After the Flight 93 election

Comes the hour, comes the man. Trump, vivat rex, is president, and may well take the throne and save America from catastrophe.

But what happened at Berkeley University when Milo attempted to give a talk shows that winning, we can never afford to lose again – if there is danger we might lose, we cannot afford a free and fair election, for the left intends to devour us. The stakes are now too high to allow democratic elections to continue. A single defeat will be absolutely permanent and fatal. Once in power they will utterly crush us, and never give white males a chance to regain power. So we have to do them before they do to us.

They have stopped listening, they will not hear. So, inevitably they fear us, demonize us, and will attack us, are beginning to attack us. Berkeley is Krystalnacht for “racists”. We therefore have to attack them, in a more organized, efficient, systematic, and deadly fashion, to ensure that they will never regain political power.

The attacks in Berkeley were done under the protection of a police no arrest policy and where there is a police no arrest policy, you can be pretty sure that the person issuing those orders to the police, is the same person issuing orders to the rioters, and that destruction and the conflict between police and rioters has been scripted and choreographed, usually by someone who loathes and despises rank and file cops.

You can also be sure that if we did the obvious thing and organized some brownshirts to protect our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, the original purpose of Hitler’s brownshirts, that no arrest policy would be instantly dropped.

So, if brownshirts are out, then blackshirts. Fortunately Trump, vivat rex, is president

Trump, vivat rex, has threatened Berkeley funding, and his FBI (yes, the FBI is mostly loyal) is examining that no arrest order and examining Berkeley for complicity in organizing the riots.

Imagine if Hillary was president. Then any campus that did have an arrest policy would be getting the black-lives-matter treatment from the justice department, and pretty soon there would be a no-arrest consent agreement to allow antifa to beat people up and set fire to stuff.

Once you have the terrorists out of the cockpit, you do not let more terrorists board the plane on the next stop. If they had won this election, their victory would have been permanent and irreversible. They would have crushed us with physical violence, and brought in a hundred million black male military age Muslim voters to maintain the superficial appearance of democracy. If they win any subsequent election, their victory will also be permanent and irreversible.

The basic theory of democracy is that instead of holding a civil war, every so often you count heads, declare who would have won if you had actually held a civil war, and proceed in a civilized manner, thus avoiding a lot of death and destruction. But if you count women and blacks you are not really doing this. Further, if one side will not listen to the other, and thus inevitably demonizes the other, you are not going to get enough civility for the losers to peacefully acquiesce. The left is not civil enough for us to peacefully acquiesce. Should we hold an election and they win, we just cannot afford to yield power, so best not to hold anything like a fair election.

Politics, they say, is war by other means. With “no platforming” it has become war by familiar means. If they have the power, they will not allow us a platform. We have the power, we dare not allow them a platform.

108 Responses to “After the Flight 93 election”

  1. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Considering how close this election was (Hilary won popular vote and could have won if she bused in some more Mestizos to the rust belt states), I doubt Trump can win the next one without the coup you are predicting and we are both hoping for. So I guess you are predicting not only the coup will happen but regardless of what happens American elections will stop mattering?

  2. jim says:

    We can have a few wins by democratic means, then a few wins with the superficial appearance of democratic means, and then we will have to crown someone. If all goes well, we crown a son of Trump, and retroactively crown Trump.

    Also, when we start no-platforming our enemies, we cannot let free lance radicals do it, because that way lies a right wing singularity. Have to have a high priest and grand inquisitor supervising the no-platforming.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      A great example is Czar Vladimir Putin I of Holy Mother Russia. He is, no doubt, a Russia First nationalist, but he makes sure that there is no “right wing singularity” from radicals. He protects Russians, but he makes sure that there is no runaway virtue-signaling spiral among Russian nationalists.

      • Candide III says:

        Putin protects Russians? Pfui. He suppresses foreign NGOs etc. because they threaten his power. Otherwise, he only takes notice when >60 people die in a week in one town of 500,000 (that’s counting women, children and old people) from drinking shower cleaner.

        • jim says:

          You see nothing strange or unreasonable in the fact that NGOs are a threat to elected leader of a country? Nothing odd about it? Nothing suspicious or corrupt?

          NGOs (otherwise known as the US state department) have overthrown or attempted to overthrow many governments. Their attempted overthrow of the Syrian government has caused the death of half a million Syrians, and I am sure that they intended worse for Russians. Had they succeeded in Syria, they would have genocided the Alawites and expelled the Christians, and their plans for Russia were probably similarly evil, malevolent, and hostile.

          The Orange Revolution had bad results. The Jasmine Revolution and the Lotus Revolution had dreadful consequences, and had they succeeded in Syria the consequences would have been considerably worse. What makes you think the consequences in Russia would have been unicorns farting rainbows?

        • Jack Highlands says:

          Call them what they are: QGO’s. Quasi-governmental organizations. Some QGO’s specialized for Russia also qualify as Queer-generating organizations.

          • Erik says:

            I might suggest “Para-governmental” or “Crypto-governmental”.

            Agree that the term ‘NGO’ is generally a lie. The local bakery by my house is a literal non-government organization, and doesn’t call itself one. Anything calling itself an NGO probably isn’t.

            • Jack Highlands says:

              Unfortunately, even the local bakery cannot escape the crosshairs of the Queer-generating organizations when they decide two tuxedos must crown a wedding cake.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Putin is a thug. He’s better than the Cathedral but not by much. I’m always amazed how much alt righters love Putin considering that under his government Russia still has the highest # of abortions per woman in the West, still can’t get any foreign investment due to constant expropriations, lets Chechen mafia terrorize white Russians, and still doesn’t have any productive economic sectors beside resouce extraction.

          • jim says:

            And NGOs are the instrument of Cathedral thugs whose extraordinary brutality has long been on display in parts of Africa, and is now on display in Syria.

            Putin is the one world leader who acts in opposition to the Cathedral. The Chinese and the Iranians do not understand what the Cathedral is doing to them or how it is doing it. Putin does, and is testing and using tactics to fight the Cathedral at its own level.

            Candide’s statement implies that she is aware of what NGOs do, and regards the trail of murder and ruin that they leave in their wake as perfectly appropriate. After all, if no one opposed them so that they won effortlessly every time, they would not leave a trail of murder and ruin in their wake.

            When she says that Putin suppresses NGOs in order to stay in power, that implies that NGOs are in the business of removing people from power, and it is perfectly legitimate and entirely OK for them to do so.

            The Cathedral method is to apply psychological, moral, and spiritual force to disarm and incapacitate their enemy, then, at the critical moment, actual physical force. When this works, it results in an almost bloodless victory, and the Cathedral pats itself on the back about how virtuous it is, conquering its enemies with very little bloodshed.

            And when it does not work?

            Well then it starts to rather resemble more old fashioned methods of conquering and subjugating hostile enemy peoples. Syria and Libya are what happens when color revolutions go horribly wrong.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Russia is an enormous land-based power and has been for several centuries. As such, the concept of ‘productive economic sectors’ is not purely Smithian for Russia. It’s not simply a matter of pumping out logs and bitumen like Canada, or microprocessors like Singapore. For example, it’s quite possible that Boeing or Airbus could do a better job than Tupolev. But that does not mean Russia should allow them to.

            And I’d also guess they have some quite competitive arms specialties.

          • pdimov says:

            “He’s better than the Cathedral but not by much.”

            A random person in charge would be much better than the Cathedral, and Putin is much better than a random person.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            “NGOs are the instrument of Cathedral thugs”

            Yes, NGOs suck compared to Putin. I was just saying Putin is pretty bad even when compared with the CPC, which I consider pretty bad. I would say Russia is more vulnerable to demotism than China, what happens if Putin has a heart attack?

            “For example, it’s quite possible that Boeing or Airbus could do a better job than Tupolev. But that does not mean Russia should allow them to.”

            Expropriating western investments in oil and hotels that would come under Russian control in any war has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with a bureaucracy that is out of control and stealing everything not nailed down and prying up those nailed down.

            “A random person in charge would be much better than the Cathedral, and Putin is much better than a random person.”

            Putin is much better than a random person because a random person in charge would be way more vulnerable to being controlled by the Cathedral, but what Putin has done over his decade long reign is not very impressive considering Russia is still way behind the West economically and has 1.6 fertility.

            • jim says:

              To be fair, he inherited an economic and demographic death spiral.

              Restoring the authority of mother Church was first step towards fixing the demographic death spiral. He has recently taken another stop, a small step towards restoring the authority of husbands, made possible because he took that first step. We should see the impact of this on birth rates in 2017, though the statistics for 2017 will not show up until 2018

              He is a democratic leader of a decadent leftist people. Before he can make them less decadent, has to make them less leftist. This has always been a Russian problem. He cannot just declare himself Tsar Putin the First – yet.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                I think he has improved things relative to what a Cathedral-installed ruler would have done, but he has not really improved things that much given he has been ruling for 15 years. The Russian bureaucracy is still out of control, people are getting expropriated all the time, abortions are still heavily encouraged instead of being punished by death penalty.

                Pretty bad relative to what a good monarch like Lee Kuan Yew or even Park Chung Hee would have accomplished. I am skeptical Putin is driving things instead of the bureaucracy, it seems to me he is acting like a demotist to gain their approval.

          • peppermint says:

            Less than week after these comments, the Tsar signed a Jimist law to raise fertility of Russians. In a few years, Jim will be regarded as the most important political philosopher ever, and the Tsar will be regarded as one of the greatest leaders of the largest Aryan nation.

        • X says:

          Repeal the 19th.

          Sweetie , this stuff is above your brainpower.

          Men are talking.

    • AMK says:

      Jim. You should read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It is a manual on how to destroy leftism. https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/1451651686

  3. […] After the Flight 93 election […]

  4. peppermint says:

    He needs to shore up his position by restricting voting rights, and he’s already openly talked about illegal voting. The legacy media’s response – that some of his people have duplicate registrations and that less than the number he said of illegal votes have been cast – is typical of how utterly retarded they are.

    His Majesty’s biggest enemies are the legacy media, the legacy educational institutions, and the Jews. His recent yuge deal solving the refugee crisis meant He had to bluster at Iran, which gave Him an opportunity to insult the Jews, which He took, making the Jews so angry they basically admitted that the Holocaust was their fiction and they decide what’s canonical or not and that only the six million are canon the other five million are fanfiction from someone or other.

    Pulling federal funding from a few legacy educational institutions won’t get rid of the poz inside them, but it will demonstrate that Trump is more powerful than the professors. To deprecate the legacy educational institutions, in the short term we need to be able to go around them with e.g. online courses, and long term destroy affirmative action.

    To deprecate the legacy media, which His Majesty has also been slapping around in order to demonstrate that He’s more powerful than them, He started by getting journalists skyped into the White House briefing room.

    As to the trash-can-kickers of the Milo riot, there is more than enough evidence to convict a ton of people under RICO, but His Majesty would probably not want to interrupt His enemies while they are making a yuge mistake.

    http://imgur.com/ERHYRPT.gif

    • peppermint says:

      Anti First Amendment needs to demonstrate that they’re a foreign terrorist organization before all their personnel can get nailed for providing material support for terrorism, but the ones who lead these actions where battery and arson is used to intimidate civilians can already be nailed under RICO.

      • jim says:

        Ricoing everyone connected the the Berkeley riots would be an excellent start on no-platforming the left.

        But you are right. Let them dig their hole a bit deeper first.

    • Cavalier says:

      “making the Jews so angry they basically admitted that the Holocaust was their fiction”

      Sauce.

        • Cavalier says:

          hahahaha

          if my smile were any wider it would leave orbit

        • Jack Highlands says:

          There are three undeniable empirical planks to begin red-pilling normies on Shoahism:

          1. Most relevant here: the 6 million victims number was well-beloved and well publicized by the Jews, eg repeatedly in the NYT, starting at least a quarter-century before Krystallnacht:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtAnuXl5VZY

          2. Related: even after the Auschwitz number was downgraded in stages from 4 million to 1.1 million, the talismanic total of 6 million overall remained.

          3. Lampshades, soap and the like were anti-German propaganda pieces from WW1. No doubt they were old wives’ tales long before that.

          These three at least, are simple facts. Yet the vast majority of normies are unaware of them. If they were aware, many further doubts would arise.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            If you guys want to prove the holocaust was fake you’d have to find an alternative explanation of why the Jewish population in Europe fell by somewhere between 5 and 6 million from 1939 to 1945.

            • jim says:

              The holocaust was not exactly fake. Hitler adopted a conscious policy of just not feeding Jews, and as a result, a very large proportion of Jews under Nazi control died, probably most of them. If not six million, certainly millions.

              But it has been elaborately embellished with details to make it as different as possible from the much larger communist democides, which were in actual fact carried out by very similar means on much larger categories of people.

              Hitler also adopted a conscious policy of just not feeding Greeks. The problem was that in a typical failure of socialism, there was not enough food to go around, and rather than equally distributing the hunger, as left socialists do in theory but fail to do in practice, the Nazis proceeded to consciously feed some people at the expense of others. Nazi mistreatment of Jews turned into genocide as a result of the economic failure of German socialism, and the crimes of Nazism should therefore be understood as a particular case of the crimes of socialism, arising from covetousness and envy, rather than as crimes arising from racism.

              • Cavalier says:

                If the Shoahcaust was so bad, why did they feel the need to lie about every significant aspects, and why is it illegal to investigate those aspects?

                The question is not “did Jews die in WWII”, the question is “did The Holocaust™ happen”.

                Obviously Jews died in WWII. Keep out of your motte.

              • Art says:

                Jim:

                “Hitler adopted a conscious policy of just not feeding Jews, and as a result, a very large proportion of Jews under Nazi control died, probably most of them.”

                Are you saying that the stories of mass executions are not true?
                For instance, at Baby Yar Jews were not shot but starved?

                • jim says:

                  Probably over one hundred thousand, but less than two hundred thousand, Jews were directly executed by the Nazis, which is small potatoes compared to communist executions. Most of the other Jews were deliberately starved to death, which is again small potatoes compared to communist terror famines.

                  The holocaust is no fiction. Millions of Jews really were wrongfully killed. But it has been fictionalized, largely in an effort to make it as Jewish as possible, and as un socialist as possible. Hence the outrage at the White House memorialization of the Holocaust.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Most of the other Jews were deliberately starved to death…”

                  It would be less wrong to say that Churchill deliberately starved the Bengali to death, and considerably less wrong to state that the Allies deliberately starved a few million Germans to death after the war.

                • jim says:

                  The Japanese were besieging Bengal, so I am pretty sure it was not Churchill who starved them to death. That was an intentional war famine, not a famine of socialism, nor a famine of colonialism.

                • pdimov says:

                  Churchill deliberately cancelled aid to India and redirected it towards British soldiers (who, some claim, did not need the extra supplies). This is more deliberate than what Germans did, which was to supply the soldiers instead of supplying the camps. “Deliberately starved” implies that they had the food and withheld it. They did not have the food. Churchill however did have the food, and withheld it.

                • jim says:

                  Checking Wikipedia:

                  Thus, even when the Government of India decreed that there should be free trade in grain, politicians, civil servants, local government officers and police obstructed the movement of grain to famine areas.[44] In some cases Provinces seized grain in transit from other Provinces to Bengal.[45] ‘But men like Bhai Permanand say that though many traders want to export food [to Bengal] the Punjab Government would not give them permits. He testified to large quantities of undisposed-of rice being in the Punjab’[46]

                  This looks like a breakdown of British control, Indian central government control, and breakdown of law and order, probably as a result of military defeat causing loss of confidence in continued British rule, plus the fact that the normal supply of food to Bengal from Burma had been interdicted by the Japanese.

                  If anyone withheld the food, it was primarily the Japanese army, secondly the Punjabi local government exceeding its proper authority, and thirdly assorted goons were not listening to far away governments distracted by military defeat.

                  The British government and the Indian government could have and should have acted more decisively than they did, but mistakenly or self deludingly over estimated Bengali food stocks so that their actions were late and ineffectual. They were letting the market take care of things, ordinarily a sound policy, except that for war related reasons the market was failing to work.

                • pdimov says:

                  “That was an intentional war famine, not a famine of socialism, nor a famine of colonialism.”

                  Checking Wikipedia, it was all three.

                  – war, because the Japanese occupied Burma
                  – socialism, because the government intervened ineptly, made things worse, blamed hoarders, who turned out to not exist
                  – colonialism, because Britain bought rice at above-market prices

                  But this is not about who CAUSED the famine. “Deliberately starved” is about intent, ill will, mens rea. And Churchill deliberately made his decision to cancel the food shipments, demonstrating intent.

                  As I said, less wrong. I wouldn’t use “deliberately starved” about either. I wouldn’t even use it about the Germans starved after the war. It’s not right in any of these three cases.

                • jim says:

                  Churchill deliberately made his decision to cancel the food shipments, demonstrating intent.

                  Food was shipped there, despite the fact that ships were likely to be sunk in so doing, and despite the fact that there was arguably enough food in India, and despite the fact that whether or not there was enough food in India the British government incorrectly believed there was enough food in Bengal. So. No intent to starve people.

                  And the proximate cause of starvation was the Japanese withholding food, which the British failed to adequately compensate for by shipping increased food.

                  But there was a war on, shipping was under attack. If you ship something vital to A, you cannot ship something vital to B. And, according the 1945 inquiry, they failed to recognize how vital it was to ship food to Bengal. And in fact I don’t think it was vital. Probably the best solution would have been to allow traders to transport food within india to where it had the highest price. Which did not happen, but not for lack of trying.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “The British government and the Indian government could have and should have acted more decisively than they did, but mistakenly or self deludingly over estimated Bengali food stocks so that their actions were late and ineffectual. They were letting the market take care of things, ordinarily a sound policy, except that for war related reasons the market was failing to work.”

                  The British had given locally elected parliaments of the Indian presidencies the power to tariff and embargo one another, part of the intended progression towards independence as a dominion. So the British had abolished the market in principle, to comply with demands for Indian self-government, and then un-abolished it when it became clear that Indian self-government was causing disaster. Of course this risked non-compliance and uprisings – and there were only so many troops to go around.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “The British government and the Indian government could have and should have acted more decisively than they did, but mistakenly or self deludingly over estimated Bengali food stocks so that their actions were late and ineffectual. They were letting the market take care of things, ordinarily a sound policy, except that for war related reasons the market was failing to work.”

                  Outrageous calumny. The Jews in pre-Nazi Germany did not survive on government food aid. They survived on their freely earned salaries, spent in the open market. The German government wholly artificially restricted Jews from earning a living and from trading freely for food, in order to starve them. Churchill declined to send charitable assistance to a part of his domains where people were still free to earn and spend, but where the price of food had become too high for reasons outside of his control.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  *Apologies, this should have been the second quote:

                  “Churchill deliberately cancelled aid to India and redirected it towards British soldiers (who, some claim, did not need the extra supplies). This is more deliberate than what Germans did, which was to supply the soldiers instead of supplying the camps. “Deliberately starved” implies that they had the food and withheld it. They did not have the food. Churchill however did have the food, and withheld it.”

                • pdimov says:

                  “The German government wholly artificially restricted Jews from earning a living and from trading freely for food, …”

                  Only a libertarian would use such stupid language. The German government interned the Jews in concentration camps.

                  “… in order to starve them.”

                  You posit intent to starve, as Jim does, based on nothing except post hoc ergo propter hoc.

                  After the war, the Allies wholly artificially restricted millions of Germans from earning a living and trading freely for food. The result was that they starved. Do you posit “in order to starve them” in this case? No? Why not?

                • jim says:

                  You posit intent to starve, as Jim does, based on nothing except post hoc ergo propter hoc.

                  They placed Jews in concentration camps with no intent to starve them, though due to the normal chaos of socialism they sometimes inadvertently did. Then, due to food shortages, they made an explicit and conscious decision to starve them, at a meeting for which we have the records. This meeting was retroactively re-interpreted by the allies as a conscious decision to gas them, but there is no explicit mention of gassings or shootings, only explicit mention of food, words to the effect that Germans cannot afford to continue feeding the Jews.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The result was that they starved. ”

                  German population did not see a giant drop after WWII as far as I know. Jewish population dropped by 5-6 million, some countries 80-90%. It’s obvious their deaths were intended, whether by starvation, shooting or gassing.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Only a libertarian would use such stupid language. The German government interned the Jews in concentration camps.”

                  Oh please.

                  First, spare me your right wing signalling spiral nonsense.

                  Second, you’re not even correct. the German government excluded Jews from the professions long before they sent them to camps.

                  ““… in order to starve them.”

                  “You posit intent to starve, as Jim does, based on nothing except post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

                  OK, maybe it was unintentional. Mighty suspicious though.

                  “After the war, the Allies wholly artificially restricted millions of Germans from earning a living and trading freely for food. The result was that they starved. Do you posit “in order to starve them” in this case? No? Why not?”

                  Did they? We certainly tried to starve them *during* the war but I’m not familiar with our policy after it.

                • pdimov says:

                  “German population did not see a giant drop after WWII as far as I know.”

                  No? I’ve heard that it did.

                • pdimov says:

                  “First, spare me your right wing signalling spiral nonsense.”

                  Calling a spade a spade is not signaling nonsense. It’s not like interning people in concentration camps is better than artificially restricting their whatever.

                  But I apologize for calling you a libertarian; you didn’t mean the camps, you meant that the German government restricted German Jews. I didn’t realize that.

                  “Second, you’re not even correct. the German government excluded Jews from the professions long before they sent them to camps.”

                  That was not when they starved. They starved in the camps. Maybe they would have starved outside the camps as well – no way to know.

                  “OK, maybe it was unintentional.”

                  That’s the full extent of my point, no more.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “No? I’ve heard that it did.”

                  There were a lot of German deaths in Eastern Europe when they got ethnically cleansed by the Soviets, up to a million, but as far as I know there were no mass deaths in the Anglo areas, although if you add up the increased mortality rate compared to the 1930s it would probably be a couple hundred thousand.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  *Anglo controlled areas

                • pdimov says:

                  Wikipedia says

                  16 June 1933: 65,362,115
                  29 October 1946: 65,137,274

                  so there’s indeed no drop at all, which is a bit surprising considering that

                  “Germany had suffered heavy losses during the war, both in lives and industrial power. 6.9 to 7.5 million Germans had been killed.”

                  Perhaps this

                  “By 1950, a total of approximately 12 million Germans had fled or been expelled from east-central Europe into Allied-occupied Germany and Austria. The West German government put the total at 14 million, including ethnic German migrants to Germany after 1950 and the children born to expelled parents.”

                  is the explanation.

                  The combined population of West and East Germany according to the same Wikipedia page is 68,230,796.

                  So yeah, a few millions give or take.

                  “The current official position of the German government is that the death toll resulting from the flight and expulsions ranged from 2 to 2.5 million civilians.”

                • pdimov says:

                  “Then, due to food shortages, they made an explicit and conscious decision to starve them, at a meeting for which we have the records.”

                  Possible in principle. We know that the Auschwitz commander was repeatedly denied food. When did the meeting take place?

                • jim says:

                  Wannsee conference.

                  Clearly envisaged the extermination of the Jews, but by overwork and no food – which is to say, democide commie style, not by gas chambers.

                  For which program there is, unlike gas chambers, ample evidence.

                  If gas chambers, there would be records. Someone would need to order gas chambers, resources to build them, all that. There are no such records. But we do have records that the failure to feed Jews was deliberate and expected and intended to eliminate the Jews.

                • pdimov says:

                  The original plan was very likely overwork, that is, slave labor.

                  “The official daily value of food for prisoners employed in light work stood at 1,700 calories and for prisoners doing strenuous work, 2,150 calories. An analysis done after the war of the actual food content ranged from 1,300 calories for light-work prisoners to 1,700 calories for prisoners performing hard labor. The difference was caused by plunder of food by SS personnel and functionary-prisoners.”

                  This sounds horrible until we read that

                  “Hoover said [in January 1941] that his information indicated that the Belgian ration was already down to 960 calories – less than half the amount necessary to sustain life – and that many children were already so weak they could no longer attend school, but the British disputed this.”

                  The estimates, of course, vary a lot.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  ““OK, maybe it was unintentional.”

                  “That’s the full extent of my point, no more.”

                  I only granted lack of certainty. It’s still most likely the Germans intended to murder the Jews by starvation.

                  As I said before, persecution of the Jews didn’t begin with camps and camps didn’t begin into some years into the war.

                  In peacetime, the Nazis were content to relegate to the Jews to subjects without citizenship and gradually drive them out of the country via insecurity of property. Camps for Jews begin when the food situation becomes critical. Camps for Jews do not predate the food situation becoming critical.

                  Whereas camps for political opponents, habitual criminals, and the chronically work-shy, in which people did not starve to death, date all the way back to 1933.

                • jim says:

                  In peacetime, the Nazis were content to relegate to the Jews to subjects without citizenship and gradually drive them out of the country via insecurity of property. Camps for Jews begin when the food situation becomes critical. Camps for Jews do not predate the food situation becoming critical.

                  Correct: Genocide happened primarily because of socialism, not racism. Socialism created food shortages, as it so often does. The murder of millions of Jews is really small potatoes, absolutely insignificant, and completely forgettable compared to the communist democides, hence the propensity of Jews to decorate these boringly ordinary mass murders with elaborate and colorful tales to make them as different as possible from other socialist mass murders.

                  Similarly, the Jewish reaction to Trump’s commemoration of the Holocaust. “Hey, Holocaust belongs to us!”

                • pdimov says:

                  “Camps for Jews begin when the food situation becomes critical.”

                  So your theory is that Jews were moved to Auschwitz, made to work for IG Farben and fed 1700-2100 calories per day (officially) in order for the German government to maintain plausible deniability.

                  This doesn’t make much sense to me as this plan is somewhat convoluted and there appear to exist simpler ways to accomplish the supposed goal. But to each his own, I guess.

                • peppermint says:

                  Who’s purity spiraling here? Yes, the enemy aliens and subversives were interned in concentration camps amd increasingly inadequately fed as the war was lost. Hitler wanted to make peace, but the United Nations would accept nothing less than the total destruction of Germany. That means the enemies of Germany were the ones violating the NAP and not engaging in universally preferable behavior. Yes, they were engaging in warfare designed to make the world safe for rationalisms like communism and mainline liberalism.

                  Libertarians say the most retarded things about war. Biology, marriage and war, are prior to rationality, capital, and law.

                  Rationalists can no longer win 10,000 word essay contests, and have never been able to win meme wars, and it is instructive that rationalism temporarily disappeared when it was time to fight. Starship Troopers was filled with rationalist whaargarbl, as it was unfortunately a book, but if votes really were restricted to fighting men, they would create nationalism, and rationalists know it, which is why they countersignal so hard while applauding the rationalist parts, and why it’s so popular as source material for this and that.

              • Magus says:

                It wasn’t a failure of German ‘socialism’; it was a result of the blockade and war conditions. If not for the war, likely no Holocaust. Mass deportation would likely have made more sense economically and frankly more palatable to most.

                Madagascar solution WAS actually taken pretty seriously for a while.

                • jim says:

                  When the war ended, still famine in Germany, and famine loomed in England. Famine abruptly stopped in 1948 when Konrad Adenauer abruptly abandoned war socialism. Similarly in Britain 1949.

                  So, pretty sure it was socialism that was the reason there was not enough food for everyone. Pretty much everywhere people try socialism, they starve. Why should national socialism be different?

                  Four years after the war, with the Marshal Plan in effect, still people scrounging the countryside for a potato.

                • Mackus says:

                  Jim, what about wartime rationing?
                  For example during world war one.
                  My gut instinct tells me, that if any participating country would adopt neither rationing nor prices control (which most of them historically did), even poorest people would have more food than they historically did, but leftists would scream that food got more expensive and government is trying to starve poor to death.

                • jim says:

                  It is hard to make generalizations about socialism from World War I, since none of the countries involved really intended war socialism, even though they did blunder into it to some extent, usually only for short periods.

                  In World War II Australia and America implemented socialism without famine, but these countries had historically been major food exporters. Further their controls over food were in part voluntary, morally pressuring people to go along with the planners more than coercing them. America got into a system of food rationing hilariously complicated and bureaucratic, but did not mess too much with its farmers.

                • pdimov says:

                  “When the war ended, still famine in Germany, and famine loomed in England. Famine abruptly stopped in 1948 when Konrad Adenauer abruptly abandoned war socialism. Similarly in Britain 1949.”

                  And from this we derive the conclusion that national socialism, not war, causes famines, even though there was no national socialism in Britain?

                • jim says:

                  There was socialism in Britain. Socialism causes famines. When the war ended, the allies insisted that starvation be more equitably distributed, but people still did not get enough to eat.

                • pdimov says:

                  It seems to me that the common factor was war, not socialism. Redirection of resources towards war purposes, which you call socialism; then, once there are shortages, rationing, which you call socialism. This happens regardless of whether the pre-war economic system was socialist.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Britain was the most socialist of the allied powers. It didn’t starve, but nor did wartime food rationing end until 1954 – madness.

                  Britain didn’t starve because it had full access to its pre-socialist food suppliers, and as a matter of policy declined to use them. Socialist fails when things change, when new trade-offs have to be made, because it can’t calculate how to make those trade-offs efficiently. So Germany was fine for 6 years in peacetime, but come the British blockade they weren’t able to increase food production. Similarly the Soviet Union didn’t starve between the end of the civil war and Stalin’s decision to switch all production to war implements, including production previously being used to feed producers of war implements.

            • peppermint says:

              How do you know that? Where do you have good data on how many Jews there were in pre-war Europe, how many in post-war Europe, how many emigrated?

              And why are there so many survivors of the systematic genocide everywhere?

              Meanwhile, how were six million killed – shower rooms with wooden doors? – where are the bodies, where is the ash? Is it true that the crematoria belched smoke of different colors depending on the country of origin of the Jews killed? Did blood spurt out of the ground?

              Holocaust Quiz:
              (1) how many were killed?
              A: 6 million
              B: 11 million
              C: 11.5 million

              (2) how is this known
              A: Germans kept excellent records
              B: difference in Jewish community size before and after

              (3) When was this known
              A: immediately after the war
              B: 60s
              C: 80s

              (3) how many were killed at Auschwitz?
              A: 4 million
              B: 1.5 million
              C: 1.1 million

              (4) when was this known
              A: immediately after the war
              B: 60s
              C: 80s

              (5) did Germans make soap out if their victims
              A: yes
              B: yes, but British soldiers in WWI
              C: this is a denialist canard

              (6) how did Anne Frank die?
              A: gas
              B: rape
              C: Mengele experiment
              D: typhus

              (7) if a crematorium disposes of a body in an hour, how many crematoria does it take to dispose of 1.1 million Jews in two years?
              A: five
              B: ten
              C: fifty

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005687

                Dude every European country had census records before and after WWII and quite a few like Poland and Romania had a lot of Jews before the war and very few after. I don’t believe the Cathedral narrative but it’s absurd to say the Jewish population did not drop, it’s obvious there was a big drop and the drop correlated with German occupation policies.

              • pdimov says:

                6a) where

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                *Poland and Hungary

                • TTAAC says:

                  @Jack Highlands: I checked “The Sun,” June 6, 1915. It says: “Six million Jews, one-half of the Jewish people throughout the world, are being persecuted, hounded, humiliated, tortured, starved. Thousands of them have been slaughtered.” So your YouTube video flat-out lies in the title; there is no reference to six million deaths, but rather to six million “persecuted” Jews in Europe, of whom “thousands […] have been slaughtered.” Recall that the conventional estimates are that Hitler killed 6 million out of a total 9 million Jews in Europe. Could it be that the population of European Jews increased from 6 million to 9 million within a few decades? There is also no internal logic to your conspiracy theory: If the Jews could fabricate millions of deaths out of whole cloth through their control of the media, why did their earlier alleged efforts fail to gain traction? (I didn’t watch the rest of the video because, as Jim says: “If one a lie, all a lie.”)

                  @Peppermint: Hillberg’s “The Destruction of the European Jews” (1961) (https://books.google.com/books?id=HinIpmliz2MC&q=The+%22Final+Solution%22+in+the+Death+Camps#v=snippet&q=The%20%22Final%20Solution%22%20in%20the%20Death%20Camps&f=false) gives the following figures for the death camps:

                  *Kulmhof: Over 150,000 killed
                  *Belzec: 434,508 killed
                  *Sobibor: Over 150,000 killed
                  *Treblinka: Up to 800,000 killed
                  *Lublin: Over 50,000 killed
                  *Auschwitz: Up to 1,000,000 killed

                  Thus the death camps account for about half of Hillberg’s estimated 5.1 million.

                  The 4 million figure was invented by the communist regime in Poland, and retracted after the fall of communism. No Western authors attempted to model Jewish mortality between 1941 and 1945 based on that transparently absurd communist propaganda. In fact, the extra 3 million or so were Poles, not Jews, per the communists themselves: The point being to rally the whole nation against the horrors of fascism by emphasizing that the majority group, not a now-largely extinct minority, were in fact its primary victims. (The actual number of Poles killed in Auschwitz was approximately 72,000.) In that sense, the communists’s fabled “3 million Poles” can be compared to our own fabled “5 million gypsies, Roma, homosexuals, Soviet POWs, and other non-Jews”: Nazi democide of non-Jewish Europeans vastly exceeds 5 or 6 million, but you won’t be able to reach even 5 million with just those specific categories. The point is to universalize and make everyone care about a uniquely Jewish tragedy, and to promote assorted random victim groups (such as gays).

                  @Jim: Credible estimates for Jewish Holocaust dead range from 4.2 million to 6.2 million, but the general trend has been upward, and I don’t think that’s just because of political correctness.

                  100,000-200,000 direct murders is preposterously low. More than a million Jews were killed in open-air shootings, and you seem to be denying the existence of gas chambers.

                  You’re also wildly wrong about communist direct murders. The best estimates are that Stalin “only” executed about 1.5 million people, while causing between 15 million and 20 million excess deaths altogether. Even according to The Black Book of Communism, no more than 100,000 people have been executed in North Korea, although the total number of deaths attributable to the North Korean regime over many decades is certainly in seven digits. Probably between 13,500 and 32,000 Vietnamese were executed in North Vietnam’s most infamous purge, the “land reform” of 1953 to 1956, though much larger numbers died at sea after 1975. A similar pattern holds for Cuba, where the 5,000 or 6,000 executed is dwarfed by the tens of thousands of drowned “boat people.” 1 million+ direct murders of Jews is by no means “small potatoes compared to communist executions.” Literally the only case where your observation would have the merit of being true is Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge executed 1.38 million victims between 1975 and 1979, out of a total of 2 to 2.5 million excess deaths (and on a starting population of only about 8 million Cambodians).

                  But, of course, you rely on outdated fringe sources like Rummel rather than more recent scholarship based on the Soviet archives, so you have no explanation for why the Soviet population continuously increased under Stalin before falling precipitously after the Nazi invasion. It couldn’t possibly be that the Nazis waged a genocidal war in the East (in marked contrast to the relatively civilized Western front), killing 20 to 25 million Soviet citizens and thereby outdoing Stalin’s entire three decade reign in less than four years. To the contrary, it was a horrible sin for “Great Satan” America to side with the lesser evil in World War II–and your newfound love for white Russians does not extend to the victims of the bloodiest theater of war in human history.

                • jim says:

                  @Jim: Credible estimates for Jewish Holocaust dead range from 4.2 million to 6.2 million, but the general trend has been upward, and I don’t think that’s just because of political correctness.

                  I never said any of these estimates were wrong. I said “millions of Jews were wrongfully killed”. All those estimates sound reasonable enough to me. They are all in the right ballpark. But if you don’t think political correctness has some influence on the estimates, I have a bridge you would be interested in buying. And yes, I do deny the existence of gas chambers and every other colorful and dramatic detail that makes Nazi mass murders conspicuously and colorfully different from Commie mass murders, makes them extra special and unusual.

                  You’re also wildly wrong about communist direct murders. The best estimates are that Stalin “only” executed about 1.5 million people

                  I gave no estimate for commie direct murders, just that they were many times greater than Nazi direct murders. I think the nazis murdered a couple of hundred thousand by direct execution, typically a bullet in the head, and the rest by willfully choosing not to feed them, which was not in practice terribly different from commies “accidentally” choosing not to feed people while piously pronouncing the best intentions in the world.

                  A similar pattern holds for Cuba, where the 5,000 or 6,000 executed is dwarfed by the tens of thousands of drowned “boat people.”

                  And you know that Castro only executed six thousand or so how?

                  But, supposing that Castro is the gentle soul he supposedly is, Yugoslavia is more typical of supposed good guy communists. Tito directly executed a few hundred thousand, which I think would make him roughly equal to Hitler on direct executions, though Tito, unlike Hitler and most communist regimes, is deservedly classed as a “good” communist because he never deliberately starved entire social categories to death in terror famines.

                • TTAAC says:

                  @Jim: According to Cuba Archive (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/cuba/dictatorship.html):

                  “Up to December 15, 2008, 5,732 cases of execution, extrajudicial killings, and disappearances have been documented. In addition, 515 deaths in prison for medical negligence, suicide, or accident have been recorded. These totals, which constitute partial yet growing numbers, already amount to more than twice the 3,197 disappearances and killings by the military regime led by General Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Yet while Pinochet was subject to solid worldwide condemnation, Fidel Castro has been lauded by many celebrities and influential global figures.”

                • pdimov says:

                  “Credible estimates for Jewish Holocaust dead range from 4.2 million to 6.2 million, but the general trend has been upward…”

                  There is no such general upward trend. The recent estimates Wikipedia cites are

                  * 5.59–5.86 (1995)
                  * 5.29 to 6.20 (1996)
                  * 5.1 (2003)
                  * 5.75 (2002)
                  * 5.934 (1975)

                  4.2 is a 1953 figure:

                  “Early calculations range from about 4.2 to 4.5 million in The Final Solution (1953) by Gerald Reitlinger (arguing against higher Russian estimates),[333] and 5.1 million from Raul Hilberg, to 5.95 million from Jacob Lestschinsky.”

                  So the general consensus is 5.75 plus minus small error bars.

                  One explanation for that is that 5.75 is more or less correct.

                  Another is that coming up with 5.75 is safe for your reputation.

                  Either way, none of these estimates are credible (which is not the same as correct. They may well be correct.) You can’t have credibility in a field in which some figures are illegal.

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  @TTAAC: mere obfuscating Talmudic sophistry and unimpressive at that. Where is the vaunted verbal IQ?

                  Everyone can see the relevance of multiple headlines long before Kristallnacht referring to 6 million potential victims is not that there was some prior Tsarist pogrom of that size – obviously there was nothing of the kind – but that Jewish propagandists were wedded to that magical number long before the Nazi threat became serious.

                  And presto, years later, the prophecy was fulfilled. It’s almost like a king in David’s line.

            • X says:

              (((They))) came to America obviously

    • Space Ghost says:

      > To deprecate the legacy educational institutions, in the short term we need to be able to go around them with e.g. online courses, and long term destroy affirmative action.

      How about a law banning employment discrimination on the basis of having a college degree? Force progs to argue for discrimination, OR pass this law and thus enable a slew of class-action nuisance lawsuits against Cathedral employers (media, universities, think-tanks, etc) by low-level applicants who didn’t get hired simply because they didn’t have a degree.

    • Edgar says:

      Brilliant analysis.

  5. jim says:

    Berkeley riots were of course organized by the Berkeley administration – obvious from the no arrests policy.

    But it is good to get confirmation of this obvious fact:
    http://theralphretort.com/uc-berkeley-rioter-exposed-works-university-203017/

    The first Berkeley rioter to be identified works for the university in an administrative job.

    • reactionaryfuture says:

      Looks at Berkeley riots as if spontaneous order is bullshit, and any successful mass violence has power agreement – Yep, there it is. Looks like power brought this into being. This whole thing is a joke. But civil rights are sacred and natural/ spontaneous.

      Looks at the civil rights era. Notice it was covered by the 101st airborne and clearly funded by power – yep, looks like power brought this into being. Shit, well at least our current rights such as women’s rights were natural spontaneous.

      Looks at the entire women’s rights movement and sees it was clearly brought into being by power. Shit. Well at least classical liberalism proper is natural and spontaneous.

      Looks at the anti-corn law movement and the accompanying violence the birthed classical liberalism. Sees it was brought into being by power, and funded by power (we still have the shitty Economist magazine thanks you very much.) Shit. Well at least liberalism proper is natural and spontaneous.

      Looks at the likes of Locke and the Glorious Revolution and The Civil War. Sees it was clearly power which brought it into being. Shit. Well at least…wait…Is spontaneous order and the entirety of liberalism just bullshit?

      Yep.

  6. Steve Johnson says:

    Scott Aaronson’s banning of you on that thread was the most ridiculously dishonest and cowardly thing I’ve seen in a while.

    That entire thread he evades and fails to engage and alternates that with hysteria. Is it the higher neuroticism for obvious genetic reasons? Low test? Sheer terror that if the violent left wasn’t occupied with the right that they’d go after him if he wasn’t sufficiently hysterical?

    (It’s a bit of all of them, mostly the last one).

    • Anonymous says:

      >Is it the higher neuroticism for obvious genetic reasons?

      Yes. Jews mentally melt-down when self-criticism approaches. Hence, you can get dozens of millions of goyim to feel guilty about crimes never committed by themselves, but can’t get more than maybe a thousand Jews to feel guilty about crimes actually committed by themselves.

  7. Latinist says:

    I don’t know what “vivatus rex” means.

    “Long live the king” is “vivat rex”.

  8. I noticed around the time of the 2nd presidential debate that no one was even pretending to have a sense of fair play or willing to listen anymore. It’s been purely adversarial for awhile.

    It may not be such a bad thing to let them riot in their own territory(like Ferguson), wreck their own property, and with it, their credibility. Then strip them of money and social status so campuses that get wrecked start to stay that way. If we’re seeing this kind of behavior in January, things will be much more interesting by July. If they do this enough, majority public opinion will be firmly against them and people will be relieved when they overextend and get beaten down in earnest.

    The danger is rebellious federal judges, collaborator public officials are encouraging even the present tensions to a fever pitch. If they force serious engagement before the public is ready for it, that could get really ugly on a much larger scale. They may be trying to force Trump’s hand so they, not he, have the initiative in deciding the field of battle.

    If Hillary had won, she would have tried to crack down, especially on internet freedoms. Early amnesty executive orders from her may have been enough to start civil conflict alone. But she would have still been head of a party that’s losing seats every election, a process a blithering fool like her would have accelerated. Getting anything done with congress would have been hard for her and 2018 midterms would have sealed her fate as a lame duck.
    Makes me wonder if she may have started international wars to try to stay relevant in a fit of spite, even were domestic insurgencies going on at the same time. Her history certainly proves her stupid enough to have done something like that.

    Anyway, what the counter-forces have to really worry about is sustaining their own credibility as an alternative to the establishment. So long as they have that it’s just a matter of time until they displace those who are already discredited.

  9. Jack Highlands says:

    I agree with your analysis of what must happen now that we won the election, Jim. And I agree that we must take steps to ensure the Left cannot take power again. But I don’t agree that all would be lost even if they had won the election, or if they win a future one.

    As you state, what we are seeing now is activation of their Brownshirts. Also as you state, it is far preferable at this time for us to wait for activation of our Blackshirts. (The waiting would happen anyway, even if right wing Brownshirts were well organized, which they are not. Part of being right wing is being conservative and cautious, both in our paramilitary and sympathetic military forces. Therefore, we certainly do not deploy paramilitary when we are in power.)

    But if the shoe were on the other foot, and the left wing were in power, our Brownshirts would face some real nastiness, then start to organize and hit back hard. And significant chunks of the Blackshirts would be supportive. I strongly suspect it would have led inexorably to civil war. Trump is actually prolonging the pressure cooking, but it may yet lead to successful sterilization of the jars within.

    The ultimate intersection of your take on the franchise, is with William Lind’s “history is not made by majorities who vote, but by minorities who fight.” That leads to ‘voting is ideally done by minorities who have fought’: Starship Trooperism.

    The closer power lies to its natural repository, the rough men who stand willing to do harm on our behalf, the more natural the political system. Since the Left hates these men and we do not (many of these men are explicitly us, and almost all of them are implicitly), it follows that both our Brownshirts and Blackshirts will tend to be stronger than theirs.

    None of which is to say they cannot win by guile. As the history of the Jews proves again and again.

    • peppermint says:

      The way they win is the terrorist racketeer mayor orders the traitor chief of police to order his officers to stand by and watch people beaten unconscious in the streets.

      Treason consists of providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the people and carries a sentence of death. Disobeying an illegal order from a terrorist racketeer means dismissal.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        I would like to see some mayors punished for treason. But the timing must be right. Trump cannot just Rahm it through.

  10. peppermint says:

    By current publicly available information we have a university staffer, but what we want is a tenured professor. The Left will immediately scream about political prisoner blah blah and everyone else will think terrorist, and the university will have to decide whether they want to keep paying the professor while he’s in jail.

    The Left was screaming about the legal aid and journalists arrested at His Majesty’s coronation, but they seem to have forgotten, and now everyone knows that being a designated protest supporter doesn’t excuse supporting terrorism.

  11. peppermint says:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrouw32Zhc

    This wasn’t a real professor, but that’s okay, we can pretend she is too. But we want real professors looking like this, and in jail.

  12. Schoolboy says:

    Jim, when Trump is reelected or sooner, I suggest he find you and make you his closest advisor, chief of staff, soothsayer, whatever. He may at this time realize what you have stated in this article but he will need someone who can make it crystal clear what is at stake and what will be necessary to preserve any gains. Across the nation people realize the old order is finished but don’t know what will replace it or can’t face what must be done. Excellent work Jim.

    • jim says:

      He has someone close to him whom I do not wish to name, who whispers in his ear things not very different from those that I blog, but that man, of course, cannot blog those things.

      Should Trump become King, and should that man become High Priest or Archbishop, then I expect he will issue some encyclicals. He will do a fine job.

      If our enemies were to quiet down, suck up to Trump, vivat rex, accept his authority, and accept him as the fount of all honors, we might well lose his ear and they could just wait eight years. But instead they want to set fire to the Reichstaag.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Lmao. Pretty bad to state this openly, wouldn’t spooks be monitoring this blog?

        • Mackus says:

          Leftist singularity.
          First one to stop clapping to loud demands to murder Trump would lose his job.
          So no one will take it for the team. Even if he did, rest would double down, denouncing an obvious evil nazi troll.

      • TTAAC says:

        [Comment deleted, for reasons of confidentiality]

  13. Steel T Post says:

    Make America Safe Again!

    Bay Area Conservatives Keep Meetups Secret Fearing For Their Safety
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/04/bay-area-conservatives-host-secret-meetups-fearing-for-their-safety/

    If Trump ordered a nuclear strike on Berkley right now, I’d just cheer; they’re as hostile to America as the Japs once were. Hopefully he’s smart enough to use air-bursts so fallout isn’t a problem. 🙂 I know it’s just a fantasy, but that’s where we are.

    As Stephan Molyneux says, “there are no more arguments.” It’s war.

  14. Jack Highlands says:

    As Stephan Sailer says, “America is about a week a way from Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.

    Rule of Law.”

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/translating-trigglyprof/#comment-1755059

  15. vxxc2014 says:

    Complete agreement.

    When MAGA stumbles we destroy the Left and any Cucks.
    That is our priority. MAGA setbacks our opportunity – our window.

    MAGA will allow us to smash the Left as when he stumbles he needs the hard right, which is why we were never denounced during the campaign. Not really. He needed us to shut down the Left and will again.

    The other time we destroy them at present is point self defense. No more Right wing crying. If you show up at a university come prepared or don’t show. If you are walking the streets wearing a Trump hat etc you walk prepared. Worry about legal later -self defense is always legal and there are lawyers and in our case juries for these things. Crying destroys not only our brand but the only thing we have to offer: smashing the Left which normal people can’t do [or don’t dare to]. They’re not gonna grow balls. They’re also not likely to convict. Nullification is the order of the day [and of course the actual point of Juries].

    Respond respectfully to police commands. They’re not the enemy, they just don’t want to go to jail. No better friend, no worse enemy.

    • Cavalier says:

      Who, exactly, is “we”, and what, exactly, do you think you will achieve by street-level mob-whatever confrontation? Do you even know what “the Left” is? I’ll give you a hint: it isn’t typified by blue-haired childless fat lesbian feminists. Have you found some heretofore-unimagined means by which your street-level confrontations in any way contribute to disbanding, dissolving, and disenfranchising USG, the Fourth Estate, HPY, the various Cuckstain churches, Hollywood, and Wall Street? Can your signs and your brawls make their dollars worth any less? Can they interrupt their communications? Can they “liquidate” anyone important?

      Do you know who gets caught up in your lolworthy fantasy-of-people-power-made-real? Idiots, and respectable people accidentally in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      • peppermint says:

        * all DNC candidates say Hillary dindu nuffins
        * Howard Dean and a congressnigger say terrorism is great
        * Noam Chomsky’s counterpoint isn’t a defense of rationalism or democracy, but to fearfully say rationalists and democrats will lose a war of bullets
        * Rationalists used to win the war of 10,000 word essays, but can’t win the war of memes, which document themselves to the pre-rational brain
        * by advocating for violence and not advocating for debate, the left has surrendered completely on the moral level and will be defeated in detail on the ground as pleases His Majesty
        * none of this would have been possible if that orange buffoon hadn’t triggered them so hard. The Holohoax that wasn’t simply the weapon of Jews against Whites but also the weapon of rationalists against nationalists has also been lost to the enemy’s stupidity
        * the God-Emperor has proven himself worthy of the title enough times
        * vivat rex
        * shadilay

        • peppermint says:

          H/t Spandrell for giving them their final name of rationalists

        • Cavalier says:

          * liberalism isn’t rationalism, except facetiously

          * if they finally grasp the sword, it will shatter in their hands

          * Chompsky is a smart guy; he is lamenting being on the wrong side of history

          * liberalism doesn’t appeal to logic or reason; rather, it propagates by iron-fisted control of what Moldbug called “repeater” institutions

          * by advocating violence one abdicates the moral high ground only if one is a leftist, or a christcuck

          * the Shoahcaust was first and foremost a weapon of white guilt, not a weapon against nationalism, though the white guilt was in large part used against white men’s nationalism

          * no he hasn’t, not yet. our enemies have as yet, and especially since that federal judge, not even been nicked by Leonidas’s spear

          But I faith in our God-Emperor, so let’s see.

  16. […] he has ruminations upon the UC Berkeley Milo debacle and how we shall then live After the Flight 93 election. “Berkeley is Krystalnacht for ‘racists’.” Democracy is (and only is) war. […]

Leave a Reply