white people. Why are you disrespecting your kind (assuming you are white)?

            “I have grasped it, I just disagree with it. It’s a democratic concept. I am not a democrat.”

            

No shit, Sherlock.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Please, by all means put your faith in the internet and the imaginary notion that the whole globe, every country on earth, isn’t plugged into one fatal system. Put your faith in the masses to come together in a diversity-is-strength moment. Put your faith in people “catching on to something”, no doubt with cheeseburger and remote in hand.

            We’re counting on it.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Please, by all means put your faith in the internet and the imaginary notion that the whole globe, every country on earth, isn’t plugged into one fatal system. Put your faith in the masses to come together in a diversity-is-strength moment. Put your faith in people “catching on to something”, no doubt with cheeseburger and remote in hand.

            We’re counting on it.”

            Please, by all means put your faith in a philosophical movement espoused by egg-heads who lack the fundamental operational means, financial support, and required MASSES participation to ensure that it becomes a continental political reality. I believe the word is “impotent”.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            and yet here you are, day in day out… your presence undermines your own claim.

          • Corvinus says:

            “and yet here you are, day in day out… your presence undermines your own claim.”

            Lighten up, Francis.

      • Just sayin' says:

        Trump isn’t really a Republican.

        Nobody really knows what his victory will do.

        But, God willing, it might involve helicopter rides.

        /me turns on Adios Mi General

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >According to Moldbug’s theory, Republican victories only ‘stimulate the immune system of the Cathedral’. Thus we should support the Dems

        You misunderstood him. Politics is irrelevant. The permanent government controls politics. If Politicians tries to control the government (i.e. McCarthyism), then the permanent government cracks down on politics, and purges the politicians (i.e. McCarthy).

        This is also desirable. Can you imagine if foreign policy were set by the president? We’d have no idea what the US foreign policy would be a year and six months from now. An insane way to run a government.

        Trump is a celebrity, who is acting like a politician. He will not win the nomination. And he just makes politics sillier, which does not exactly hurt the Cathedral’s control of the government.

        • R7_Rocket says:

          McCarthy was not a charismatic multibillionaire with connections to other multibillionaires who have misgivings about The Cathedral. Trump may in fact be an example of a “renegade noble.”

          This assumes that The Donald is serious.

        • mukatsuku says:

          I paraphrased Moldbug. But according to you I misunderstand him. Whatever.

          Read his Romney recap for his mixed feelings on Dem victories.

        • mukatsuku says:

          In other posts, Moldbug explains how the Cathedral immune system is self-stimulating. Fragments of power are fought over by policy entrepreneurs and activists. New sinecures are secured, by Anita Sarkeesian for example. As she pursued corporate funding, her shrillness decreased. Now with Intel money she is a rich, sinecured foundation leftist. She’s a de-activated activist.

          This is exactly what we want, for the Cathedral to handle its power struggles quickly and cleanly by co-opting them.

          It’s clear that a Republican president spends his time fighting his own executive branch. After a while he gives up on domestic policy. But the damage is done in the fighting.

          If a GOP president stimulates the Cathedral immune system, doesn’t a Dem president stimulate the Cathedral pleasure system? Does that really make the Cathedral fat, lazy and sclerotic, as we hope? Washington is fat and happy, but don’t the activists redouble their efforts to receive Cathedral largess?

  10. John says:

    When you open your message with a lie; “Of course ending immigration is enormously popular.” what use is reading the rest?

    It’s ending of ILLEGAL immigration that is popular.

  11. Ron says:

    White males cause poor performance of women and nonwhites by thinking evil thoughts at them

    When did you guys become Jews?

    • peppermint says:

      The Jewish ecological strategy is to complain about persecution while demanding special privileges.

      The White ecological strategy is to build civilizations.

      Creating and promoting degeneracy and anti-White politicians in White countries is not the same as building a civilization, letting foreigners live in it, but not giving them free everything.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >ecological strategy
        Oy Vey. Society is an ecosystem.

      • jim says:

        Nazi error: Attributing agency to races

        Races do not have strategies. Individuals have strategies, and to a lesser extent, tribes have strategies. The Jews are far from being one cohesive tribe, though they are a lot nearer to that than “whites”

        Because tribes are somewhat linked to races, the Nazi error is less disastrous and results in less terror and mass murder than the progressive error of attributing agency to social categories

        • peppermint says:

          The fundamental question a race, or, really, a nation, has to answer is, how do we gain access to the resources we need to reproduce our community? Every race in existence needs to have had a successful answer to that question, every race that continues to exist needs to currently have a successful answer.

          Races have strategies. The olive baboon is monogamous and the hamadryas baboon is polygamous; in this video -> https://youtu.be/4LTWi13_jjk?t=936 <- you can see them interact.

          Naturally, races with widely different strategies usually end up evolving traits to expand on those strategies and eventually become different species. This is how chimpanzees diverged from humans, though not how humans diverged from Tasmanian aborigines.

          The Jews have consistently followed a particular strategy in dealing the Aryans for all of recorded history. Similarly, this species of fungus has consistently followed a particular strategy in dealing with cicadas for all of recorded history: https://blog.mycology.cornell.edu/2013/02/19/flying-salt-shakers-of-death/

          • jim says:

            “The fundamental question a race, or, really, a nation, has to answer is, how do we gain access to the resources we need to reproduce our community? Every race in existence needs to have had a successful answer to that question, every race that continues to exist needs to currently have a successful answer.”

            Nazi error. Race is not nation. Every individual needs to answer that question, and it can only be solved in cooperation with others, so every individual needs a thede, a tribe. Jews have umpteen tribes who hate each other, and are themselves largely detribalized, though not as detribalized as gentiles.

            Whites have never been a nation, and never will be.

            The ruling religion of Israel is not Judaism, but progressivism. Thus their religion requires them, like us, to commit suicide. The continued existence of Israel is an unprincipled exception, and the Palestinian authority and the retreat from Gaza is suicide on the installment plan.

            Whites will never be a nation, Jews are not a nation, and for Jews to be a nation would require them to take back the temple, institute official Judaism, and make official Judaism, rather than official progressivism, a requirement for membership of governing and quasi governmental institutions such a bank management, high status media, and academic posts at major prestigious academic institutions.

            When that happens, Jews will then be a nation.

          • peppermint says:

            okay, sure, I’m using these words race and nation in an idiosyncratic way, and it’s certainly anthropomorphizing to project answering a question onto the basic material of evolution, the sexually reproducing community.

            Not every individual needs to cooperate, bears after they have been raised by their mothers lock down territory for themselves and will fight over it, and probably cheer when a hunter kills one of their rivals. It is rare for a race to engage in predatory behavior against itself, but the greatest threat to young alligators is older alligators, and not because those older alligators want to cause the mother to enter estrus sooner.

            It’s pretty standard for the word race to mean subspecies, but not necessarily standard to think about subspecies in terms of behavioral differences.

            The distinction between psychology and ethology and human and natural history appears to have always unfortunately existed, and arguably has because of the intellectual arrogance of religion. It’s pretty obvious to use environmental aspects to describe the evolution of behavioral differences between Whites and Blacks, and cultural aspects to describe the evolution of behavioral differences between Whites and Asians, but I don’t know of a compelling story of how the Jews evolved their particular behavioral traits.

            There’s nothing I can say isn’t already implicitly in Revilo Oliver.

            I don’t need for Whites to be a nation, I don’t expect them to become a nation, though it is possible in my terminology, as in the US most Whites see all other Whites as potential reproductive partners. Whites becoming one nation was arguably what many Europeans saw as the goal of the European Union, though the project was also led by Jews who saw the goal as the extermination of the White race.

            Most of the Jews I know personally are totally on board with SJWism and one of them has an immediate family member who just married a Black. It’s hard to see their specific behavioral traits on the individual level, certainly harder than it is to see the specific behavioral traits of the Asians and the Blacks, who diverged from us further back. But somehow they found the chutzpah to demand special privileges while kvetching about persecution.

            What kind of Whites would form an Anti-Defamation League to defend a guy who raped and murdered a 13 year old girl, then tried to blame it on a nigger, then tried to blame it on another nigger?

            It’s clear that the Jews truly believe their stories about persecutions, otherwise they wouldn’t have written in their Talmud that 40 million of them were killed by the Romans in a small town.

            The only way to see past the market dominant minority story and the progressive true believer story – if you had been in on David Duke’s debate with Alex Jones, that is presumably how you would have answered David Duke and saved Alex Jones’ career – is to recognize the particular behavioral traits of the subspecies. Jews comment on the special neuroses of Jews all the time as comedians, but, I’m not sure there is a compelling single piece of evidence.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          I appreciate this elucidation of the Hitler Fallacy: Presuming White solidarity when confronted with a shared threat (communism, da-Jooz, etc).

          Every year that passes now, I look back on WWI (aka “The Great White Civil War”) and WWII — so much White-on-White warfare and destruction — and it just looks more ridiculous and horrible. And it also helps explain the present.

          This thing didn’t start with Roe-vs-Wade, that’s for damned sure. You pointed that out also.

          • peppermint says:

            Hitler should have invaded Britain, that would have denied the United Nations a place to launch the Normandy invasion from. He could even have justified it by restoring the throne of George VI.

            He’s not the first German leader to assume everyone is on the same page with him about the rules of war and shared goals, there was also Charles V, whose failure at least didn’t end with ethic cleansing of Germans from a bunch of lands by other White nations.

            • jim says:

              He attempted to invade England, needed air superiority to cross the channel. What do you think the battle of Britain was all about?

          • red says:

            Hitler’s biggest mistake was not capturing the BEF. With that he would have had a big enough lever to force the British to stop the war. Winston may have been determined to fight, but his public would demand the return of their men at the cost signing a peace treaty.

  12. […] Jim has commentary on the remarkably moderate Trump plan to stop (nonwhite) immigration. […]

Leave a Reply