On successful revolution

One of those who must not be named wrote:

Old Martin had a secret protector
Who happened to be an Elector

Wycliffe did heresy flaunt
His sponsor was named John of Gaunt

King quickly pulled out ahead
With helpful support from the Reds

Women’s Studies got a small donation
From the generous Ford Foundation

BLM gets away with their rancor
As tools of a prominent banker

The Big lend a hand to the Little
The High and the Low vs the Middle

The alt right will be able to win when, and only when, the left is sufficiently terrifying to each other that some powerful people, or one powerful person, decides that the alt right might come in mighty handy.

439 Responses to “On successful revolution”

  1. Irving says:

    Good God Jim, what business do you have worrying about the alt right? You’re better than that.

    • jim says:

      No enemies to the right.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        Hear, hear!

      • Irving says:

        There are a couple of alt-right people that I like. Liddell is a fine writer, for example. But I would have thought that you would have opposed the alt-right for the fact that there are way too many homosexuals, feminists, Communists, monomaniacal anti-Semites, low-IQ whites attracted to the populist message, exaggerated opposition to anything like a cosmopolitan perspective, etc., affiliated with the alt-right. Now many of them are even coming out in favor of abortion.

        • jim says:

          If, on a alt right forum, you endorse the Islamic State solution to homosexuality, you will get chuckles of agreement. If people make a fuss about homosexuals etc on the alt right, that is because it is the only environment where homosexuality is not celebrated and honored.

        • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

          The Alt-Right is famous for attracting creative, high-IQ types.

          The low-IQ types tend to stick to Conservatism, Inc.

          The cucks who think they’re high-IQ but really aren’t tend to flock to guys like Steve Sailer and Vox Day.

          • Irving says:

            >If, on a alt right forum, you endorse the Islamic State solution to homosexuality, you will get chuckles of agreement. If people make a fuss about homosexuals etc on the alt right, that is because it is the only environment where homosexuality is not celebrated and honored.

            I agree that the guys on alt-right forums have sound views on many issues, though in my experience you’ll find that most of them do in fact espouse socialism and some amount of feminism. But in any case, obviously the alt right is not to be judged by its forums, it should be judged by its leaders. And the reality is that many of the leaders are open homos (off the top of my head, I can think of 4, which is a lot) and the straight ones are overwhelmingly homo friendly.

            >The Alt-Right is famous for attracting creative, high-IQ types.

            >The low-IQ types tend to stick to Conservatism, Inc.

            >The cucks who think they’re high-IQ but really aren’t tend to flock to guys like Steve Sailer and Vox Day.

            There are some really smart people who are affiliated with the alt-right, but they are usually outnumbered by a factor of 50:1 by people of mediocre intelligence or else by idiots.

            Liddell and Nowicki’s site, for example, tend to publish the writings of complete idiots, and the comment section of pretty much every article on it is absolutely abysmal. On Radix, the only truly impressive writer is Guillaume Durocher. The rest of them, including Spencer, are awful, and the comment sections are worse. At Counter-Currents, I admit that the quality of the writing from the stylistic point of view is usually high, but the ideological message that that site promotes is in my opinion totally repulsive. In any case, the only writer of note on there besides Johnson is F. Roger Devlin. As for the The Right Stuff, the only thing that makes it worth paying attention to is Enoch, who is clearly a smart guy; Seventh Son and Ghoul and all the rest of them, except for Hateful Heretic and one other guy whose name I forget, are noticeably out of their depth, and they consistently go silent, when the podcast discussions stop consisting exclusively of scatological humor and obsessive anti-Semitism, and touch upon the truly important issues. I can go on, but I think that my largely negative view of the alt right is justified. Its following is made up largely of idiots and its leaders, minus a few noteworthy exceptions, are similarly unimpressive.

            Obviously the high-IQ types are more attracted to blogs like this one, or Sailer’s, as opposed to Radix or something. I don’t like Vox and I don’t see any particular reason why high-IQ types would want to read his political commentary, though I admit he’s a bright guy overall.

            • jim says:

              On Radix, the only truly impressive writer is Guillaume Durocher. The rest of them, including Spencer, are awful,

              Radix has some truly impressive articles. Sturgeons law. Ninety percent of everything is shit.

            • jim says:

              There are some really smart people who are affiliated with the alt-right, but they are usually outnumbered by a factor of 50:1 by people of mediocre intelligence or else by idiots.

              That is the human condition, not the alt-right. You should compare the alt-right mediocre with Daily-Kos commenter mediocre.

          • peppermint says:

            to be a leaderfag, you need to be a namefag. only a homofag would want to be a namefag.

          • Irving says:

            >Radix has some truly impressive articles. Sturgeons law. Ninety percent of everything is shit.

            Oh come on. Most of what’s posted on Radix is shit. Or else, it is completely redundant: almost every article is an attack on christianity, or a critique of ‘negative identity’, or a reminder that ‘something is happening’, or whatever. 90 percent of everything may be shit, but some shit is better than other shit. Spandrell’s or Landry’s shit is far, far superior to Spencer’s shit, for example.

          • Irving says:

            >That is the human condition, not the alt-right. You should compare the alt-right mediocre with Daily-Kos commenter mediocre.

            The alt right is worse because what it really is is an attempt of a small number of highly intelligent people, like McDonald, Taylor, Johnson, and so on, trying to mobilize a bunch of low iq dupes behind their absolutely crazed ideas. Of course, the low iq dupes never fully understand the ideas, so when they comment we see that their natural cognitive limitactions are being combined with a complete ignorance of what it is that they’re leaders are actually saying. I suggest you get on one of the comment sections and try talking with these guys, so you can see what I mean.

            • jim says:

              Take a look at the vocabulary and sentence length in https://8ch.net/pol/, which is the center of the fashy alt.right, and compare and contrast with http://www.dailykos.com/

              You will find longer sentences and more nine dollar words in a typical pol comment by a random anonymous fashy commentor, which calls facebook kikebook, than you find in statements issued by the Southern Poverty Law center, which is filled from wall to wall with orange haired Jews from Harvard.

          • Irving says:

            >Take a look at the vocabulary and sentence length in https://8ch.net/pol/, which is the center of the fashy alt.right, which calls facebook kikebook, and compare and contrast with http://www.dailykos.com/

            >You will find longer sentences and more nine dollar words in a typical pol comment by a random anonymous fashy commentor, than you find in statements issued by the Southern Poverty Law center, which is filled from wall to wall with orange haired Jews from Harvard.

            I want you to say it openly and explicitly. You are implying that the guys on 8chan are smarter than Harvard-educated Jewish sjws. Don’t just imply it, say it.

          • Irving says:

            I can’t tell if I’m being trolled or if you’re serious. I’m definitely no fried of Harvard-educated Jewish sjws but the fact remains that this particular group is on average 128 IQ+, and IQs are likely higher among the ones who make a lucrative career out of sjw activism, as the Jews at the SPLC have done. What do you estimate is the average IQ on 8chan?

            • jim says:

              Social Justice Warriors have the same problem as Islam, but even more so. If the official belief system requires you to believe in invisible leprechauns, you can still have a smart elite. But if the official belief system requires you to believe in visible leprechauns, you wind up with a stupid elite.

              And we have a stupid elite that daily grows more stupid, as it is required to hold ever sillier beliefs with ever greater enthusiasm.

              Conversely, selecting for revulsion at official beliefs tends to select for smart people.

              The typical Harvard Law School grad is 130+ IQ. But what do you think the typical Harvard student who graduated in hate white males is? The Southern Poverty Law center just is not the cream of the crop.

          • Irving says:

            But sjws don’t believe in ‘visible leprechauns’. They believe rather that they are the ones who have to usher these ‘visible leprechauns’ into existance, and that their only and most tenacious opposition are mainly heterosexual white males, who need to be beaten into submission

          • Irving says:

            We’ve had this conversation before. The average harvard law student got a 173 on the LSAT. A 167 translates into a 130 IQ. If the SD is 10 LSAT points, then we can say the average harvard law grad has got a ~137 IQ. For the undergrads, the average IQ is AT LEAST a 120, though in reality it’s obviously higher than that.

            • jim says:

              While Harvard Law students are undoubtedly smart, it is far from obvious that regular Harvard students are substantially higher than 120, and we are specifically considering people who graduate in social justice. Michelle Obama is an Ivy graduate in social justice, and she is dumb as a post.

              When they removed analogies from the SAT, that meant their students could not do analogies. Mighty dumb.

              And then there is the notorious inability of the New York Times to correctly parse sentences by Sarah Palin. Even dumber.

              The average denizen of pol on 8chan is obviously way smarter than the staff of the New York Times.

          • Irving says:

            I notice jim that you have yet to offer an estimate of the average iq among 8chan posters, or among the alt right generally.

          • Irving says:

            >While Harvard Law students are undoubtedly smart, it is far from obvious that regular Harvard students are substantially higher than 120, and we are specifically considering people who graduate in social justice. Michelle Obama is an Ivy graduate in social justice, and she is dumb as a post

            Michelle Obama was a particularly low quality affirmative action admit who is not only unrepresentative of average undergraduate iq, but she’s similarly unrepresentative of average IQs among ivy undergrad affirmative action admits too. The typical blacks at the ivy league schools are usually pretty smart and at the top law schools, black students will always have 164+ LSAT scores.

            Also, most harvard kids do a major in the humanities or social sciences. Though they take many sjw courses, their course load is for the most part pretty rigorous. I know this first hand, trust me.

            • jim says:

              The typical blacks at the ivy league schools are usually pretty smart and at the top law schools, black students will always have 164+ LSAT scores.

              Really? Are you sure you don’t mean that those of them who are not excused from providing an LSAT – meaning those of them that no could tell were black merely by looking at them – always have 164+ LSAT scores?

              Their course load is for the most part pretty rigorous. I know this first hand, trust me.

              No, I don’t trust you. I see far too many notorious examples of course material that is clearly targeted at people who are just not very bright. Notoriously, all of academia has dumbed down, and Harvard has led the way and continues to dumb down.

              And our elite in general is just stupid in ways it was not a few decades back – recall my rant about “negative feedback” and the Maldives.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            If Harvard Law has an average IQ of 137, that has nothing more to do with the average IQ of Harvard University than it does with the average IQ of Yale, or even Harvard Medical or Harvard Dental. Sure, a separate, specialty school that requires a separate, specialty test to enter has high IQ students. That the students of Harvard have to take the test proves that they do not all have what it takes to enter. The students of Harvard Law are a separate group from students of Harvard University, and that latter group is the group to which Jim is referring

            Stupid is as stupid does. If it acts stupid, thinks stupid, talks stupid, and listens stupid, what is it? Rhetorically speaking, it is stupid. SJWs are remarkably stupid. Look at the police report of that Bernie SJW that vandalized a car. That level of eloquence and discourse is repeated over and over in leftwing blog after leftwing newspaper after leftwing opinion site. The only way their ideas stand is by consciously, openly denying objectivity and reality.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Irving says:

            >If Harvard Law has an average IQ of 137, that has nothing more to do with the average IQ of Harvard University than it does with the average IQ of Yale, or even Harvard Medical or Harvard Dental. Sure, a separate, specialty school that requires a separate, specialty test to enter has high IQ students. That the students of Harvard have to take the test proves that they do not all have what it takes to enter.

            Actually, about 38 percent of the harvard undergrads who apply to harvard law get. This is an extraordinarily high percentage, probably the highest for any undergraduate school in the country, and it gives an idea of how smart harvard undergrads are.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            So on Jim’s recommendation I checked out 8chan.com/pol and read one thread and learned a few things:

            1) There’s a plausible case that Rafael Cruz – Ted’s father – was one of the leafleteers with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out “Fair Play for Cuba” in New Orleans. (photos, circumstantial evidence)

            2) He might be linked to the Bush clan because he left the US after the Kennedy assassination and was apparently employed in a Bush run oil company in Canada.

            3) AJP also comments on 8chan and does that whole tiresome “screamocracy” thing and I honestly don’t even know who he’s trying to shout down over there.

            Hard to get a read on the average IQ though. The sharper commenters are pretty bright. The less sharp ones are a bit unhinged but it’s hard to say how intelligent they are. AJP is there also.

          • Irving says:

            >Really? Are you sure you don’t mean that those of them who are not excused from providing an LSAT – meaning those of them that no could tell were black merely by looking at them – always have 164+ LSAT scores?

            I don’t know what else to say except that no law school ranked in the top 6, which are the law schools I’m talking about, ever excuses LSATs. If they did they would lose their accreditation and would get massacred in the rankings. What I say about black students at these law schools. The bottom third of them are indeed quite dumb, and Michelle Obama was clearly from this bottom third, but on average, their lsats are in the 163 to 166 range, meaning that they are at least as smart as the average ivy league undergraduate.

            >No, I don’t trust you. I see far too many notorious examples of course material that is clearly targeted at people who are just not very bright. Notoriously, all of academia has dumbed down, and Harvard has led the way and continues to dumb down.

            >And our elite in general is just stupid in ways it was not a few decades back – recall my rant about “negative feedback” and the Maldives

            I tell you to trust me because I did graduate work at a top american university and I was a TA while there. I know what the kids are studying. I agree that the coursework is very watered down, but after conceding that, it stillmust be said that the course work is nothe easy, and would be impossible for a sub 120 IQ person to do competently.

            • jim says:

              I don’t know what else to say except that no law school ranked in the top 6, which are the law schools I’m talking about, ever excuses LSATs. If they did they would lose their accreditation and would get massacred in the rankings.

              Ah, the system is so wonderfully self policing that no one would ever do anything naughty – and there is therefore no need for anyone else to look into things.

              Harvard is above scrutiny, and the other Ivies are subject to scrutiny only from Harvard.

              If Harvard were to grant law degrees to chimpanzees, no respectable person would notice anything odd, and in any case where one side was represented by a chimp from Harvard, and the other side represented by a human lawyer from a lesser school, the judge would find in favor of the side represented by the chimp.

              I don’t know of any affirmative action scandals involving Harvard law, but with great regularity some beneficiary of affirmative action becomes famous or infamous, people research his academic career, and it usually turns out, as with Obama or Ward Churchill, that he received his degree in a highly irregular manner, frequently without turning up to classes, submitting papers, or attending exams.

              Obama, unlike his wife, does seem smart enough to acquire a degree legitimately, but it he did not bother. Which would suggest that not a whole lot of people do bother.

              The Ward Churchill scandal did not result in his school getting massacred in the ratings, and no one shows any interest in the absence of Obama’s academic career.

          • pdimov says:

            “AJP also comments on 8chan and does that whole tiresome “screamocracy” thing and I honestly don’t even know who he’s trying to shout down over there.”

            Jim recently linked to a post from 2014

            http://blog.jim.com/economics/famous-barbie-realism/

            and it was quite interesting to me to see how the regulars spoke back then.

          • Irving says:

            >Really? Are you sure you don’t mean that those of them who are not excused from providing an LSAT – meaning those of them that no could tell were black merely by looking at them – always have 164+ LSAT scores?

            I now see what you mean by this. I repeat that no one is excused from the LSAT, but you are right to point that these schools it isn’t uncommon to run into supposedly black students with last names like Ding, Hennessey or Cohen, which is to say that many are of mixed heritage, and the rest are high IQ descendents of African immigrants.

          • Irving says:

            The schools don’t self police. Rather, the application process is controlled a third party, by LSAC, and they set it up so that you can’t even submit an application until you take an LSAT, and as well they have a database with the names and scores of every test taker, so it isn’t difficult to find evidence of corruption when it happens. I don’t say that corruption is impossible, just that there isn’t a shred of evidence that it ever happens. And anyway why would the schools bother? It isn’t as if they mind accepting an affirmative action admit with sub 150 scores when they really want to. They even admit that they do that, albeit rarely.

            The typical black at the top 3 law schools which are yale harvard and stanford has 166 to 170 lsat scores, with maybe a third of them being in the 163 to 165 range. There’s a huge drop in quality at the schools ranked 4 through 6, but even those blacks arent THAT bad on average, though the bottom third among them really are quite dumb.

            • jim says:

              They set it up so that you can’t even submit an application until you take an LSAT

              Oh come on.

              The world’s reaction to every affirmative action scandal shows that everyone knows how affirmative action really works.

              By your argument, there should not have been any ninja loans made either.

              The formal rules count for nothing. What counts is power, and Harvard has power.

              In every affirmative action scandal, the rules were blatantly and flagrantly broken, and the world’s reaction shows that everyone knows and had long known that they were being blatantly and flagrantly broken, and the only scandal would be the rules being actually followed, for actually following the rules would have discriminatory impact.

              To actually follow the rules would be illegal and immoral, because the purpose of the rules is not to be followed, but to improve self esteem.

            • jim says:

              Rather, the application process is controlled a third party

              The most powerful institution in the world cannot get away with bad things because supervised by a third party under its total control. Right.

              As a result, affirmative action operates completely differently to the way it operates everywhere else. Right.

          • peppermint says:

            If niggers are such good lawyers, why aren’t niggers good lawyers?

          • Corvinus says:

            [Laughs] it’s always good to hear Laguna chime in to make friends with those he knows will slit his throat as the resident bankster here if and when this American Holocaust ever materializes.

          • Irving says:

            Jim, I think we’re talking past each other on how affirmative action works.

            Let me be clear about what I’m saying. I’m saying that law schools have no incentive whatsoever to do underhanded tricks like exempting blacks from the LSAT given the fact that they are generally willing to accept Michelle Obama types with ~90 IQs and shit LSAT scores if they absolutely have to in order to fulfill their quotas.

            That said, I am saying that there is a hierarchy even among affirmative action students. The average black student at Harvard Law is clearly not as smart as the average white or Asian student at Harvard Law. But, the average black student at Harvard Law got above a 164 on the LSAT, and so we can be sure that he’s got at least a 125 IQ, which isn’t bad at all.

            To put things in perspective for you, Stanford Law, until just a few years ago, had a weird way of evaluating law school applications in which they would emphasize a student’s work experience to a degree that Harvard and Yale didn’t. In practice, this meant that they had lower numbers than Harvard or Yale, and that they would prefer a student with experience working in high-status, highly paid jobs but with relatively mediocre numbers as opposed to a student with no work experience at all but with high numbers. Because of this, as recently as the 2013 or so, the 25th percentile of students at Stanford were getting 167s on the LSAT. Which is to say, students with 167 LSAT scores were getting into Stanford Law without the help of affirmative action provided that they worked at Goldman Sachs or the White house for a year or two or three before applying. These 167 LSAT score students, of course, did just fine at Stanford. To put things in perspective, Obama, according to the evidence we have, got the equivalent of a 167 on the LSAT, and obviously he turned out just fine. I say all this because a lot of black affirmative action students are a lot like these students that Stanford was accepting a few years ago, and who they still accept actually, albeit less frequently. These black affirmative action students are typically smart and well-connected and have worked at all kinds of interesting jobs before going to a place like Harvard Law, and when there, they typically do well.

            • jim says:

              Let me be clear about what I’m saying. I’m saying that law schools have no incentive whatsoever to do underhanded tricks like exempting blacks from the LSAT

              Like every other institution in our society, Law school is required to do the impossible – graduate, accredit, or employ in prestigious jobs, a sufficient number of women and nams, without exempting them from normal requirements.

              It is evident that massive cheating ensues, and whenever this cheating is exposed jn particular cases, as for example Kara Spears Hultgreen, no body blinks an eye, indicating that everyone knows perfectly what is really going on.

              If law school fails to accredit a sufficient number of women and NAMs, they are racist, and BLM will march into their offices with baseball bats and smack the shit out of them. And while they are getting the shit smacked out of them, the Justice Department sues them for a billion dollars, and their professors lose tenure.

              If law school follows the rules about LSAT, law schools will not accredit a sufficient number of women and NAMs

              Therefore …

              If Law school could graduate a sufficient number of women and NAMs without cheating, everyone could graduate or employ a sufficient number of women and NAMs without cheating, and you would not get cases like Kara Spears Hultgreen.

              Whenever any famous beneficiary of affirmative action, for example Obama, gets his academic career investigated, it becomes obvious that rules were massively broken in his favor.

              Therefore, we should assume all beneficiaries of affirmative action similarly got the rules broken in their favor.

          • Irving says:

            Also, just to be clear, I focus here on law school admissions not simply because you were the first one to mention it, but also because I think it is a kind of a microcosm of how affirmative action operates in America as a whole. Plus, the LSAT is pretty much an IQ test

            • jim says:

              But, the average black student at Harvard Law got above a 164 on the LSAT, and so we can be sure that he’s got at least a 125 IQ,

              By this argument Kara Spears Hultgreen must have come seventh in her class.

              After all, falsifying or ignoring the fact the Kara Spears Hultgreen repeatedly made errors in training that would likely kill herself and others once she graduated would be against the rules, and of course no one ever breaks the rules, when the rules tell them to square the circle, to produce affirmative action results without using affirmative action methods.

              If Law Schools does affirmative action according to the official rules, it is not a microcosm of how affirmative action works in the US, but wildly and radically different.

              Actual practice of affirmative action tends to be pretty similar to what would happen if they were told to give accreditation to x% gorillas..

              Affirmative action requires them to square the circle, and so, necessarily, they cheat.

          • Irving says:

            Jim, please understand what I mean. I don’t deny the existence of particularly low quality affirmative action beneficiaries. I’m simply saying that at the top schools in America where affirmative action is practiced, the students who benefit from affirmative action are usually, though not invariably, of pretty good quality. As I said above, even Stanford Law was until recently accepting about a fifth of its non affirmative action beneficiary students who were of roughly the same quality as your typical affirmative action beneficiary at schools of comparable prestige.

          • Irving says:

            >It is evident that massive cheating ensues, and whenever this cheating is exposed jn particular cases, as for example Kara Spears Hultgreen, no body blinks an eye, indicating that everyone knows perfectly what is really going on.

            What cheating are you talking about? That affirmative action is a thing, and that schools and employers are obliged to implement them, is not a secret.

            >If law school fails to accredit a sufficient number of women and NAMs, they are racist, and BLM will march into their offices with baseball bats and smack the shit out of them. And while they are getting the shit smacked out of them, the Justice Department sues them for a billion dollars, and their professors lose tenure.

            >If law school follows the rules about LSAT, law schools will not accredit a sufficient number of women and NAMs

            No. This is the whole point. The only rule having to do with the LSAT is that aspiring law students must take them. But there is no rule which says that schools must accept the students who apply with the highest test scores. Harvard and Yale are perfectly free to accept Michelle Obama type idiots with low LSAT scores in order to fill an affirmative action quota, and no one is going to say or do anything about it.

            >If Law school could graduate a sufficient number of women and NAMs without cheating

            Which they can, and do, all the time.

            >everyone could graduate or employ a sufficient number of women and NAMs without cheating, and you would not get cases like Kara Spears Hultgreen.

            Affirmative action works differently in different fields, but the reality is that overall, with the exception of the STEM related fields, there is actually a genuine demand for women and NAMs with credentials from elite schools. The big law firms actually want to employ tokens. The military loves to promote young black officers who did ROTC at a top school at an accelerated rate through the ranks, simply because they are black. The Fortune 500 companies routinely intervene in cases meant to undermine affirmative action on the side of affirmative action. The government loves to employ NAMs and women at the highest levels, straight out of college. So it is hard to accept that these schools who are simply satisfying a demand on the part of employers are cheating somehow. They’re simply giving them what they want.

            >Whenever any famous beneficiary of affirmative action, for example Obama, gets his academic career investigated, it becomes obvious that rules were massively broken in his favor.

            I obviously dislike Obama, but I’m not interested in conspiracies concerning his academic record. According to his own admission, his undergraduate GPA wasn’t so great, yet there is hard evidence suggesting that on the LSAT he got the equivalent of a 167 (they had different scoring back then). The elite schools have had massive test score inflation since then, and so a 167 when he applied was a score that even non-affirmative action beneficiaries would get admitted with. Obama definitely benefited from affirmative action in that Harvard Law was able to accept despite his low GPA, but that’s it. He’s clearly a smart guy and I have no problem accepting that he is at least as smart as was the average Harvard Law student during the time that he was there.

            >Therefore, we should assume all beneficiaries of affirmative action similarly got the rules broken in their favor.

            You don’t believe that a policy like affirmative action can be implemented without rules being broken, so if I accept your premises, an assumption isn’t necessary, I would be able to know that affirmative action means the breaking of rules.

            • jim says:

              >It is evident that massive cheating ensues, and whenever this cheating is exposed jn particular cases, as for example Kara Spears Hultgreen, no body blinks an eye, indicating that everyone knows perfectly what is really going on.

              What cheating are you talking about? That affirmative action is a thing, and that schools and employers are obliged to implement them, is not a secret.

              Kara Hultgreen was notoriously and obviously unfit to land a plane on a carrier, but was rated seventh in her class. Obama got his degree from Columbia without the tedious inconvenience of actually showing up. That is the cheating, that is the open secret.

              The law requires a certain proportion of women and NAMs, but also requires that they be qualified – perhaps not as qualified as white males, but adequately qualified and good enough. The law not only requires that they be treated as equals, but they in fact be near enough equal. What is an open secret is that in fact people act as if they were required to have a certain proportion of gorillas. Since you don’t really expect a woman or a NAM to actually do the job, you don’t really bother with her supposed qualifications.

              If Obama did not actually attend Columbia, it is unlikely that most black Law School students needed to submit their LSATs. If Kara Hultgreen did not actually come seventh in her class, then then there is no hard evidence that Obama’s LSAT is any particular value, or that he ever bothered to take an LSAT any more than he bothered to attend Columbia university.

              Whenever a beneficiary of affirmative action becomes famous or infamous, people investigate their supposed qualifications, and it is usually discovered, not that their supposed qualifications were just a little a bit inferior to those of the white candidate, but that their supposed qualifications are simply made up. Kara Hultgreen did not come seventh in her class, though she did in fact actually attend class, Obama did not bother to attend Columbia. He may well be smart enough to get his qualifications legitimately, but when you are black, why bother?

          • peppermint says:

            Irving, you said that niggers are good lawyers, and you know this because stringent requirements to get into law school.

            Arguably Barack Obama got in through his family CIA connections in order to push the Judeo-homosexualist agenda.

            Was Bush vs Gore argued by niggers? Was Citizens United argued by niggers? How many niggers were involved in the Zimmerman trial or even the Baltimore trials of the cops who arrested Freddie Gray?

            I’m supposed to believe that niggers are good lawyers on the basis of that one nigger on OJ Simpson’s defense team and the niggers that have been on the Supreme Court?

          • Irving says:

            >Kara Hultgreen was notoriously and obviously unfit to land a plane on a carrier, but was rated seventh in her class. Obama got his degree from Columbia without the tedious inconvenience of actually showing up. That is the cheating, that is the open secret.

            I don’t know much about Hultgreen, but neither you nor I know anything about what Obama was up to while he was enrolled at Columbia, or whether he ever attended that school to begin with. All that we can say is that according to the information that is publically available, he attended, but had a slightly less than mediocre GPA while there.

            >The law requires a certain proportion of women and NAMs, but also requires that they be qualified – perhaps not as qualified as white males, but adequately qualified and good enough. The law not only requires that they be treated as equals, but they in fact be near enough equal.

            Yes, and I’m saying that this usually, though not always, is the case. The typical affirmative action beneficiary who is a degree holder from an elite university is usually a smart guy. Eric Holder went to Columbia Law. He’s an exasperating, degenerate, anti-white sjw who benefited from affirmative action, but he’s obviously a smart guy. Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action beneficiary. Whatever one might say about him, I think that he’s obviously a smart guy. These are two notable examples, but I think that there are many examples that can be cited. Big law firms have been willingly hiring black graduates from the top law schools for decades — and I mean willingly as in without being coerced in any way — and they continue to do so, they fund scholarship opportunities for these blacks, the pay to fly them out for interviews, etc., they WANT to hire them. Obviously these blacks aren’t all stupid Michelle Obamas.

            >What is an open secret is that in fact people act as if they were required to have a certain proportion of gorillas. Since you don’t really expect a woman or a NAM to actually do the job, you don’t really bother with her supposed qualifications.

            It depends. I can imagine that this might be the case in the STEM fields, in academia and possibly in the military. It often isn’t the case in other fields though.

            >If Obama did not actually attend Columbia

            Please.

            >it is unlikely that most black Law School students needed to submit their LSATs.

            Data on the performance of blacks on the LSAT is publically available, and has been for decades. They show exactly what you’d expect: a 1SD between black and white test takers. We know actually that every year only about a couple dozen blacks score above a 165, though this number has recently gone up a bit because law schools now allow students to retake the test as many times as they want without penalty. If black law students were being exempted from the LSAT, one would expect that the average LSAT scores for blacks would be much higher than they currently are.

            >If Kara Hultgreen did not actually come seventh in her class, then then there is no hard evidence that Obama’s LSAT is any particular value, or that he ever bothered to take an LSAT any more than he bothered to attend Columbia university.

            I don’t like Obama either, but it seems plausible, even likely, that his IQ is a 130 or thereabouts. Do you really think that Obama can’t pull of a 167 LSAT score?

            >Whenever a beneficiary of affirmative action becomes famous or infamous, people investigate their supposed qualifications, and it is usually discovered, not that their supposed qualifications were a bit inferior to those of the white candidate, but that their supposed qualifications are simply made up.

            Well, can’t this be because the affirmative action types who become famous or infamous are the unrepresentative ones? In fact, it is likely that this is the case.

            • jim says:

              >The law requires a certain proportion of women and NAMs, but also requires that they be qualified – perhaps not as qualified as white males, but adequately qualified and good enough. The law not only requires that they be treated as equals, but they in fact be near enough equal.

              Yes, and I’m saying that this usually, though not always, is the case. The typical affirmative action beneficiary who is a degree holder from an elite university is usually a smart guy.

              But obviously he is usually not a smart guy.

              If universities decided to accredit some gorillas, they would not even try to pick the smartest gorillas, just some random gorillas and by and large, they don’t even try to pick the smartest blacks. They mostly try to pick the smartest women, but do not try very hard.

              The affirmative action laws are impossible to comply with, and so, for the most part, people just don’t even try.

              And we know that because whenever it is revealed that they are cheating in any one particular case, there is no reaction, indicating that such cheating is standard operating procedure, that everyone knows what no one can say, that the only possible compliance is just barefaced fraud.

          • Tj says:

            It looks like the root of your disagreement, Irving and Jim, is that you have very different priors for there being widespread petty corruption (“conspiracies”) within the system.

            • jim says:

              It is not my priors, it is that Irving is lying or in denial about the evidence in front of his face.

              Whenever one of these incidents of corruption is exposed, no one reacts, indicating that this sort of corruption is universal and expected.

              We know that Obama did not have to attend Columbia to get a degree. If he did not have to attend, blacks do not have to attend. If blacks don’t have to attend Columbia to get a Columbia degree, they don’t have to present their LSAT to get a law degree.

          • peppermint says:

            » Big law firms have been willingly hiring black graduates from the top law schools for decades — and I mean willingly as in without being coerced in any way — and they continue to do so, they fund scholarship opportunities for these blacks, the pay to fly them out for interviews, etc., they WANT to hire them.

            they aren’t just committed to being an equal opportunity employer but proactive in ensuring that they have the best diverse teams, diversity is at the core of their business strategy, their success and future as a company is founded on the proven strength of diversity, etc. etc. etc.

            You will never know what the people in charge actually think. This is by design.

            The people in charge have probably forbidden themselves from ever having side thoughts about these issues for fear of slipping up in front of a nigger and looking at one in the wrong way, which would create a hostile environment and may cause them to be fired for cause.

        • peppermint says:

          it’s simple

          abortion of babies that we want, or women seeing abortion as an option and engaging in non-family-oriented behavior and delaying family formation, is bad

          abortion of babies we don’t want, or women we don’t want having babies seeing abortion as an option and engaging in non-family-oriented behavior and delaying family formation, is good

          • Irving says:

            Although there are individual cases in which abortion may be expedient, the goal should be not to allow abortion on a case-by-case basis, but to completely prohibit women from have any control over their own sexuality whatsoever, so that abortions will never have to happen, except maybe in very, very rare cases, which should usually be followed by the stoning to death of the woman who received it.

          • Hidden Author says:

            RE: Irving

            OK, Mohammed!

          • Steve Johnson says:

            That’s not the right goal Irving.

            The right goal is for women to be horrified and repulsed by the idea of abortion and to want to intensely publicly signal that she doesn’t want to be associated with it.

          • Minion says:

            “Hidden Author”
            >implying only Muslims are concerned with their women being degenerate sluts

            You know that Romans and Greeks practiced honor killings long before Islam, as we know it, was even a thing?

          • Mark Citadel says:

            @ Steve – very important point. It is one that the so-called prolife movement will not address. Changing law is all well and good, but they’re not addressing the issue of the female person, especially as she is constituted in contemporary society. Surely at root, that is what needs to be tackled. History considered, women today are insane.

        • Mark Citadel says:

          @ Irving – The AltRight, having no central authority is a haven for a wide variety of people, many of whom are just refugees from the last 100 leftist holiness purges. Give it time. Trump blows over and you might be left with those willing to become Reactionary. Other than that, they aren’t really of much interest. Jim is right in saying 90% of everything is shit, at least in this instance.

          • Corvinus says:

            Mark, you contradict yourself. How is the AltRight a sanctuary when you label the supermajority of its prospective acolytes who offer their thoughts in digital ink form as “being shit”?

            Moreover, why would anyone join a group that without a carefully conceived internal apparatus to galvanize its members into decided action against the forces of evil?

          • Mark Citadel says:

            I called it a ‘haven’ first off, and that carries no connotation. It’s an ‘ideas space’ which features both useful and useless people, and as usual, useless people make up the majority because that’s the law of political majorities among populist movements.

            I think you’re mistaking the AltRight for being a ‘group’ when it really isn’t. It’s an umbrella of dissidents.

          • Corvinus says:

            “I called it a ‘haven’ first off, and that carries no connotation.”

            It is a safespace for ideas to be shared by likeminded individuals. In this case, it happens to be political in nature. The connotation is that there are likely to be a person or group in that haven who desire to take those ideas and move it forward. By stating that there are “useful” and “useless” people in that “haven”, it is no longer a haven. There is a dismissive attitude on your part as to what ideas proffered are deemed “worthy”. Of course, there can be disagreement, even dissent in that sanctuary; however, that intense characterization would necessitate purging members because of a perceived lack of utility.

            “It’s an ‘ideas space’ which features both useful and useless people, and as usual, useless people make up the majority because that’s the law of political majorities among populist movements.”

            You are going to have to define “useless” in this context. Moreover, what “law” are you citing here? Given your disdain for populism, your label is not surprising.

            “I think you’re mistaking the AltRight for being a ‘group’ when it really isn’t. It’s an umbrella of dissidents.”

            Spinning it doesn’t change its meaning. You have a group of people who share similar thoughts on a wide range of topics. You exchange ideas. It’s a group. Don’t insult yourself.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Corvinus, as usual interacting with you is extremely annoying, something others have noted, and your semantic demand for what the word ‘useless’ means when it is painfully obvious, is another attempt to bog people down in your quagmire of agitation and feigned or real stupidity. There is no purging, because it’s not a soccer stadium full of people nor an actual organization, it’s an ideas space.

            You’ve been a liberal idiot in all previous discussions, so at least some things never change.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Corvinus, as usual interacting with you is extremely annoying, something others have noted”

            “You’ve been a liberal idiot in all previous discussions, so at least some things never change.

            Playfully noting falsehoods is not the way to my heart. You’re going to have to do more than giving me flowers and candy.

            “and your semantic demand for what the word ‘useless’ means when it is painfully obvious, is another attempt to bog people down in your quagmire of agitation and feigned or real stupidity.”

            Words have meaning. I am asking you why you believe those people in your little refuge are “useless”? How do you go about determining their utility? It’s called asking for clarification..

            “There is no purging, because it’s not a soccer stadium full of people nor an actual organization, it’s an ideas space.”

            Why would you want to waste your precious time with people in your space that are “useless”? Would that not be annoying? Furthermore, did Bryce leave on his own accord, or were their people who “convinced” him that he ought to “take a break for his own good” despite his accolades?

            Regardless, a collection of people is called a group. It may be formal or informal, there may be structure or a loosely defined way of conducting business. You are part of a group. It puzzles me why you are seemingly quibbling with this fact.

            For someone who touts themselves as an intellectual, you are woefully inadequate when it comes to one on one discourse with admittedly low level questions, one that demands clarity and measuredness.

            Once again, you conveniently avoid specifics when it doesn’t suit your narrative.

          • peppermint says:

            I was guessing a priest or a family member talked some sense into him based on how he left, and I didn’t probe the matter.

            …but that’s your game, right? First, you air his dirty laundry – no decency – then accuse the fascist community of having purged him, because moral equivalence.

            If your feminist community is morally equivalent to us fascists, why do you put so much effort into supporting the one over the other?

            Because America freedom of democracy constitution?

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Corvinus, you are a self-confessed Liberal. As such I have no interest entertaining your autistic BS. Get on the helicopter.

          • Corvinus says:

            Peppermint…

            “I was guessing a priest or a family member talked some sense into him based on how he left, and I didn’t probe the matter.”

            In other words, you have no clue.

            “First, you air his dirty laundry – no decency –“

            Says the man who’s own father and grandfather are cucks in his eyes. Listen, his dirty laundry is no secret. Good God, relax, woman.

            “then accuse the fascist community of having purged him, because moral equivalence.”

            I ASKED whether he was purged. Hey, Mark is the one you want to talk to about “useful” and “useless” people in his haven.

            “If your feminist community is morally equivalent to us fascists, why do you put so much effort into supporting the one over the other?”

            Corrected for accuracy —> Radical feminists and the Nx’ers are equally fascist in their efforts to strip away human dignity and decency. So long as one of their own serves the cause well, individual transgressions are hidden or explained away. When they became a noticeable burden, that person is asked to extricate themselves from the situation.

            Mark…

            “Corvinus, you are a self-confessed Liberal. As such I have no interest entertaining your autistic BS. Get on the helicopter.”

            Run away, Mark. Run, run, run away. Perhaps it is the time to craft statements more clearly rather than being vague and pray no one calls you out regarding your subjective meaning, which has no relevance to anyone other than yourself, much less any impact on truth.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Perhaps it’s time to get a job and not waste your days raging against people you disagree with? Kind of pathetic honestly. You’ve been at it for well over a year now.

          • peppermint says:

            He was a college student who was writing edgy essays on the side. You could be respectful and ignore him. Or you could insinuate that we purged him to try to create a sense of moral equivalence to enable you to larp that it’s still the ’70s, feminism is cool, America is the greatest country in the world, and you’re 40 years younger.

            The reason Alison Rapp’s college essay is still relevant is that Augsburg College believed that pedophile apologetics was a deserving undergraduate thesis, and she continued to present those views at conferences as a graduate student.

            Again, you have a choice between paying attention to facts, or going with a self-serving narrative that lets you think you’ve always been one of the good guys and the good guys are still winning.

            But your totally random outburst at “radical feminists” is telling. It means you don’t really believe that narrative yourself. Which is why you’re here.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Perhaps it’s time to get a job and not waste your days raging against people you disagree with? Kind of pathetic honestly. You’ve been at it for well over a year now.”

            So now Big Brother is keeping tabs on me. Focus on my inquiry rather than peripheral matters, ok? You’re just embarrassing yourself now.

            “He was a college student who was writing edgy essays on the side. You could be respectful and ignore him. Or you could insinuate that we purged him to try to create a sense of moral equivalence…”

            What the bottom line is, it’s hypocrisy. Nx’ers have stated that homoerotic tendencies equates to moral degeneracy. Had the person in question not been part of the “Haven”, would the group been vocal in their utter disdain?

            And it was more than “edgy essays”. He was looked up to by the haven for his Nx nuances. Are you denigrating his work, too?

            “The reason Alison Rapp’s college essay is still relevant is that Augsburg College…”

            I don’t give a shit about her or what she stands for. Apparently, you do. Try to date her on your own time. Let’s focus on the issue rather than your jive talk.

            “Again, you have a choice between paying attention to facts, or going with a self-serving narrative that lets you think you’ve always been one of the good guys and the good guys are still winning.”

            The fact is that one of your team members engaged in behavior that is diametrically opposed to neo-reactionary principles. Now, I get it, you and Mark are white knighting for him. He was (or still is, I don’t know) one of your kind. It’s noble coming to his defense. Hypocritical, but noble.

            “Which is why you’re here.”

            I’m here, admittedly, for fun and frivolity debate style.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “I’m here, admittedly, for fun and frivolity debate style.”

            Ladies and gentlemen, autism.

            Try posting about something currently relevant and maybe you’ll be worth the dignity of intellectual engagement.

          • peppermint says:

            oh neato, now that we didn’t purge him exactly like those radfems, we’re hypocritically protecting him because he’s one of ours despite being a homo, exactly like those radfems and their pedophile friends.

            I never particularly liked what he said, he was tedious and tendentious, like a college kid writing edgy essays for fun, but I’m grateful for what he did for the community. Hopefully he can think his way out of degeneracy, but looking like a degenerate is one way to get the Eye of Sauron off your back.

            You’ll just say anything to maintain your illusions, exactly like those radfems.

            The next thing you’ll say is dredge up some quotes from alt righters or NRxers calling for homosexuals to be stuffed in ovens. Which shows just how much of a cringing, cuckservative you are. Even liberals have more loyalty.

            Do you know why people hate cuckservatives? Because principles like abandoning your friends at the slightest provocation, the constitution that says men need to be allowed in the women’s locker room and no one is allowed to breathe a word against it, even in private on a sex tape they don’t even know is being made, are recognized not in the mind but in the gut as worth less than nothing.

          • Corvinus says:

            Mark…

            “Ladies and gentlemen, autism.”

Awww, how cute. Using an SJW tactic to avoid substantive conversation. I baited you with a line, knowing full well you would take it. Congratulations. So much for your high IQ.

            “Try posting about something currently relevant and maybe you’ll be worth the dignity of intellectual engagement.”

            It is relevant to the discussion at hand. The topic is “on successful revolution”. There a specific principles that are to be strictly abided by within your group. One specific tenet is that homoerotic tendencies equates to moral degeneracy. Had the person in question not been part of the “Haven”, would the group been vocal in their utter disdain?

See, when touting revolution, one abides by those principles you espouse to the letter or one makes accommodations for certain acolytes. When one makes accommodations for key members of the group, those principles are compromised. When principles are compromised, how is the revolution suppose to maximize its efficiency and effectiveness when those principles are are ignored on behalf for “one of their own”? It’s hypocritical. It’s really pathetic, honestly.

            Now, you sell your wares from a philosophical point of view. But you rarely emphasis the practicality of NRx. Offer us specifics in how and why people ought to come into your camp fro a realistic standpoint. Why should they forgo their liberty and be autocratically governed by elites consisting of a monarch and/or an aristocracy? Why should they submit to your brand of religion, to what amounts to orthodoxy? Why do you believe there are “useless” members of your “Haven”? What are the metrics involved? Why would you want to waste your precious time with people in your space that are “useless”? Would that not be annoying?

            Jim…

            “If we don’t protect our own, we get eaten.”

            Even if your own engage in the degeneracy you preach about as being other than holy?

            Peppermint…

            “The next thing you’ll say is dredge up some quotes from alt righters or NRxers calling for homosexuals to be stuffed in ovens.”

            Assume I found such evidence. Would you agree or disagree wit their assessment? It’s a really simple response to make. Say “yes” or “no”. Can you muster up the courage to answer? Or are you going into another one of your patent rants?

            “Because principles like abandoning your friends at the slightest provocation…”

            
This is not a situation in which of your buddies who has a girlfriend told you in confidence that he banged a hottie the night before and you “narc” on him. We are talking about “revolution”. We are talking about Nx’ers who uphold certain standards they themselves created or helped to create or helped to clarify and put into perspective. When those principles no longer apply because “one of us”, then the revolution becomes moot.

            Is buttsex immoral? Yes or no. Why?

            If a person who touts that buttsex is immoral, yet engages in it, or has proclivities to participate in such activity, do they constitute a threat to the revolution? Yes or no. Why?

            • jim says:

              “If we don’t protect our own, we get eaten.”

              Even if your own engage in the degeneracy you preach about as being other than holy?

              You unfailingly cover your own when they murder millions. Your beloved Harvard still teaches that Mao was just wonderful while the Nationalists were evil incarnate. We can cover our own when they are perverts.

          • Corvinus says:

            “You unfailingly cover your own when they murder millions.”

            Who is they?

            “Your beloved Harvard…”

            Please find a direct quotation from me stating exactly of my affection for that university or retract.

            “still teaches that Mao…”

            Of course world history courses there would broach that subject.

            “We can cover our own when they are perverts.”

            Does that include those who fuck outside of the sanctity of marriage, thus breaking the covenant?

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “Please find a direct quotation from me stating exactly of my affection for that university or retract.”

            From the person who wrote:

            “So now Big Brother is keeping tabs on me.”

            Look, you’re a minor annoyance – no one keeps track of your every stupid utterance. I’ll read about a sentence of any of your comments and move on to people who have something interesting to say. No one is going to go through the tedium of researching your past worthless musings so as to CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY quote them properly.

          • Corvinus says:

            Lil’ Stevie said.

            “From the person who wrote: “So now Big Brother is keeping tabs on me.””

            I made that statement in jest in the context of Mark Citadel saying that for nearly a year I have wasted my time commenting here.** Are you an aspie? Must I denote /sarcasm so you are able to comprehend the verbal jab?

            “Look, you’re a minor annoyance – no one keeps track of your every stupid utterance. I’ll read about a sentence of any of your comments and move on to people who have something interesting to say”.

            Well, obviously Mark Citadel does.**

            “No one is going to go through the tedium of researching your past worthless musings so as to CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY quote them properly”

            Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You still have yet to read a primer on proper discourse. Too much time reading Roissy and his musings. You really should get out more.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “I made that statement in jest in the context of Mark Citadel saying that for nearly a year I have wasted my time commenting here.”

            Corrected for accuracy -> you made the statement in desperation. Jests actually have some element of humor.l

          • Corvinus says:

            Lil Stevie…

            “I made that statement in jest in the context of Mark Citadel saying that for nearly a year I have wasted my time commenting here.”

            “Corrected for accuracy -> you made the statement in desperation. Jests actually have some element of humor.l”

            My sense of humor is way above your pay grade. Archie Comics is more in your wheelhouse.

            Now, if you are going to claim that my statement was made “in desperation”, you’re going to have to much better than be vague. I know I’m asking much from you. Perhaps you can find someone to help you craft your response.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “My sense of humor is way above your pay grade.”

            Corrected for accuracy -> you have no sense of humor

    • izvirk says:

      Hey Irving, here is some very intelligent prose for you:

      take a hike you fucking kike!

      • Irving says:

        Jim, here’s another idiot alt-righter for you. The IQ of someone who would say something so vulgar and stupid can’t be above a 90.

        • jim says:

          I know some mighty smart people with elite degrees who say things like that when adequately protected by anonymity.

          I would say that your style of argument is distinctively Jewish. Which is not always a reliable indicator of descent in the maternal line, but does tend to correlate with exposure to Judaism.

          It is likely he inferred from your style of argument that you are Jewish, and from the anti white tone of your arguments, that you consider yourself non white, that you figure that when America goes down the tubes you have a lifeboat with high walls to flee to.

          • Irving says:

            I am not a Jew.

            Nor am I anti-white, at all. I just think that self-pity is annoying and harmful, and I detect a lot of self-pity among the alt right and white nationalist crowd. What’s more, alt right whites who should know better actively encourage this self-pity, whereas I think that it should be called out and criticized. And also, it is especially annoying that I would be called anti-white by people who routinely use the crudest language imaginable when talking about jews and blacks and non whites in general. If I criticize the not so bright whites, at least I don’t compare them to apes and gorillas, or else say that they are “ovenworthy”.

            Also, I think alternative perspectives on key issues should be welcome, especially among people who call themselves the ‘alternative right’.

          • Irving says:

            By the way. When things really go to hell, I’m pretty sure that I won’t have an exit option.

  2. Lalit says:

    But will an alt-right even be around by the time the left becomes sufficiently terrifying to each other?

    • Dave says:

      Yeah, the first Christians got the best lions.

      Gonzalo Lira tells of a Chilean man who inherited US $3000 and put it all into blue-chip stocks, which were selling for pennies per hundred because El Presidente was nationalizing everything. Weeks later, Allende was dead, and this guy soon became a multimillionaire.

      Someday the current financial-political system will get a well-deserved bullet in the head. All you need to become fabulously wealthy is to correctly guess the date!

    • hcm says:

      It is already happening. Most of the alt-right was part of the left. The question is how long it takes to metastasize.

    • peppermint says:

      * The First Woman to X list is pretty much full by now. No one even cares about Hillary Clinton as a potential First Woman to President. It matters because progress signaling is breathing to SJWs as moving is breathing to sharks. So they need something else:

      * Adipositivity. It’s one thing to tell women that niggers are attractive, thereby making niggers attractive because everyone is afraid not to say that niggers are attractive. Men aren’t the same as women, you can’t just tell men that fat chicks are attractive and then they’ll be attracted to fat chicks. The only result is to embarrass feminism. The sexual racism accusation, that not enough White men have jungle fever, would be more likely to have an effect – but only that White men might end up thinking they need nail a nigger sow on their bucket list. Nail a fat chick is never going on anyone’s bucket list.

      * Pedo apologetics. If the only way to distinguish yourself from the other soi-disant feminists is that you’re a daring enough intellectual to be a pedo apologist, well, there’s literally nowhere to go next.

      * Transgendering children. The nice thing about abortion is that aborted children don’t complain about having been aborted.

      * Just how exactly to you adjudicate who can enter the women’s locker room and expose himself to any little girls in there? How to determine if you need more women in tech when there’s a sizable number of transwomen looking for those tech jobs? The answers are “anyone” and “irrelevant”, right? Which means the natural women get pushed out of feminist groups by transwomen, which means, for the first time in a hundred years, wealthy women don’t get to “give back to the community” through running a feminist group.

      I don’t expect feminism to make it another decade.

      • Lalit says:

        Hmmm! So we can declare ourselves women by going trans and get all the juicy opportunities for ourselves?

      • Minion says:

        Why are you under the assumption that all nigger women are ugly? There are tons of hot niggers around. Not everyone one of them is some obese shaniqua.

        Also, the SJW left hates pedophiles (in line with their rape hysteria)- enough for them to insult their opponents as pedophiles (eg on reddit). What is likely to happen is that the current SJWs will automatically shift to the “far right” of the future Overton Window, simply because they wont accept pedo or incest rights while the next gen of leftists do.

        We now have old school feminists, like Germaine Greer, being labelled as far right bigots because they don’t accept the tranny bullshit, despite being radical leftist by the standards of 20 years ago.

  3. Jack Highlands says:

    It’s high brow enough to scan, but not enough for rhythmic surprise.

    I therefore suggest dropping “named” in line 4 and changing the last line to “High and Low against the Middle.”

    Trimeter with mostly masculine feet.

  4. spandrell says:

    That is why we need Sanders to get the confiscations going.

    Suddenly Trump won’t sound like such a bad idea.

    • Lalit says:

      I don’t think the bureaucracy will Allow Sanders to confiscate property from private citizens for purposes of redistribution

      • spandrell says:

        The slightly less leftist bureaucrats always get replaced by the more leftist ones.

        • Just sayin' says:

          Yes and no.

          The old left, wealth confiscation guys were replaced by new left, gender changing guys.

          You could call this a move to the left, but it is more accurate to call it a change of track.

          This change of track was far better for monied interests. They won’t let people go into wealth confiscation mode without a fight.

        • Marcus says:

          That takes time, though. It’s a factor of the autonomous security-information feedback loop, not of electoral politics.

          If Sanders got his universal college tuition however, that could really accelerate the process – perhaps the opening act of a true left singularity…

        • lalit says:

          I think the political class will find it harder to replace bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are the permanent government while politicians are the merely elected government. The only reason America has not devolved into a dystopic hell-hole yet is because the bureaucracy is like a scar tissue around the leftie politicians. Wealth cofiscation will eventually happen, but not under Sanders. Not so soon

    • peppermint says:

      A rootless cosmopolitan is a man who thinks he’s so materially secure that he doesn’t need a community, said Hitler. We know that actually he thinks he’s so materially secure he engages in signaling his reliability and comfort by calling for his own genocide.

      The question is, can the middle class be destroyed in the United States faster than the White race? Ask the commies on commiepedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93present :real median family income doesn’t seem to be dropping fast enough, but another big financial crash should do the trick.

    • Zach says:

      Trump is a dope. And quite frankly, Trump’s supporters are dopes. No arguments worth two shits that I’ve read that stands up to simple analysis.

      But, Trump is far far far superior to those two horrifying loser know nothings on the left.

  5. peppermint says:

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

    question: does the Orwellian theory that revolution simply consists of new elites replacing old elites apply in a world of Jew subversion? Or can Jew subversion be rejected when it is recognized?

  6. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    The best thinking on the Right and Left is arguably being done in Alt-Right circles, which are full of highly intelligent and creative young men and women.

    Many of the readers attracted to sites like Sailer’s are not as half as smart as they think they are.

    It’s all quite amusing.

    • Irving says:

      Your welcome to your own opinion, but it is clear from observing alt right forums, comment sections, behavior on twitter, etc., that most of its following is comprised of low iq whites who want nothing more than white elites to drop their cosmopolitanism and to create some kind of ethno-bolshevism that will protect the white proles from economic competition from the third world, a competition which white proles are currently losing by quite a large margin. This is the hard truth.

      • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

        It’s obvious the AltRight consists of a lot of high-IQ people with plenty of energy.

        The creative output is very impressive, from blogs and essays, to videos and art, to music and humour.

        It’s very encouraging!

        • Irving says:

          What do you mean by “a lot”? Yes, the alt right figureheads are generally pretty smart. The average IQ on your typical alt right comment section can’t be much higher than 80, however.

          • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

            I would say it’s probably closer to 130+.

            The comment sections at many of these AltRight sites are goldmines.

            Phenomenally high verbal IQ on display.

          • peppermint says:

            you need to be smart enough

            (1) to realize that Hitler did nothing wrong, against the decades of schooling propaganda
            (2) to create a new online persona that has nothing that can definitively trace you to your offline life, against facebook and google

            The low IQ people will come along after Trump is crowned God-Emperor and the nomies are assured that they won’t get their whole family blacklisted from everything forever for saying gas the kikes race war now.

            There’s a reason all the namefags are subtly wrong. There are a lot of ways of getting (1) wrong; all of them lead to some namefag or other who advertises to the left that, as Moldbug says, the active ingredient in their red pills is sugar.

            If you want the truth, you need to go to /pol/ and argue with people about it.

          • pdimov says:

            “The average IQ on your typical alt right comment section can’t be much higher than 80, however.”

            This reminds me of a saying we had that anybody who refers to Bulgaria as third world has never seen the Third World.

            Similarly, I’m pretty sure you’ve never seen an 80 IQ comment section.

          • Irving says:

            >This reminds me of a saying we had that anybody who refers to Bulgaria as third world has never seen the Third World.

            >similarly, I’m pretty sure you’ve never seen an 80 IQ comment section

            I’ve definitely seen cases on alt right blogs where you’ll have an article that was written by someone who couldn’t have a higher iq than perhaps a 110 , with everyone on the comment section being so utterly stupid, that one is surprised that they’ve managed to learn to type and to write semi coherent sentances.

          • pdimov says:

            “I’ve definitely seen cases on alt right blogs where you’ll have an article that was written by someone who couldn’t have a higher iq than perhaps a 110 , with everyone on the comment section being so utterly stupid, that one is surprised that they’ve managed to learn to type and to write semi coherent sentances.”

            That’s not the same as seeing a comment section in which you KNOW the average IQ of the commenters and it’s about 80.

            Learning to type and writing semi-coherent sentences alone indicates more than that.

            Your IQ is probably 145+, so everything below 105 looks 80 to you. But it isn’t.

            I don’t follow the alt-right much, but the TRS trolls are definitely at ~130 verbal troll level at least. Some of their comments (when in action on other sites) are simply marvelous.

          • Irving says:

            pdimov, that’s fine, let’s say they’re smarter than how smart I originally suggested they were. The point though is that they often are extremely stupid, and I think that it is entirely plausible that their average IQ is in the 80s, and if not in the 80s, definitely in the low 90s.

          • pdimov says:

            How would you estimate Peppermint’s IQ based on just a few of his comments (if you didn’t know better)?

          • Irving says:

            Part of the reason why I like this blog so much is because even the trolls, like peppermint, are actually pretty smart. I can’t say what peppermint’s IQ is, but I do know that he is impressively eloquent and can usually defend his views in such a way that makes me think his IQ, whatever it is, is high.

          • pdimov says:

            That’s not what I asked. I asked you to imagine that you know nothing of Peppermint and are just scanning this comment section like you were scanning the alt-right comment sections, then to estimate his IQ based on a few of his comments, like you estimate the IQ of the average alt-right commenter based on a few (if not one) of his comments.

            Apples to apples.

          • peppermint says:

            Thanks guys, your respect means a lot. My IQ is only +2SD (though it was measured by a Jew). I do have one good idea, prefaced by Moldbug’s comment about ethology of hairless apes, that when confronted by a question about human ethology, ask about similar behavior in animals. That, and apparently I’m the only one saying outright what the Civil Rights means, maybe because of my autistic refusal to leave anything unsaid and need to take everything to its most extreme conclusion. In a sane world, autism isn’t a virtue and edgelordism is only good in close proximity to females, thus Kek = Kuk, but, if memeing is a crime, only criminals will have memes. Praise Kek.

            (Remember when namefag Nick Land went off the deep end realizing what he had tarred his name with, and thinking that he could plead gibbering insanity, said that the whole of NRx is E>V? We knew he was dabbling in the occult, bit didn’t know he was cryptically saying Kek > Kuk)

          • Irving says:

            Consider peppermint’s comment above, the one that goes “Thanks guys, your respect means a lot. My IQ is only +2SD (though it was measured by a Jew)…”. Obviously just by looking at it, you can tell peppermint is no idiot, even though the comment is slightly incomprehensible.

          • Ansible says:

            The comment is totally comprehnsible, you’re just not in on the joke. It require knowledge of /pol/ culture and Nick Land’s occult dabblings.

            *For future technoarcheologists you now know where to look.

        • Minion says:

          Peppermint, a normalfag is someone with an active sex and social life, which includes most people here too, no matter how “unpopular” you think your views are (obviously not unpopular enough for women not to have sex with you)

          • peppermint says:

            https://youtube.com/watch?v=zf7q–xnmG0

            .The implication of calling someone a normie is cowardice holding them back from being an edgelord, since normies have jobs and at some level recognize that they’re not smart enough to think one thing and say another, so they don’t think anything unless there’s a namefag out there not getting punished for saying it. Making it about having sex removes white knights and MRAs.

      • peppermint says:

        » protect the white proles from economic competition from the third world, a competition which white proles are currently losing by quite a large margin

        » currently losing

        only because the government wants white proles to lose and engineers incentives to hire niggers and welfare for niggers to help them compete for lower wages

        but your wife doesn’t see all that. all she sees are those sexy niggers beating the whites, and she wants their seed. and you probably let her have it.

        • Irving says:

          >only because the government wants white proles to lose and engineers incentives to hire niggers and welfare for niggers to help them compete for lower wages

          >but your wife doesn’t see all that. all she sees are those sexy niggers beating the whites, and she wants their seed. and you probably let her have it.

          It’s funny how whenever someone wants to apply HBD to whites in a way that portrays some whites in an unfavorable way, otherwise hardened Darwinists become thoroughgoing Boazians, and they proceed to blame everything on the Jews, or the government, or niggers, or whoever else. Of course the reality is that many of these alt right guys, who proclaim the necessity and inescapability of racial inequality, ironically belong to that class of low iq whites who have just been put out of a job by Indian peasants with IQs of 70. In fact it is among these whites that the alt right is most popular. Let’s not make this about niggers, because niggers aren’t relevant here.

          • peppermint says:

            There is one sand nigger Obama wanted to deport. Obama wanted to deport him to Egypt, where he could be killed by MB for making a video that insulted Islam.

            What was he doing in the US? He had quite a rap sheet, including not paying taxes on a business he owned.

            Why did he own a business? Why, because the government gives special loans to minority owned businesses. Did you think the sand niggers and curry niggers were displacing Whites as owners of gas stations and convenience stores because they are better at it?

            It’s well known that spics get paid under the table and less than Whites for various work, which is supplemented by welfare. And when the welfare the government gives them outright isn’t enough, they can go to certain sand nigger convenience stores, buy the outrageously priced products charged to the Boomers via EBT, and get a kickback.

            It’s not like Boomers like Corvinus don’t know about this, is it? The stories come out every so often. They just don’t care: it’s sad that the brown people are poor, and someone should give them money, for great Jesus.

            After all, occasionally said Boomers can wander into those convenience stores, buy spices, and feel like an explorer.

          • Irving says:

            I don’t say that immigration is not a problem. I simply say that the poor socioeconomic outcomes of low-IQ whites should be blamed, primarily, on the low-IQs that those whites have, as opposed to corrupt politicians or Jews or immigrants. Obviously no one here is going to blame the poverty of blacks in America on corrupt politicians or Jews or immigrants, even though each of these factors have massively contributed to the impoverishment of blacks. Rather, everyone here is (rightly) comfortable with ascribing the poor socioeconomic outcomes of poor blacks primarily to their low-IQs.

          • peppermint says:

            if shitskins are so much better than us, why can’t they be better in their own countries?

            is it because we have the freedom democracy constitution? okay, let’s give them freedom democracy constitution, by sitting around in their countries killing terrorists for decades.

          • Irving says:

            >if shitskins are so much better than us, why can’t they be better in their own countries?

            >is it because we have the freedom democracy constitution? okay, let’s give them freedom democracy constitution, by sitting around in their countries killing terrorists for decades.

            Who do you mean by “us”?

            I agree that the “shitskins” should stay in their own countries of origin. But this isn’t about immigration. This is about the absurd belief that is seemingly prevalent among low-IQ whites, which is to say whites with sub-105 IQs, that they are somehow guaranteed high wages and generous benefits simply because they are white and live in the West, and that employers who refuse to satisfy these demands, and who prefer to employ low-IQ “shitskins” who will work just as hard for lesser pay and no benefits, are traitors or “cucks” or whatever.

            I’m sorry, but one is not guaranteed a comfortable living simply because one is white. Low-IQ whites need to understand this, and alt-right leaders who promote this lie need to make sure their following of mostly low-IQ whites understand this too.

          • peppermint says:

            » who prefer to employ low-IQ “shitskins” who will work just as hard for lesser pay and no benefits, are traitors or “cucks” or whatever.

            …and we’re back where we started. Sure, they don’t speak the language and often have bad attitudes, but they work for less because they have welfare supplementing it, and of course there are positive incentives for employers to meet their quota of shitskins and negative incentives for employers who refuse to meet their quota of shitskins.

          • Irving says:

            >but they work for less because they have welfare supplementing it

            I suppose this is the case for some immigrants, but actually not all of them receive welfare, and those that do don’t usually get that much money, at least not the ones who work for a living. But this is besides the point. Low-IQ whites have been put out of work by Indians in India, by Chinese in China, by whites in post-Communist countries, by Hispanics in Central and South America, by blacks in Africa, etc.. Immigrants hurt them, but they aren’t the main problem for low-IQ whites in this case. And, of course, “shitskins” don’t get access to welfare in their home countries.

            >and of course there are positive incentives for employers to meet their quota of shitskins and negative incentives for employers who refuse to meet their quota of shitskins.

            Employers fill no such quota by passing over a sub-105 IQ white for a 70 IQ Indian or African, or a 95 IQ Chinese.

          • peppermint says:

            (1) Snivel rights are passed by weepy-eyed cuckolds (and, also, kikes) on the grounds that it’s worse for souls to say the word nigger than to be raped by niggers

            (2) it’s impossible for an employer to test employees for intelligence (Griggs v. Duke Power Co) or competence at life-threatening infrastucture tasks (FDNY). Workaround is to demand college degrees, which you do need to be able to write to get

            (3) companies that need workers capable of following simple instructions and don’t want to pay for student loan debt need to hire Indians from India, or Indians in India

            (4) companies that want a factory full of workers capable of following instructions don’t build in the US where there are tons of regulators demanding a cut for pet projects or swipples looking for something to take instagrams of themselves protesting, but build in China.

            (5) companies that need intelligent workers build in countries where it isn’t illegal to hire intelligent workers. Unless the USG likes them enough to ignore the fact that they are making blatantly illegal hiring decisions, like Google used to, back before all the Google stuff went to shit.

            (6) the technical definition of diversity is one minus the percentage of Whites. Yes, they save themselves from the penalties of low diversity (such as swipple protestors backed by regulators) by hiring diversities in the US.

            (7) this is all out in plain sight for anyone to see. The liberals are very proud of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Griggs and FDNY decisions.

          • jim says:

            Of course the reality is that many of these alt right guys, who proclaim the necessity and inescapability of racial inequality, ironically belong to that class of low iq whites who have just been put out of a job by Indian peasants with IQs of 70. In fact it is among these whites that the alt right is most popular.

            Bullshit

            Simply compare the stuff put out by the alt-right, for example pol on 8chan, with the stuff put out by social justice warriors. Who is smarter?

          • Irving says:

            >Bullshit

            >Simply compare the stuff put out by the alt-right, for example pol on 8chan, with the stuff put out by social justice warriors. Who is smarter?

            You know perfectly well that the typical sjw is smarter than the typical guy on the right.

          • Minion says:

            Can’t say I have spent much time on 8chan’s /pol/, but 4chan’s /pol/ are basically filled with liberals who think they are right wing just because they hate Islam (for liberal reasons, of course).

          • pdimov says:

            “You know perfectly well that the typical sjw is smarter than the typical guy on the right.”

            Could you perhaps give a specific example of either kind so that we can compare?

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        How are low IQ (for whites?) white proles losing competition with the third world? I think most Americans would agree that $20k/year is a bad salary in America. How many third world countries’ proles earn that? Or half that?

        White proles demand import restrictions not to take money from the third world but to take money from white elites. It’s a distraction.

        • Irving says:

          The point isn’t that the masses of the third world are out earning white proles. It is that the masses of the third world have gained so much, and the white proles have lost so much, that the white proles have lost all of their self respect. They are suiciding themselves at astonishingly high rates, higher even than blacks, because the current situation is psychologically intolerable for them. Whether rightly or wrongly, they think that they are like the niggers now, and they can’t handle it.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            White proles might have lost the ability to sneer at [parts of] the third world. Really only partially lost it. But they haven’t lost anything in absolute terms, and in fact are still miles ahead in absolute terms.

            White proles want import restrictions so that white elites have to give white proles more of their money. Import restrictions will not re-impoverish the third world.

          • Irving says:

            Come now. White proles are currently holding on for dear life. For all of the alt right’s sneering about welfare dependency among poor blacks, the fact is that the only thing keeping white proles from third world level poverty is the welfare state, their government subsidized health care, their social security, their make-work jobs in the military and police departments, etc.. What’s more is that they know it, and it deeply affects them. What they want are for white elites, like Trump, to put their own interests to the side, and to save them from what awaits them, or if not necessarily them, definitely their children. White proles, now that they have lost their economic superiority over the proles of other races, are upset over the fact that now, there’s nothing from the economic point of view to distinguish them from niggers.

          • Irving says:

            There’s also the access to easy credit that white proles are using to compensate for their significantly diminished earnings as a result of their failure to compete successfully with third world workers.

          • pdimov says:

            “… the fact is that the only thing keeping white proles from third world level poverty…”

            It’s more the other way around, the state is artificially keeping them in poverty, not out of poverty. But this is not easy to prove.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Individual earnings are determined partly by individual qualities (white proles still beat most of the third world) but mostly by the level of capital accumulation in the country in which they live.

            If you seriously think that welfare is stopping white proles from reaching Zimbabwe levels then I am not sure much useful can come of further discussion.

          • pdimov says:

            White proles will not reach Zimbabwe levels even if you put them in Zimbabwe.

          • Irving says:

            >Individual earnings are determined partly by individual qualities (white proles still beat most of the third world) but mostly by the level of capital accumulation in the country in which they live.

            >If you seriously think that welfare is stopping white proles from reaching Zimbabwe levels then I am not sure much useful can come of further discussion.

            My point wasn’t necessarily that donwardly mobile whites are on their way to Zimbabwe level poverty but rather that America is currently wealthy enough that it can compensate the diminished wages of these downwardly mobile whites with various forms of welfare and easy credit.

            This said, the welfare state’s days are, I think, numbered, and so are the days of easy credit for all, and when time is up, expect downwardly mobile whites to be forced into living conditions not very different from what you see among lower class whites in, say, Russia outside of Moscow. Their lives will be ones of stratospherically high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, broken families, poor educational outcomes, and overall misery, although yes, they won’t see crime rates or the kind of material impoverishment that you see in Africa or South Asia.

            My point was also that these downwardly mobile whites are conscious of all of this, and they are pissed. They see themselves inching closer and closer to rates of poverty that have hitherto been reserved for niggers, and this is psychologically painful for them. They want white elites to drop everything and save them, and the behavior of people like Trump exemplifies what they want from other white elites, which is economic populism, protectionism, a more generous welfare state, etc.. And, as far as I can tell, the average alt-right affiliate is, I think, in many ways just a radicalized Trump supporter.

          • Irving says:

            >although yes, they won’t see crime rates or the kind of material impoverishment that you see in Africa or South Asia.

            I forgot to mention that not only will they not see the material impoverishment of Africa and South Asia, in fact obesity rates will likely remain high and will probably increase to some extent among these downwardly mobile whites, until it finally hits a ceiling.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            You are admitting that the elite whites are throwing the lower class whites to the ground so that they can have ten mansions instead of eight and it is the lower class whites that have a problem? They are devastating the lower class whites social and economic order so that they can pay a little bit less for an iPhone and get a slightly better return on their 401(k) and it is lower class whites that are at fault? Lower class whites fail to compete with slave labor and government manipulation because their government outlawed most industrial and agricultural work and has assisted other governments against the lower class whites.

            They have already started to move up the the lower middle class, and even the middle class. Does it need to effect you before it is a problem? You point out that we are going to look like Russia outside of Moscow, and this does not worry you? Do you believe that you will be part of the tiny middle class that is allowed to exist to service the elite’s systems, or are you a mental defective?

            Push out the middle class whites. Where will we land? Among the lower class. Then you have just provided the lower class with an element that is capable of leading and planning, and to whom you have just done an injury. American whites are not Mexicans or Brazilians, and you will not live like the Mexican or Brazilian middle class or elite class does.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Irving says:

            The Shadowed Knight,

            Let’s get something straight. Downwardly mobile whites have all of my sympathy. I don’t say what I’m saying in order to make fun of them, I only want to think through the implications of what is happening to them in a clear and honest way. Of course, I do think the irony of the situation is a tad ironic. Middle and working class whites have hitherto been able to look down on the swarthy masses of the third world, but now that these swarthy masses of the third world are eating their lunch economically, these whites are angry and want Trump to save them from the hordes of Indian peasants that are taking their jobs.

            Also, I don’t think that elite whites are entirely to blame for what is happening to downwardly mobile whites. That they have allowed mass immigration is obviously a major crime, but it is clear that offshoring was just a way to punish the unions for their criminal and exorbitant rent seeking. The reality is that the white middle and working class went to war economically with white elites, and white elites won. White workers failed to adapt to this new reality and now they are really getting creamed.

            As for myself, I’m pretty sure that I’ll do just fine. I’m a single man with a high-IQ and a good education from the most elite universities.

          • Irving says:

            “Of course, I do think the irony of the situation is a tad ironic”

            I meant “a tad amusing”

          • pdimov says:

            “… but now that these swarthy masses of the third world are eating their lunch economically…”

            Swarthy third-worlders are no match for whites, economically or otherwise.

            “The reality is that the white middle and working class went to war economically with white elites, and white elites won. White workers failed to adapt to this new reality and now they are really getting creamed.”

            What possible method of adaptation would you suggest?

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I don’t think downward mobility is significant, if it exists at all. The gap between the US white working class and third world has narrowed overwhelmingly or solely because of improvements in the third world, not regression in the US. The third world has improved because it has mostly abandoned communism.

          • Irving says:

            >Swarthy third-worlders are no match for whites, economically or otherwise.

            When I say that these swarthy third-worlders have utterly out-competed the white working and middle classes of the West, I wasn’t saying it as if it were something that was in doubt. I was simply stating a fact.

            The Latin Americans, Indians and to a lesser extent the post-Soviet countries, and this is not to mention China and South Korea, have totally undermined the economic basis for the comfortable living standards the white working and middle classes once enjoyed in the Western countries. Now, in America, drug and alcohol abuse among these tens if not hundreds of millions of unfortunate whites who have been left behind has sky-rocketed, as has their suicide rates, their rates of homelessness, of divorce, you just name the social pathology and I can assure you that incidences of it have increased dramatically. And this is the case in all Western countries.

            >What possible method of adaptation would you suggest?

            Like, for example, accepting significantly reduced wages. If they did so, at least they’d be employed right now. Of course, much of the reason why they haven’t is because they, like you, mistakenly think that swarthy third worlders are “no match” for them economically, and therefore are under the impression that the industries in which they were once employed actually need them and owe them a comfortable living. Changing this attitude is another thing that would make adaptation to the new economic reality smoother for the white working and middle class.

            For instance, the white working and middle class in America should quit complaining about Mexican immigrants, and they should also quit sitting on their asses while they rely entirely on “disability” payouts to fund their increasingly miserable lives. It would be better for them and everyone else if they simply offered to do the work that the Mexicans are doing for the wages the Mexicans are paid so that employers will stop employing Mexicans and Mexicans will finally stay in Mexico,

          • peppermint says:

            Back when Ronald Reagan was the Ronald Reagan governor of California, he passed the Ronald Reagan no-fault divorce law, which combined with alimony created government enforced cuckoldry.

            Many people continue to believe that Ronald Reagan was a hard right character in the Ronald Reagan Republican Party, not the least because he beat Bush, but also because he convinced the Ronald Reagan White working class Democrats to vote for him by making Ronald Reagan promises to get rid of affirmative action, redlining, and busing. In office, he signed the Ronald Reagan amnesty bill, which created the conditions for tens of millions of Ronald Reagans like Marco Rubio to come expecting amnesty whenever a democratic congress submits a bill to a Ronald Reagan republican, and ensured that the queers weren’t blamed for bringing Ronald Reagan-related Immunodeficiency Syndrome to the US, but be viewed as Ronald Reagan victims since it’s sad that they die, paving the way for parents to be Ronald Reaganed into going along with the sexual mutilation of their own children because it’s sad that Ronald Reagans die.

            One reason the Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan administration is looked back on so Ronald Reaganly is that the Ronald Reagan White working class democrats had jobs, cars, houses, and there were tall buildings, space shuttles, electronics manufacturing in the USA, and bridges that weren’t rusty and cracked on the bottom while no one can hire a White guy to fix it or even a Mexican to paint it without Ronald Reagan amounts of regulatory overhead.

            Today the children of those Ronald Reagan democrats do not have jobs, or need to work much harder for less, while commuting in a Ronald Reagan era car or on a filthy Ronald Reagan-infested bus or train.

            But we have iPads to watch movies where White women date niggers that White men fawn over like Ronald Reagan, so, yeah, if we compare the value of an iPad in gigaflops to a ten thousand dollar Ronald Reagan era computer, we compute that we’re all richer than Ronald Reagan.

            No downward mobility? Go Ronald Reagan yourself.

          • Irving says:

            >I don’t think downward mobility is significant, if it exists at all. The gap between the US white working class and third world has narrowed overwhelmingly or solely because of improvements in the third world, not regression in the US. The third world has improved because it has mostly abandoned communism.

            The white working and middle classes have not only not had a raise in decades, but actually their incomes have significantly decreased, as have their opportunities for gainful and productive employment. To make things worse, they are now forced to pay more than ever for health care, housing, education, you name it. I think evidence of downward mobility is palpable.

            When you add to this the fact that things are dramatically improving for the swarthy masses of the third world (with notable exceptions of course, like in Western and Central Africa), people who the white working and middle classes were once accustomed to look down on and to think of as basically an undifferentiated mass of uncivilized and inferior “muds”, you can see why the latter are now so extremely pissed off. Especially when you consider that one reason why the swarthies are doing better now is because the jobs that the white working and middle classes once did were exported to the swarthies’ countries.

          • pdimov says:

            “Like, for example, accepting significantly reduced wages.”

            As if someone asked them. Significantly reduced wages are against the law, as is not following the rest of laws and regulations that make blue-collar work effectively illegal.

            “It would be better for them and everyone else if they simply offered to do the work that the Mexicans are doing for the wages the Mexicans are paid so that employers will stop employing Mexicans and Mexicans will finally stay in Mexico,”

            You’re parroting talking points. Illegal Mexicans outcompete white workers because the game is rigged in their favor.

            White workers do not have the option of offering anything. They do not set the rules.

          • pdimov says:

            “When you add to this the fact that things are dramatically improving for the swarthy masses of the third world (with notable exceptions of course, like in Western and Central Africa),”

            With notable exceptions like in the third world.

          • Irving says:

            >As if someone asked them. Significantly reduced wages are against the law, as is not following the rest of laws and regulations that make blue-collar work effectively illegal.

            The reason why offshoring became a thing to begin with was because employers got sick of being by extorted by rent seeking factory workers. Once the offshoring began to happen, or right before it happened, was the time when the white working and middle classes should have accepted lower wages and reduced benefits. But they didn’t. They continued to try and extort their employers, and now you see what has become of them.

            >You’re parroting talking points. Illegal Mexicans outcompete white workers because the game is rigged in their favor.

            >White workers do not have the option of offering anything. They do not set the rules.

            When white workers complain about Mexican immigrants, they do so primarily because they rightly realize that Mexican immigrants are putting downward pressure on their wages. Which is to say that these white workers complain about Mexican immigrants precisely because they aren’t willing to accept lower wages. White workers never don’t want to do low-skill jobs for commensurately low wages, they want to do low-skill jobs for incommensurately high wages, and they resent the Mexicans for not allowing them to have their way on this.

          • Irving says:

            >With notable exceptions like in the third world.

            I don’t know what you mean. Life is still tough in the third world, but I’ve done a fair amount of travelling, and I’ve seen for myself the improvements that have been made in the lives of ordinary people in countries like India, Kenya and Mexico.

          • pdimov says:

            “When white workers complain about Mexican immigrants, they do so primarily because they rightly realize that Mexican immigrants are putting downward pressure on their wages. Which is to say that these white workers complain about Mexican immigrants precisely because they aren’t willing to accept lower wages. White workers never don’t want to do low-skill jobs for commensurately low wages, they want to do low-skill jobs for incommensurately high wages, and they resent the Mexicans for not allowing them to have their way on this.”

            This was probably an accurate description of reality 30 or 40 years ago, but I don’t think that it remains such today.

            And in either case, it doesn’t refute what I said in any way. White workers do not have the power to overturn the laws and regulations that make them unemployable.

            White workers overdoing the socialism and killing themselves economically is a thing, it’s just not the thing that is transpiring today.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            “The white working and middle classes have not only not had a raise in decades, but actually their incomes have significantly decreased, as have their opportunities for gainful and productive employment. To make things worse, they are now forced to pay more than ever for health care, housing, education, you name it. I think evidence of downward mobility is palpable.

            “When you add to this the fact that things are dramatically improving for the swarthy masses of the third world (with notable exceptions of course, like in Western and Central Africa), people who the white working and middle classes were once accustomed to look down on and to think of as basically an undifferentiated mass of uncivilized and inferior “muds”, you can see why the latter are now so extremely pissed off. Especially when you consider that one reason why the swarthies are doing better now is because the jobs that the white working and middle classes once did were exported to the swarthies’ countries.”

            I am not disputing that the US white working class has a harder time /looking down on/ the third world. I am disputing that, if the third world were as poor as it was in 1980, anyone would be saying that the US white working class of today is remotely comparable to them. Convergence has been primarily due to third world upward mobility.

            This upward mobility is due to the defeat of communism. The third world is not better off because can export more to the first world than it used to be able to. Even if the PRC and India had been placed under military blockade they would still be far richer than they were in 1980. They have become richer because their own domestic institutions are now much better than they were for facilitating capital accumulation and good management of capital.

          • Irving says:

            Cromwell, I agree that the convergence has been due mainly to improvements in the third world. But I still don’t get why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the standard of living for the white working and middle classes have substantially deteriorated, partially because of the outsources of jobs to the third world.

            pdimov, do you live in America or in any Western country, or do you, as if suggested by your name, live in Russia/Eastern Europe? I ask because I don’t think you fully understand the mentality of the white working and middle classes here in the West. They think manual labor is beneath them and, although they are generally willing to do, they will only do it if they are paid way out of proportion to the work they are doing, and will absolutely demand that they’re employer be generous with the benefits. As well, every politician knows that it would be political suicide if he ever came out and said, “hey everyone, look, mass immigration is a big problem and we’re going to fix it, but in order for us to do so you guys [white workers] are going to have to start working for a living, and for wages that will be much lower than you were once accustomed to receiving”

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I don’t think outsourcing jobs matters at all, but I’m not interested saying why, because I am sure you’ve also read Milton Friedman, and this isn’t the appropriate venue to reel off an undergraduate economics textbook. I don’t know why you think outsourcing reduces wages, but now that we agree that if it has it hasn’t done so much and is not decisive for income convergence, don’t especially care either.

            I don’t live in the US so can’t comment on whether living standards have deteriorated since 1990 or so, but I live in another first world country and haven’t observed that. I concede the confounder that my household income increased significantly in that time.

          • pdimov says:

            I do live in Eastern Europe, but I’ve heard this description of the white American worker’s entitled mentality enough times, so it’s not like I don’t understand it.

            I’m not at all sure that a politician that comes out and states that will not enjoy support.

          • Irving says:

            In case the country you live in is England, you’ll notice that the white underclass there is primarily made up of children and grandchildren of well compensated factory workers whose jobs are not done by indian peasants for a dollar a day. I have no problem with free trade but let’s not deceive ourselves about what it does to unskilled workers with low iqs. For instance, unless we’re going to say that blacks in America are essentially worthless people who would fail to get along under any format of economic organization, we have to admit that much of there problems stem from their inability to find decently paid work, as they once did when they were slaves or during jim crow when they were sharecroppers, in a post industrial economy where all low skilled jobs are done in the third world or by immigrants from the third world.

          • peppermint says:

            What the no downward mobility fags need to figure out how to jewsplain is http://imgur.com/4EdaqVz , the crash in labor force participation rate. Chart is 1948 to present.

            Is it fascination with computers, or how Whites with money are able build suburban sprawl out ever further ever faster, or the fact that convenience stores now sell hot dogs and nachos and fountain drinks in addition to chips and soda?

            You don’t have to go full NatSoc and say that now that marriage is illegal and college takes forever, children, the only true wealthwithout which all wealth is worthless, are out of reach for many Whites, in order to make the case that there is massive downward mobility.

            Just look at Jake Rapp, who only got a barista job because his whore wife put in a good blowjob for him, and has been trying to get in on the coding bootcamp scam because no one told him it exists to give credentials to women and shitskins so they can blackmail non-startups into hiring them. Which is why startups are where all the innovation comes from.

          • peppermint says:

            Oh hey, the old unions killed Detroit line. I’m expected to be surprised about jobs shipped overseas when niggers that are legally mandatory to hire take videos of themselves pissing on the corn flakes conveyor belt. I don’t know how this could be any more clear. Detroit is a nigger city because of niggers.

          • pdimov says:

            “Oh hey, the old unions killed Detroit line.”

            Fun thing is, the Japanese who ate Detroit’s lunch employed white workers.

        • Irving says:

          By the way, what do you mean by “low IQ (for whites?)”? To me anyone with a sub-105 IQ has a low IQ

  7. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    At Radix, Durocher is good. And so are Gregory Hood and Hannibal Bateman.

    • Irving says:

      Ah yes, I forgot about Hood. Another great writer. I’ve a low opinion of Bateman though

    • peppermint says:

      I tried looking for some black pills and the first search result was some bullshit “look at me, I can write lots of words, I am Moldbug” article on Radix

      • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

        Moldbug was/is full of pretentious bullshit.

        Fortunately, some of his erstwhile acolytes have more or less abandoned NRx and embraced the AltRight.

  8. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    I think the smarter cucks are the ones not disavowing or rejecting the AltRight, while the dumb ones are put off.

  9. Jack says:

    TheOccidentalObserver is generally high-quality but I can’t help but notice Andrew Joyce is full of crap. Example 1; he wrote:

    “Language habits within families or nations can therefore not only transmit factual information about the surrounding world to their youth, but also values and perceptions of the world. A useful example might be the fact that all European languages have a word for ‘love’ and a concept of ‘romantic love.’ The word, and the concept it described, emerged from and reinforced a distinctly European value-set and worldview. By contrast, until their nation was opened up to the infant globalist project in the nineteenth century, the Japanese had no word for ‘love,’ nor anything remotely approaching a cultural concept or understanding of romantic love. Only when western novels were translated into Japanese, introducing this most European of concepts, were the Japanese forced to phoneticize the word as ra-bu. Tellingly, it remains rarely used, and the concept as it exists in Japan would be barely recognized by the European.”

    Except it’s just false.

    “Both “ai (愛)” and “koi (恋)” can be roughly translated as “love” in English. However, they have a slightly different nuance in Japanese. To find out more, we will take a look at words containing “ai” or “koi”.

    “Koi” is a love for the opposite sex, or a feeling of longing for a specific person. It can be described as “romantic love” or “passionate love.” While “ai” has the same meaning as “koi,” it also has a definition of a general feeling of love. “Koi” can be selfish, but “ai” is a real love. Here are some lines that explain them well:

    Koi is always wanting. Ai is always giving.

    “Renai (恋愛)” is written with the kanji characters of both “koi” and “ai.” This word means, “romantic love.” “Renai-kekkon (恋愛結婚)” is a “love marriage,” which is the opposite of “miai-kekkon (見合い結婚, arranged marriage).” “Renai-shousetsu (恋愛小説)” is “a love story” or “a romance novel.” The title of the movie, “As Good As It Gets” was translated as “Renai-shousetuska (恋愛小説家, A Romance Novel Writer).”

    “Soushi-souai (相思相愛)” is one of the yoji-jukugo (四字熟語). It means, “to be in love with one another.”

    The Japanese sometimes use the English word “love” as well, though it is pronounced as “rabu (ラブ)” (since there is no “L” or “V” sound in Japanese).”

    Example 2; he wrote:

    “When the International Red Cross visited the camp in June 1944, a period when the war was at its most savage, they found “well-stocked shops, a playing field where young boys kicked a football, a school choir … and benches where old people basked in the sun.””

    In reality:

    “Succumbing to pressure following the deportation of Danish Jews to Theresienstadt, the Germans permitted representatives from the Danish Red Cross and the International Red Cross to visit in June 1944. It was all an elaborate hoax. The Germans intensified deportations from the ghetto shortly before the visit, and the ghetto itself was “beautified.” Gardens were planted, houses painted, and barracks renovated. The Nazis staged social and cultural events for the visiting dignitaries. Once the visit was over, the Germans resumed deportations from Theresienstadt, which did not end until October 1944.

    Danish leaders—from King Christian on down—were insistent that the Danish Red Cross visit the Danish deportees to gather firsthand information on their treatment in Theresienstadt. German diplomats felt that German standing in Denmark and Sweden would deteriorate, to a point harmful to German interested. The Wehrmacht (German armed forces) wanted peace and quiet in Denmark, and the Germans hoped, in Sweden, to continue to import ball bearings needed for the war effort. Under considerable pressure, the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) agreed to consider the matter and, at the end of 1943, ordered the Theresienstadt camp-ghetto authorities to “prepare” the facility. After considerable stalling, the RSHA finally authorized a visit for representatives of the International Red Cross and the Danish Red Cross for June 1944 and ordered the SS staff in Theresienstadt to complete the preparations.

    Elaborate measures were taken to disguise conditions in the ghetto and to portray an atmosphere of normalcy. The SS engaged the Council of Jewish Elders and the camp-ghetto “residents” in a “beautification” program. Prisoners planted gardens, painted housing complexes, renovated barracks, and developed and practiced cultural programs for the entertainment of the visiting dignitaries to convince them that the “Seniors’ Settlement” was real. The SS authorities intensified deportations of Jews from the ghetto to alleviate overcrowding, and as part of the preparations in the camp-ghetto, 7,503 people were deported to Auschwitz between May 16 and May 18, 1944.

    On June 23, 1944, as planned, two delegates from the International Red Cross and one from the Danish Red Cross visited the ghetto, accompanied by Theresienstadt commandant SS First Lieutenant Karl Rahm and one of his deputies. The facility had been “cleaned up” and rearranged as a model village. Hints that all was not well included a bruise under the eye of the “mayor” of the “town,” a part played by Paul Eppstein, the Elders’ Council member representing German Jews. Despite these hints, the International Red Cross inspectors were taken in. This was in part because they expected to see ghetto conditions like those in occupied Poland with people starving in the streets and armed policemen on the perimeter.

    The Jewish administration, under duress from the Germans, treated the visiting delegation to the trial of a person “charged” with theft, which “just happened” to be taking place; a soccer game in the camp square complete with cheering crowds; and a performance of the children’s opera Brundibár, performed in a community hall built specifically for this occasion.

    As a result of preparations for the Red Cross visit, the summer of 1944 was, as one survivor later wrote, “the best time we had in Terezín. Nobody thought of new transports.”

    In the wake of the inspection, SS officials in the Protectorate produced a film using ghetto residents as a demonstration of the benevolent treatment the Jewish “residents” of Theresienstadt supposedly enjoyed. In Nazi propaganda, Theresienstadt was cynically described as a “spa town” where elderly German Jews could “retire” in safety. When the film was completed, SS officials deported most of the “cast” to the Auschwitz-Birkenau killing center. Despite the effort involved in making the propaganda film, the German authorities ultimately decided not to screen it.”

    This ain’t high-quality research Joyce has been conducting.

    • peppermint says:

      (2) So basically, this camp, the Nazis made it look nice for the inspectors, and it looked nice for the inspectors.

      Which contradicts it looking nice for the inspectors how exactly?

      (1) Everyone knows that romantic love, finding The One, and excessive courtship was invented in the 20th century by the Jews to reduce the White birth rate, so of course it would not have been imported to Japan except by accident.

      • Jack says:

        2) Presented in the context of “conditions in the camps were awesome compared to the rest of starving Europe”. Therefore it’s dishonest. It’s a lie by omission. The full paragraph was:

        “As investigations expanded the ring of guilty culprits, efforts were made to separate them from the main ghetto population, to sites like Treblinka. However, despite its sinister reputation, there is now a scholarly consensus that Treblinka was anything but an efficient apparatus for alleged mass killing. Contemporary German reports reveal that the “unloading process was so chaotic and the security so lax that dozens of Jews managed to escape before they even reached the camp.” Cesarani states that many of the escapees from this “death camp” took the rather subdued next step of boarding “trains returning to Warsaw.” Theresienstadt was no more gruesome. One resident, Norbert Troller, recalled that the camp “pulsated with life. There was work and leisure, concerns with sanitation, housing, health care, child care, record keeping, construction, theatre, concerts, lectures, all functioning as well as possible under the circumstances.” Helga Weiss, another resident of Theresienstadt recalled attending class at a children’s home at the camp where she “studied Czech, geography, history and maths.” She also fondly remembers that the children also staged plays in the attic. When the International Red Cross visited the camp in June 1944, a period when the war was at its most savage, they found “well-stocked shops, a playing field where young boys kicked a football, a school choir … and benches where old people basked in the sun.””

        I would have accepted the gist of the narrative were it not for the suspicious and easily debunked last part.

        1) Everyone except professor MacDonald who has claimed throughout Culture of Critique (don’t tell me you haven’t read it) that romantic love is essentially European and foreign to Semitic Jews, who marry for expediency. Which kinda makes sense. See also how ancient Greeks married for love whilst Indians (bindis) married by arrangement. Romantic love is a White rather than Oriental feature. I’ve read my fair share of Manosphere material – courtly love most certainly isn’t a Jewish trick. Though perhaps it’s abused by Jews, but that’s a different argument.

        • Jack says:

          Anyway his argument was that the Japanese had no concept of love at all until the Europeans introduced “love”, mistranslated as “rabu”, to them. Look, East-Asians are autistic robots, but not *that* much. Their concept of love isn’t as romantic as the European one, but it’s not entirely nonexistent to the point of literally having no word for it.

          I want my racist anti-Semitism to be accurate, not so sloppy.

        • Jack says:

          Not that Joyce is a sole culprit here. NRx’s own Moldberg has made a similarly bizarre statement as I have documented here:

          http://blog.jim.com/war/trump-and-israel/#comment-1230508

          Like seriously, you’d expect writers who aren’t(?) paid propagandists to be able to not issue statements directly opposing the truth.

        • peppermint says:

          aw, i was kinda expecting you to say something like “…but the Japs have the same problem the West does”, and then I could be like, “why so eager to insult Germany and Japan, are you still butthurt over WWII”

          I haven’t bothered to read Culture of Critique. Maybe when it comes out on audiobook

          • peppermint says:

            PS re: romantic love, even the creative Whites couldn’t invent a whole new emotion in a few tens of thousands of years. Also arranged marriages aren’t a human invention, in a lot of species there are certain men who have the right to fuck certain women and the woman’s only responsibility is to open her legs for whoever manages to show up, or, where the men fight over the women, only for the guy who won he right to, because he’s sexier.

            Also there are the Putins, who separated when their kids were grown, to contrast with the penguys, who go back to the same life partner in every mating season. http://imgur.com/8dbPEiQ.jpg

          • peppermint says:

            (Putins separated like snowy owls. Everyone knows romantic love is a southern phenomenon 🙂

          • Jack says:

            >I could be like, “why so eager to insult Germany and Japan, are you still butthurt over WWII”

            My butt only hurts over the fact that the good guys (Germans) lost WWII……not intending to condone the despicable atrocities committed by the Nazis or anything, but the Current Year would look infinitely better for the human race if WWII wouldn’t have involved the Western powers….the Brits and French should’ve let Hitler take over Eastern Europe, destroy the scourge of Bolshevism, evacuate the Jews to Palestine or Madagascar, and otherwise they shouldn’t have interfered with the Reich. Alas, look at the state of affairs in Germany today and tell me about Hitler’s Unconventional Progressivism..whatever, every individual in possession of a brain would choose Adolph over Angela.

          • Jack says:

            Nazis were Progressives when judged by 19th century criteria; compared to the “liberal democrats” and the Commies of the day, they were rather right-wing. Currently the issue is not what morality or economic policy the White race should adopt, but rather whether or not the White race should continue to exist….Hitler had a stern conviction regarding this question. The Nazis had sensible fundamental principles even as their implementation was far from optimal……conservatards like the below-quoted Bryce Laliberte would have Whites go extinct because Muh Conservative Values deem every human a potential Westerner based on “principles” promoted by filthy kikes….let’s all convert to Islam so we can fight against homosexual marriage and abortion – LIEBRULS are the real sexist Islamophobes, proclaims bisexual Catholic.

          • pdimov says:

            The right died in WW1, not WW2. Nazis were progressive on every issue imaginable. I’m quite skeptical of the supposedly better $CURRENT_YEAR under German rule. Full Nazi retard would probably have been even crazier than full American retard.

          • Jack says:

            >Nazis were progressive on every issue imaginable. I’m quite skeptical of the supposedly better $CURRENT_YEAR under German rule. Full Nazi retard would probably have been even crazier than full American retard.

            Nazis were relatively Progressive but still more right-wing than the alternatives….a good analogy would be how Trump is a 90s Democrat yet still preferable (Accelerationist position notwithstanding) to those other sleazbags. The Nazis would’ve gotten more tame and moderate with the passing of time if the Occidental powers stayed out of it, would probably figure out that some Slavs and Jews can be reliable allies, etc. Can you seriously entertain the notion of Nazi or post-Nazi Europe letting millions of Niggers in? We’ve seen the worst Nazism had to offer, their “full retard” incarceration — it isn’t much worse than current year shenanigans, is it? But it shouldn’t have ever come to this, the disaster was 100% avoidable. Not excusing all the horrible shit they did, still their vision for humanity was at least vaguely positive, can’t say the same thing about the guys who won. Long stroy short, Nazis were assholes but not crazy.. communism and democracy are self-evidently insane, Nazism isn’t.

          • Jack says:

            Incarceration –> incarnation, fuck off autocorrect.

          • pdimov says:

            “Can you seriously entertain the notion of Nazi or post-Nazi Europe letting millions of Niggers in?”

            No, that’s a WASP thing. Germans are SWPL, hippies, nudists, vegans, environmentalists, and so on.

            “We’ve seen the worst Nazism had to offer, their “full retard” incarnation”

            No, this was a war-only thing. War forces you to keep it real. For full retard, you need peace, prosperity, and r-selection.

            “communism and democracy are self-evidently insane”

            The amusing thing is that Communist countries, nominally extreme left, were pretty right-wing on the order/retard scale. They were left retard only economically. Still progressive at the core, nominally, but there wasn’t much progress going on, so no singularity.

            As I said, after WW1, you had a choice between American progressivism, Nazi progressivism and Communist progressivism.

          • Jack says:

            >No, this was a war-only thing. War forces you to keep it real. For full retard, you need peace, prosperity, and r-selection.

            Fair point. Nevertheless, an elite whose official doctrine has inegalitarianism ingrained into it would make better political choices than one that espouses Enlightenment values. Hitler would be viewed by the Germans the way Mao is viewed by the Chinese — an extremist who may have made calamitous mistakes, yet had his heart in the right place.

            >As I said, after WW1, you had a choice between American progressivism, Nazi progressivism and Communist progressivism.

            But even Ol’ Moldy recognizes that one of these Progressivisms isn’t really like the others. I understand the tactical and emotional considerations leading some alt-righters to reflexively disassociate from Nazism and casually dismiss the whole ideology, and there is substantial merit to the argument that Nazism isn’t truly, purely right-wing, but it’s a fallacy to see everyone to one’s Left as equally Leftist. There are degrees of Leftism and of the three ideologies condemned by NRx as “demotist”, Nazism is the least toxic, albeit it’s toxic indeed.

          • pdimov says:

            The only question for a progressive ideology is whether it’s self-limiting, that is, whether the progress necessarily stops at some point, or proceeds to singularity. It doesn’t matter how it starts.

            Nazism’s failure mode would have been different, no question about it, but it’s my hunch that it might still have proceeded to singularity.

            Although a cold war between Nazi Europe and America might’ve been exactly what the doctor ordered. With a cold war you get all the benefits of a war with none of the drawbacks.

  10. […] provokes conniptions (1, 2, 3), and a poem. Neoliberalism in question (1, 2, 3). The simple source of socialist failure (relevant). The […]

  11. Alrenous says:

    [x]-chan is substantially smarter than SPLC, not dramatically smarter.

    There’s a minimum standard, and they’re not smart enough. http://8ch.net/pol/res/5736380.html (working at submission time). I could Jew the shit out of them if I wanted to.

    If the Cathedral’s true leadership was substantially dumber than [x]-chan, I would be able to Jew the Cathedral. If I can Jew the Cathedral, some sociopath of approximately my abilities would have already done so. Or rather, several in fact already did so, which is a large factor behind the Cathedral’s ‘pathological’ dictates.

  12. morkys says:

    Did you finally ban B and AJP, jim?

    • jim says:

      B tried to argue Russia defeated in Syria – think even he got embarrassed.

      AJP posted umpteen posts about screaming, all of which I deleted on the stated grounds that a much repeated lie will get deleted, and this is not censorship, because twice should suffice.

  13. Corvinus says:

    Lalit…

    “But will an alt-right even be around by the time the left becomes sufficiently terrifying to each other?”

    The better question is who currently on the alt-right has the guile and gumption to take the bull by the horns and lead the revolution, rather than simply wait for the chips to fall and then pounce on the opportunity. 

The alt-right has high IQ types, all right, but their bitch is theory. The practical application on a grand scale? Good luck.

    Irving…

    “Part of the reason why I like this blog so much is because even the trolls, like peppermint, are actually pretty smart.”

    What positions that he has taken from your vantage point are “smart”? This I HAVE to hear…

    “Low-IQ whites need to understand this, and alt-right leaders who promote this lie need to make sure their following of mostly low-IQ whites understand this too.”

    This statement is EXACTLY why the alt-right is doomed to fail. Shaming whites who are low IQ into believing something is other than true. So, how do you propose to ensure that low IQ whites “understand this”?

    • Irving says:

      The point that I was making was that being white doesn’t guarantee one a comfortable standard of living, but that an unfortunately large number of whites, particularly those affiliated with the alt-right, don’t understand this, even though they should. Why do you have a problem with this statement?

      • Corvinus says:

        I don’t have a problem with your statement. My inquiry was how do you propose to ensure that low IQ whites understand that they are not guaranteed a comfortable living because of their race, that the alt-right is merely playing on their fears?

        Also, what makes you believe that Peppermint has a high IQ?

        “And the reality is that many of the leaders are open homos (off the top of my head, I can think of 4, which is a lot) and the straight ones are overwhelmingly homo friendly.”

        Is that why Bryce LaLiberte has been scrubbed as a rising star of neo-reactionary thought? What ever happened to him

        “There are some really smart people who are affiliated with the alt-right, but they are usually outnumbered by a factor of 50:1 by people of mediocre intelligence or else by idiots.”

        So how in the world is the alt-right going to gain any traction in the movement to blow up the entire system if their audience is “dumb” (assuming that your observation is even accurate)?

        • Irving says:

          I don’t think that they will ever accept the truth, especially when people like pdimov, who seems like a high quality guy and who therefore should be their leader, continue to puff them up with false ideas of their innate superioity, telling them that the swarthies are “no match” for them economically.

          Bryce wasn’t as far as I know affiliated with alt right, so he doesn’t count. But yes, there are many alt right affiliates who are or who support sodomized.

          As a populist movement, the alt right is by definition reliant on the support of people with low iqs. If it were to change this, it would no longer be the alt right.

          • pdimov says:

            This is a simple fact. The productivity of the white worker is higher. That’s why white countries have more cargo.

          • Irving says:

            White workers had better be productive considering the extravagant demands they make of their employers. None the less, they can’t be THAT productive if employers are finding it expedient to replace them with swarthies.

          • pdimov says:

            How many times need one say “regulatory burden” for you to hear it?

          • Irving says:

            >How many times need one say “regulatory burden” for you to hear it?

            How many times must I say “regulatory burden for which the white working and middle classes enthusiastically support and whose role was decisive in their creation” for you to hear it?

            How many times must I say “the white working and middle classes will lynch the first politician who comes along and says that the minimum wage should be abolished” for you to hear it?

          • peppermint says:

            …and we’re back where we started, again: the Civil Rights Act, still supported by cucks like Corvinus. Which can be repealed incrementally by the DoJ refusing to allow lawsuits, however, repeal and removal of tradmed from Jew hands is no longer a precondition for a frank conversation about race, since we have the Internet now.

          • Jack says:

            Speaking of Bryce…

            https://amtheomusings.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/family-immigration-and-conservatives/

            “I don’t do much blogging about these sorts of political issues, I don’t talk about things like the GOP primaries or piddling liberals, but this is the kind of thing that has come to my heart recently. I’ve been giving more thoughts on issues like gay marriage and immigration, and the article happens to touch on an intersection of these issues, in a tangential way but significant way.

            Conservatives typically have these views; they are pro-family/pro-marriage and opposed to gay marriage, while also being very antagonistic to immigration. I don’t really identify as conservative (nor do I identify as liberal), but I think this article actually illustrates a serious problem with the confluence of these views. If one is going to be very antagonistic to immigration, the breaking up of families is a natural result. But aren’t conservatives supposed to be pro-family? It seems that the pro-family position of the conservative would lead to them being very welcoming of immigrants; the majority of immigrants are poor, Christian men and women who are also very interested in the concerns of the family and opposed to government meddling in families.

            Liberals have co-opted the cause of immigration in their liberal way (i.e. rather than reforming immigration laws, they just prefer to welcome illegal immigrants, which is problematic itself) in order to benefit their own causes, which is rather mystifying when it comes down to it. Most immigrants hold conservative values; they are opposed to abortion and gay marriage. They are strongly Christian. Even if they might be less consistently conservative where it comes to other issues of domestic and foreign policy, there’s no reason to believe that they might not be welcomed into the country and the conservative political position if only conservatives would welcome them with open arms. Instead, conservatives have been the enemy of poor immigrants who just want to benefit of America’s wonderful freedom, opportunity, and living standard (which, I will note, would not come at the expense of Americans already living here), corralling them into the liberal political position because the liberals are willing to throw them a bone once in a while.

            So, if anything, it seems that the conservative position would imply a very strong pro-immigration position. We should be welcoming of immigrants, we should make it so much easier to become an American and benefit of its freedoms and societal values.

            But, so the conservative might object, immigrants bring their own values which aren’t necessarily assimilatable to our own.

            I think this is rather overblown. If anything, the worse values come out of immigrants precisely because those who hold law-abiding values aren’t welcomed, leaving us with those who don’t care so much about obeying the law. If there were more law-abiding citizens in the immigrant populations, then there would be better values expressed in the immigrant subcultures.

            Further, I believe that when someone is more welcoming, their guests will show more respect. Being much more welcoming to immigrants might not only make those who are already immigrating more likely to become useful and productive members of our society, it might help to convince many others who would like to immigrate, bringing with them their own conservative values that you’d think conservatives would value.

            Instead, conservatives prefer to push out immigrants who bring with them their pro-family values, and we break up their families. Why? It makes no sense. This demonstrates that there is a possible pro-immigration position rooted in conservative values which is beneficial to conservatives in politics. So you’d think it should be adopted.”

          • pdimov says:

            “How many times must I say “regulatory burden for which the white working and middle classes enthusiastically support and whose role was decisive in their creation” for you to hear it?”

            Can you back this statement up? Which specific parts of the regulatory burden are, in your opinion, the fault of the white worker? Is the EEOC, for instance, which demands 40% women and 9% blacks, a creation of the white worker? Are the environmental regulations that are impossible to meet without cheating a creation of the white worker?

            “How many times must I say “the white working and middle classes will lynch the first politician who comes along and says that the minimum wage should be abolished” for you to hear it?”

            Is the white worker behind the recent push for $15/hr? I’m not seeing him. I see the usual suspects.

            All right, I’m here and you’re there, so my understanding may be off. Do you by any chance have links to supporting material that would set me straight?

          • Irving says:

            >Can you back this statement up? Which specific parts of the regulatory burden are, in your opinion, the fault of the white worker? Is the EEOC, for instance, which demands 40% women and 9% blacks, a creation of the white worker? Are the environmental regulations that are impossible to meet without cheating a creation of the white worker?

            The EEOC, which was by the way created by heterosexual white men, is not the root cause of the woes of the white worker. Circa 1950, white workers were stably and gainfully employed. But, much of their income was based on the extortion done on their behalf by the unions, as well as a closed immigration policy. The employers eventually got fed and shipped the jobs of the white workers to the third world, while also working to open the US’ immigration policy so as to displace white workers from jobs that were non-exportable. Now what has happened is that the labor laws are filled with holdover regulations imposed on employers in previous days by the unions (i.e. the minimum wage, the 8-hour work day, child labor laws, etc.) which have no place in the modern economy. Now, the employers want these laws to stay because it gives them an excuse to continue to offshore jobs and to encourage immigration. The rub however is that the white workers also want these laws to stay because they see those laws as being on their side, when in reality it is those laws which are keeping them out of a job.

            Where the EEOC and such things are concerned, well, the truth is that they don’t affect the white worker all that much. In practice, affirmative action programs in America really only matter when it comes to admission into the elite universities, and after that the race- and gender- based quotas relating to employment in the professions.

            >Is the white worker behind the recent push for $15/hr? I’m not seeing him. I see the usual suspects.

            The $15/hr crowd is largely made of black and Hispanic fast-food workers. The white worker hasn’t stooped that low, yet–he still has his subsidized health care, social security, pension, easy credit, etc., to rely on.

          • peppermint says:

            Jobs began to be shipped overseas in the ’90s, not the ’50s. Look at the labor force participation chart, which flatlines then but for the dotcom bubble whose collapse reversed the ’90s gains and caused the Bush Years. That’s because it was driven by illegality of hiring people who won’t piss on the corn flake conveyor belt and film themselves doing it, not unions demanding higher pay.

          • Irving says:

            >Jobs began to be shipped overseas in the ’90s, not the ’50s.

            Read carefully: I never said that offshoring began in the ’50s. And in any case, General Motors was offshoring as early as the late ’70s, as far as I know. But this needs to be investigated.

            >Look at the labor force participation chart, which flatlines then but for the dotcom bubble whose collapse reversed the ’90s gains and caused the Bush Years.

            The entry of women into the workforce in the early ’80s simply masks the consistently decreasing labor force participation rate for men since the ’70s. There was a flatline through the ’90s due to the fact that there wasn’t third sex to bring into the workforce.

          • pdimov says:

            “Circa 1950, white workers were stably and gainfully employed. But, much of their income was based on the extortion done on their behalf by the unions, as well as a closed immigration policy.”

            That’s not how it works. The income of the worker is based on what he produces. If he produces, say, one car per month, he simply can’t be paid more than one car per month, no matter what the unions and the immigration policy. When he pushes his luck too far, his employer goes broke and he loses his job. Socialism is self-limiting.

            That’s even more true in a country like the US where there’s internal economic competition between states.

            There was nothing wrong with the working class up to somewhere around 1970. I wonder what might have happened to cause that.

            https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg

            Could it have been federal regulations? Passed somewhere around 1964, perhaps? Followed by landmark cases such as Griggs v. Duke Power Co.?

            No, it must have been the evil white worker, who inexplicably turned more evil.

            In fairness, it could also have been something passed in 1965. But even so, productivity and wages diverge. This does not support the theory that the white worker wanted wages incommensurate with his productivity, while swarthy foreigners were more realistic.

            “The $15/hr crowd is largely made of black and Hispanic fast-food workers.”

            I don’t think so. You’re told that it’s for their benefit, yes, but they are not the proponents of the policy.

            “The white worker hasn’t stooped that low, yet”

            So the white worker is not the cause of the increasing minimum wage. Which is what I said.

            “Where the EEOC and such things are concerned, well, the truth is that they don’t affect the white worker all that much.”

            They affect his employer who is legally mandated to do this, that, and those other things to keep the EEOC off his back, and this costs money that could have gone to the white worker.

            So the employer packs his bags and moves to a country without EEOC. Not because the swarthy third-worlders are some paragons of productivity.

            Now that China offers both competent workers and no EEOC, there’s not much demand for swarthy third-worlders.

          • Irving says:

            Pdimov, I’ll shortly respond in full to your last post, but let me ask you this: what in your opinion is the real value of the labor of white workers in this economic environment? Whatever your answer is, assuming it’s one based on an honest assessment of the facts, let me assure you that white workers will never accept it, and will unionize vs. Any employer who would have them accept it.

          • pdimov says:

            Roughly,

            Amount produced == costs + wages + regulatory overhead + profit

            In this economic environment, at the low end I wouldn’t be surprised if costs + minimum wage + regulatory overhead exceeds amount produced, which means that the workers are simply unemployable.

            As I said, employment at the low end is basically illegal.

            If we assume a free market, the ‘value’ of the worker is roughly amount produced – production costs – administrative overhead – capital costs, and they will unionize and negotiate roughly that amount (if they insist on exceeding it, the employer would go bankrupt.)

          • peppermint says:

            Griggs v. Duke Power Co was 1971. Divergence on pdimov’s chart appears two years later in 1973.

            40 hour work week was 1937, not 1973.

          • peppermint says:

            https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

            1973 was when labor force participation rate took off and when those lines diverged.

            The last time the balance of trade was neutral was the early ’90s

            http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

          • pdimov says:

            $10/hr federal is an economic war against the white worker in the flyover states, as the market minimum wage there is less than 10, whereas the market minimum wage in the coastal states is more.

            Had the white worker been behind this, you’d expect the proponents to have been in the flyovers – supposing that they are economically illiterate and think that raising the minimum will benefit them. But instead, we’re seeing the proponents being at the coasts, where the negative effect will be minimal. Imagine that.

            $15/hr is holiness competition, also not typical of white male workers.

            The theory that globalism will equalize wages worldwide is, well, equalist. Wages are determined by productivity, they are not a constant number of something/hr. Inequality is, and equality isn’t. Porsche makes its cars in Germany, instead of employing magic negroes for 100x less. There is a reason for that.

          • Corvinus says:

            Irving…

            “Also, I don’t think that elite whites are entirely to blame for what is happening to downwardly mobile whites. That they have allowed mass immigration is obviously a major crime…”

            Major crime to whom?

            “but it is clear that offshoring was just a way to punish the unions for their criminal and exorbitant rent seeking.”

            Workers have the liberty to demand what they believe they are worth, similar to employers having the liberty to offer compensation to workers based on their own measuring of the situation.

            There was nothing “criminal” for the working classes to formally organize and work toward minimum wages and benefits in order to move upwardly in society AND call the government into action to reign what they viewed as unfettered “capitalist” enterprise.

            “The reality is that the white middle and working class went to war economically with white elites, and white elites won.”

            Won what? Federal regulatory action began in earnest in the late 1800’s with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. While the statutory language was vague, an effort was made to curtail the recklessness of “robber barons”. The TR, Taft, and Wilson Administrations, on the behalf of citizen groups, worked tirelessly to put in place mechanisms to ensure a level playing field, one that the lower and middle classes, through hard work and sacrifice, could have at the bare minimum an opportunity to advance in society. Hundreds of acts that put elites in their place is hardly “losing”.

            “As for myself, I’m pretty sure that I’ll do just fine. I’m a single man with a high-IQ and a good education from the most elite universities.”

            Sure you will.

            “It would be better for them and everyone else if they simply offered to do the work that the Mexicans are doing for the wages the Mexicans are paid so that employers will stop employing Mexicans and Mexicans will finally stay in Mexico.”

            Easy for you say given your own “elite” status. Tell you what, why don’t you follow your own advice and dig ditches for a living at the wages you believe everyone else ought to earn.

            “Once the offshoring began to happen, or right before it happened, was the time when the white working and middle classes should have accepted lower wages and reduced benefits. But they didn’t. They continued to try and extort their employers, and now you see what has become of them.”

            In essence, white workers should take it in the ass for their employers. Be paid what someone else thinks they are worth. Praytell, why would not drug and alcohol abuse, suicides, homelessness, etc. exponentially rise if white workers took your “advice”?

            “They think manual labor is beneath them and, although they are generally willing to do, they will only do it if they are paid way out of proportion to the work they are doing, and will absolutely demand that they’re employer be generous with the benefits.”

            Do you not as an alleged high IQ white male seek to be paid accordingly? Is it not the liberty of people to put forth their right of association by organizing?

            “But, much of their income was based on the extortion done on their behalf by the unions, as well as a closed immigration policy.”

            There was no extortion taking place. There were negotiations that took place between workers and their employers. They went back and forth regarding pay and benefits.

            “The employers eventually got fed and shipped the jobs of the white workers to the third world while also working to open the US’ immigration policy so as to displace white workers from jobs that were non-exportable.”

            I didn’t realize that India, Bangladesh, Mexico, and Taiwan were “white”.

            Indeed, American companies began to outsource as the means to exercise their own liberty to free themselves of what they deemed to be excessive regulations at the federal and state level, as well as perceived unacceptable levels of taxation. Add to the mix increasing production and energy costs. Hilarious, however, that executive pay in the United States in 2007 was more than 400 times more than average workers—a gap 20 times bigger than it was in 1965.

            So, what do these heads of business actually produce? That is, what goods do they individually make?

            “Now what has happened is that the labor laws are filled with holdover regulations imposed on employers in previous days by the unions (i.e. the minimum wage, the 8-hour work day, child labor laws, etc.) which have no place in the modern economy.”

            
Tell that to the majority of workers in this country.

            pdimov…

            “White workers do not have the option of offering anything. They do not set the rules.”

            White workers today lack motivation to make systemic change. There are too many distractions. Moreover, they live relatively comfortable. Furthermore, there brethren had set the rules—40 hour work week, minimum wage, workers compensation.

            “Wages are determined by productivity, they are not a constant number of something/hr.”

            Corrected for accuracy —> Wages are determined by perceived productivity and expected level of competency to achieve that level of perceived productivity, with workers and employers each having a “wage in mind” reflective of that skill and experience.

            “The income of the worker is based on what he produces. If he produces, say, one car per month, he simply can’t be paid more than one car per month, no matter what the unions and the immigration policy.”

            
Except your scenario is overly simplistic. Automobile plant workers do not make one car by themselves.

            “So the white worker is not the cause of the increasing minimum wage. Which is what I said.”

Depends on context. White workers prior to no federal or state minimum wage laws demanded such legislation be enacted. During the New Deal, a standard, and the process to meet that standard, was met.

            You are going to also have to define “white worker” here. Do you mean skilled or non-skilled? Those who fall below the poverty line or above it?

            According to this source (2013), nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. It does not state their race. Perhaps this group in particular has been pushing for an increase. What evidence do you have to indicate that white workers are NOT at the forefront?

            http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/10.10.14-UpdatedMinimumWageFactSheet.pdf

          • pdimov says:

            “According to this source (2013), nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women.”

            It’s obvious from context that when Irving says “white worker” he means “white male worker”.

          • pdimov says:

            “There was no extortion taking place. There were negotiations that took place between workers and their employers.”

            That, plus maiming and killing strikebreakers and forcing workers to join unions against their will via various legal and not-so-legal means.

        • peppermint says:

          Fuck off, Corvinus. He realized what he was getting into and left of his own volition and we have been careful to avoid mentioning him especially by name to respect his decision hoping he would be able to quietly move on. SJWs like you, of course, have no sense of decency.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Fuck off, Corvinus. He realized what he was getting into and left of his own volition and we have been careful to avoid mentioning him especially by name to respect his decision hoping he would be able to quietly move on. SJWs like you, of course, have no sense of decency.”

            How cuckian of you to protect your ally. So, Roy Cohn, as long as someone is a useful tool to the movement, their homoerotic tendencies are met with indifference. Funny, since your boy Hitler had sodomites murdered. Hilarious, because you incessantly talked about being repulsed by little boys having their nuts cut off and turned into little girls.

            So, sweaty buttsex in essence from your world view is met frowned upon. How quaint. It’s hypocritical for the neoreactionary crowd to refuse to call out their own members who engage in deviant behavior only because their meanderings pander to the base.

            Talk about indecency!

          • peppermint says:

            He’s autistic, cucktholic, and thought that he could defend his truth claims in the future by claiming that he never wrote anything he didn’t believe in. It was stupid and shortsighted of him to be a namefag, but he was early 20s. He left, and is trying to excuse his past by pleading degeneracy; when Hillary bans freedom forever and gets the CIA to leak my name, I’ll be a tranny too. The Internet is full of degenerates and the only reason he’s on our radars is that he used to post interesting stuff, so there’s no reason to mention him, not even as a cautionary tale of what cucktholicism leads to, because there’s the pope for that.

          • Jack says:

            Michael Anissimov started out as a vegan, radical pro-democracy (including supporting “voting rights” for animals and robots), consistent pro-transsexual, anti-theist, anti-ageist, anti-racist, anti-conservative, pro-Feminist, extreme individualist, and of course transhumanist – well look at him now, not even the lowest anime-obsessed neo-Nazis on Twitter would have him, he’s done forever.

            Essentially, everyone who attempts to be leaderfag or doesn’t take the necessary precautions to prevent self-doxxing, without first getting his shit together and making his position and reasoning clear, wounds up bullycided by trolls such as myself. It’s remarkable that our host Jim, Moldbug, and Land all started out as leftists – but they got their shit together and therefore can be taken seriously today, unlike some other types infesting the alt-right.

            To be leaderfag you have to come clean about your history and past positions. There’s some individual in the NRx movement, not gonna explicitly doxx him here but we all know exactly who he is, who used to be into polyamory (literal cuck) and advocated various degenerate and anti-social ideas, himself being a bisexual autist who revealed his masturbatory preferences on tumblr and openly engaged in PUA, etc. (Google “Jews Behind NRx part 2”) Has he come clean about everything he believed and engaged in? Nope. He continues to LARP as a semi-official leaderfag of NRx, but this bomb is ticking fast. Bryce, Anissimov, and this individual are exactly the kind of people you don’t want as leaderfags; alas, here we are.

          • pdimov says:

            – to be a leaderfag you have to be a namefag
            – to be a namefag you have to be not afraid of the Eye of Sauron, which would make you either stupid or Vox Day, Pax Dickinson or maybe Peter Thiel
            – autists make neither good leaders nor good followers

            Myself, I’m content with thinking of NRx as words and not people, so lack of leaderfags doesn’t bother me much.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Myself, I’m content with thinking of NRx as words and not people, so lack of leaderfags doesn’t bother me much.”

            Words which unless have a “leaderfag” or “namefag” at the head of the line to put them into motion is utterly impotent.

            “The Internet is full of degenerates and the only reason he’s on our radars is that he used to post interesting stuff, so there’s no reason to mention him, not even as a cautionary tale of what cucktholicism leads to, because there’s the pope for that.”

            

Right, because at one point in time he was useful, but because he is now considered an anchor to the movement, he must be cast aside. Some honor among brothers.

            “It’s remarkable that our host Jim, Moldbug, and Land all started out as leftists – but they got their shit together and therefore can be taken seriously today, unlike some other types infesting the alt-right.”

            Exactly why neo-reactionarism is a wet dream, as if it will inevitably take the world by storm when America experiences its bloody civil war by 2033.

            “Bryce, Anissimov, and this individual are exactly the kind of people you don’t want as leaderfags; alas, here we are.”

            Who made YOU the official gatekeeper of this (leaderless) movement? Is that not for the toadies, I mean adherents, to decided individually and collectively?

            Bryce was hailed by a number of prominent members of NRx and the alt-right as being philosophically brilliant. Now, he’s gone merely because of his alleged deviancy?

          • pdimov says:

            “Words which unless have a “leaderfag” or “namefag” at the head of the line to put them into motion is utterly impotent.”

            What is the supposedly potent alternative you envisage?

          • Jack says:

            >Who made YOU the official gatekeeper of this (leaderless) movement? Is that not for the toadies, I mean adherents, to decided individually and collectively?

            Dude. Come on. Bryce, Mike, and the other one aren’t leaderfag material. Bryce was at least decent enough to not pretend to be a leaderfag, mere namefag. But Mike literally called himself “leader of #NRx” while the other one, stereotypically devoid of any self-awareness, still writes articles telling people to “pursue virtue” and “buiiiiiiiild” when everyone can see his closet has more skeletons than a Dinosaur Museum (it’s the same closet he almost came out of). The incessant trolling is warranted.

            >Bryce was hailed by a number of prominent members of NRx and the alt-right as being philosophically brilliant. Now, he’s gone merely because of his alleged deviancy?

            Bryce is a genius but his personality flaws lead to the lulzy bullyciding, and let’s just say he miserably, epically failed the shit test. With more testicular fortitude he could withstand the onslaught of trolling, but he’s a delicate soul, so he ragequit in horror. In short: he wasn’t banished due to the SSA, but exiled himself because a blogger revealed his SSA and subsequently someone* made fun of Bryce on /aristoi/.

            *guess who, goyim? [handrubbing intensifies]

          • Corvinus says:

            “Bryce, Mike, and the other one aren’t leaderfag material.”

            Are you “leaderfag” material? Or are you just here for the snacks?

            “But Mike literally called himself “leader of #NRx” while the other one, stereotypically devoid of any self-awareness, still writes articles telling people to “pursue virtue” and “buiiiiiiiild” when everyone can see his closet has more skeletons than a Dinosaur Museum (it’s the same closet he almost came out of). The incessant trolling is warranted.”

            Ok, why was it warranted from your perspective? Spell it out for us.

            Bryce wasn’t trolled. Those Nx’ers pointed out his epic “flaw”, which is a detriment to the cause.

            
“In short: he wasn’t banished due to the SSA, but exiled himself because a blogger revealed his SSA and subsequently someone* made fun of Bryce on /aristoi/.”



            Assuming that he had more guile and guts to withstand the onslaught, would he still have been welcomed back to the Haven despite his “issue”?

          • Jack says:

            >Ok, why was it warranted from your perspective? Spell it out for us.

            When someone’s being ridiculous but “lives and lets live”, he’s usually left alone. When some autistic namefag quotes from Isaiah 55:8 and applies it to himself, it calls for an intervention; in-TROLL-vention in this case.

            >Bryce wasn’t trolled.

            I was there you irredeemable retard, of course he was trolled. (I may or may not be the one who trolled him by starting all those threads. Regardless of the identity of the troll, I can safely assure you that like the lampshading of the seven trillion, it was committed exclusively for the sake of the lulz)

            >Assuming that he had more guile and guts to withstand the onslaught, would he still have been welcomed back to the Haven despite his “issue”?

            Yes. He told NBS that the bisexuality was a “phase”, and this unlikely explanation was actually accepted.

          • Corvinus says:

            “When someone’s being ridiculous but “lives and lets live”, he’s usually left alone. When some autistic namefag quotes from Isaiah 55:8 and applies it to himself, it calls for an intervention; in-TROLL-vention in this case.”

            

So you chose to become publicly involved (allegedly) in a situation that required internal handling. Interesting.

            “I was there you irredeemable retard.”



            Maybe you were, maybe you weren’t. The track record regarding honesty is less than stellar.

            “…at like the lampshading of the seven trillion, it was committed exclusively for the sake of the lulz)”

            So, what else do you do for kicks?

            >Assuming that he had more guile and guts to withstand the onslaught, would he still have been welcomed back to the Haven despite his “issue”?

            “Yes. He told NBS that the bisexuality was a “phase”, and this unlikely explanation was actually accepted.”

            So, even if one of the members of the Haven personally acknowledges they are morally degenerate, they are still accepted, because they back the cause, even though that ideology calls for the morally degenerate to be shunned, at best, and conveniently disposed of, at worst. What a racket!

  14. Alrenous says:

    Going way off topic, what do you make of these charts, Jim?

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-crude-oil-production-charts/

    OPEC has increased oil production, but I wouldn’t think it’s enough to cause the observed crash in oil prices.

  15. Jack says:

    Irving’s correct.

    Facebook, twitter, tumblr and clickbait-rag liberals are dumbasses, but the serious left-wing intellectuals occupying academia sweatlessly outsmart most of the alt-right “thought leaders” whose articles/books are 10% research and 90% armchair conjecture. I know irl a few Jews with IQs higher than mine, their political views range from tentatively liberal to literal Communist.

    Leftist intellectuals suffer from wilful ignorance, not low IQ. They refuse to learn the bitter truth about innate race/sex differences and The Religion of Peace because it makes them uncomfortable. The alt-right is higher than average on the autism scale, hence people with vast knowledge about very very specific subjects and little to no knowledge of anything else… Leftist professors can destroy any /pol/tard from a myriad unexpected directions, like a ninja.

    The strength of the alt-right isn’t high IQ, but emotionless observational prowess – noticing that O’brian isn’t holding 5 fingers, and telling him as much to his face. Thus, Dark Triad types and autists. When former leftists become right-wing, they quickly outdo the “natural” rightists – not a coincidence!

    • peppermint says:

      The kind of intelligence needed in science is the intelligence to see what’s there and say so, while the kind of intelligence needed in politics is the intelligence to create memes, i.e. see what’s there and say so. And the kind of intelligence needed in engineering is to see what’s there and say so, and in software development, catching bugs means… seeing what’s there and saying so.

      The scarecrow couldn’t be given a brain, but he could be given a PhD. Which, I guess, made him scarier?

      • Jack says:

        Like Byzantine scholastics and Talmudists, they see what’s there and say so — problem is, “there” is an altogether imaginary realm. And all too often, they simply refuse to look there. In their respective fields of study such as physics and medicine, they’re fucking brilliant. On the subject of “race and behavior” they refuse to dwell, and if occasionally they stumble upon wrongfacts, they keep it to themselves out of fear. Ergo only people discussing wrongfacts are Dark Triad or lacking in social status or autistic or conspirational weirdos who crave the arcane. Everyone else simply refuses to “look there” at all, perhaps because they sense what they’ll find — it’s crimestop all the way down.

      • Jack says:

        They can tell you exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – but there are no angels, and there is no pin, and they’re being massively cucked. Basically academic leftism is the most sophisticated (((distraction))) ever devised to prevent high IQ folks from rocking — utterly sinking, that is — the proverbial boat.

      • Jack says:

        The more dumb leftists aren’t immune to this intellectual trap – far from it. They can tell you exactly how many “gender identities” there are (infinity) and write articles with headlines such as “the toxic phallic symbology of the aeroplane” conveying to the masses a crude version of whatever the evil bastards at academia tell them to, but because they really are dumb (IQ below 110) it’s really more of an exercise in prolfeeding fellow strivers in between twitting pics of their cats & homemade vegan meals…at least the smartypants professors get laid with their students…..this group of activists and professional bloggers who read the Jew York Time religiously (in both senses of the word) is one sad pathetic bunch lacking basic originality and carrying emotional issues in abundance. One would expect these losers to get a clue but people within the 100-110 IQ range can’t tell between shit that’s fo’ real nigga and shit that is not, in fact, fo’ real but sounds nice.

  16. R7_Rocket says:

    The Cathedral is contemplating a pre-emptive impeachment of The Donald:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-impeachment-213817

  17. anonymous says:

    ((Irving)) ?

  18. Jack Highlands says:

    (((Irving)))

    • peppermint says:

      sure, but that’s not necessarily why he reflexively blames the White working class for everything bad that happens to them

      • pdimov says:

        pdimov’s law: everyone is bluepilled on at least one topic.

      • Irving says:

        I’m not a Jew, and I don’t reflexively blame the white working class for everything bad that has happened to them.

        • Irving says:

          More to the point, I believe that what has happened to the white working and middle classes is the result of a combination of factors. The depravity of the elites, who allowed and encouraged mass immigration and who also supported and continue to support all kinds of destructive policies (i.e. the toleration of homosexual sodomy) which by their very nature completely undermine the masses, and in many cases (such as feminism) have a directly adverse impact on their economic position, is one factor. Another factor has been technological advance which has, along with the entry of billions of third worlders into the global labor market, considerably reduced the dependence of capital on labor, especially on unskilled labor in the first world. A fourth factor, finally, is the stupidity and the selfishness of the white working and middle classes themselves, who think that because they are white they deserve a comfortable living, no matter what, and who for this reason and others refused to quit trying to extort their employers to such an extent that compromise became impossible.

          • Irving says:

            I only emphasize the role that the white working and middle classes have had in this process because no one else wants to even mention it. WNs and alt-righters want to pretend as whites are always the victims, whereas in this case there is plenty of blame that ought to be heaped on the heads of whites themselves. It isn’t the niggers’ or the jews’ fault that the unions were as irresponsible and selfish as they were, after all.

          • pdimov says:

            It’s arguable to what extent, if any, today’s unions even represent the interests of the white worker, except by mistake.

          • Irving says:

            >It’s arguable to what extent, if any, today’s unions even represent the interests of the white worker, except by mistake.

            As far as I can tell, they don’t, but they don’t have power anymore anyway. But it doesn’t matter. The error was made once and for all, and now unskilled labor is done exclusively by third world swarthies. Soon, those third world swarthies will be replaced by machines, and so unskilled white workers — which is to say, the overwhelming majority of white workers — have lost out for good.

          • peppermint says:

            The tech industry in the US is currently under attack for failure to comply with the regulatory demands that were placed on manufacturing. Which is the reason for H1B tech workers, and outsourcing of tech jobs.

            But we’re expected to believe that it being illegal to hire competent workers had no role in manufacturing companies refusing to hire workers in the US.

            http://blog.jim.com/war/on-successful-revolution/#comment-1250433

          • pdimov says:

            The point is though that unions lost power/stopped representing the white worker before the point at which white labor was replaced by immigrants or foreigners. So it’s not their fault.

            As for “replaced by machines”, humans are actually more efficient, energy-wise, for a wide variety of unskilled tasks. They only lose out to capital because the cost of labor has been artificially inflated. And that’s not even taking welfare into account.

        • Irving says:

          >When Henry Louis Gates opens his mouth to speak ex tempore, it is transparently obvious that he did not get his degree fair and square. Short sentences, limited vocabulary, expressing simple concepts.

          These are sheer claims on your part. Your saying one thing, I’m saying another. You approach the question is if your answer is the only defensible one, whereas I am telling you that I’ve actually met the guy in person, and although I was not very impressed by him, he didn’t strike me as being dumb, or else considerably less intelligent than one would expect considering his academic credentials. What he did seem to me to be was incredibly fake. I could tell that he was inflecting his voice in that way that he has deliberately, so as to sound ‘blacker’, kind of like how Obama does when he’s giving a speech to a black audience.

          >It is obvious that he is incapable of that. Tell me, what languages can he read?

          It is not obvious that he is incapable of that. Given the degree that he did, he must at least be able to read French and German, but if not both definitely one of them.

          >He does not even read English well enough to adequately paraphrase other people’s scholarly work.

          Again, you have only one excerpt, and in fact it isn’t even clear that that one excerpt proves anything.

          >And, by the way, Chomsky can barely read French, though I am sure Chomsky can read some foreign languages, unlike Gates. When he criticized “Year Zero” he committed numerous howlers.

          My understanding is that the only foreign language that Chomsky knows is Hebrew, and he claims to have forgotten it, although he says he can still read it.

          • jim says:

            >When Henry Louis Gates opens his mouth to speak ex tempore, it is transparently obvious that he did not get his degree fair and square. Short sentences, limited vocabulary, expressing simple concepts.

            These are sheer claims on your part.

            I quote from him extensively. You don’t.

            First you tube video that comes up when I search for Henry Louis Gates confirms it. His job at Harvard is simply muscle – pointing young violent black men in the right direction – Harvard’s connection to thugs. Obviously he is capable of reading scholarly sources, unlike the typical black thug, though not capable of paraphrasing them, but his primary job is to be a bridge between academy and thugs, to have a connection to both worlds, to sic the goons on people when the overclass needs to use its underclass allies.

            It is not obvious that he is incapable of that. Given the degree that he did, he must at least be able to read French and German, but if not both definitely one of them.

            If able to read one of them, should quote or cite sources in that language. He regularly uses paragraphs lifted almost wholesale from white English scholarly sources. Where does he use German or French scholarly sources.

          • pdimov says:

            “Given the degree that he did, he must at least be able to read French and German…”

            Clearly he must. He has a degree, after all. Checkmate racists.

    • Irving says:

      Jim, Jack Highlands precisely exemplifies the point that I was making about the alt-right. ~80 percent of the alt-right is exactly like him. Are you really going to say that Jack Highlands is smarter than the average Harvard-educated Jewish sjw?

      • Jack Highlands says:

        My father did his PhD at Harvard. My doctorate is from a slightly less prestigious institution, but not by much.

        • Irving says:

          You do not have a doctorate, don’t lie

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Pray (((contend))) further on what liars we are, we Men of the West.

          • Irving says:

            You are so dumb that you aren’t even capable, as an anonymous commenter on a blog, of lying to people about your academic credentials without being exposed.

            Don’t “man of the West” me. You are an idiot and a liar. Defenders of the West will not make one bit of progress until they purge people like you from their ranks. If the alt-right types are ever to succeed in creating their ethno-state, they must make sure that people like you are kept as slaves.

            • jim says:

              I don’t know whether Jack Highlands has impressive academic qualifications or not, but I do know that you, Irving, are incapable of judging who is smart and who is not, that you think that smart people are stupid, and that you think stupid people are smart.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Thanks, Jim. Since I am already enslaved by the Irving’s of the world in terms of my free speech options, I can’t write much here, but as we know, IQ is up to 80% heritable, and my father really does have a PhD from Harvard; my mother was at a Boston woman’s college of that era. I have a doctorate from a good school in, shall we say, an applied science, plus the many years of post-doc training that go with that applied science.

            Something that crystallizes my righteous anger over the takeover of the West is that my father was Ivy League, but because of (((nepotism))) plus a calculated effect of AA – that a certain high IQ race counts as White – there is no way it was happening for my very smart daughter.

          • Irving says:

            Jim, you don’t think that responding to someone with whom you disagree by saying “Aha, you must be a Jew!” is a sign of low intelligence?

            • jim says:

              It is a stupid response if irrelevant. Given the subject matter, he may have perceived it as relevant. You were making arguments as a purported white person, and he implied you did not perceive yourself or identify as white.

          • Irving says:

            The only time when it’s appropriate to accuse someone of being a Jew is when they are deliberately distorting the truth in a stereotypically Jewish way, usually in order to advance Jewish interests in some way. I wasn’t doing that, and at any rate the point of view that I was defending is one that is, as I’m sure you know, shared by plenty, if not most, white elites. It would have made more sense if I were accused of being a white guy with lots of money. There really isn’t an excuse for the 4 or 5 people who just came along, read what I posted, and said “Aha, he’s a Jew!” except total incomprehension of the relatively simple arguments that i was making, which in turn is a sign of low intelligence.

            • jim says:

              The view you are defending is shared by almost all elite whites.

              However, the way you were defending it is very Jewish. Thus, for example I would provide evidence that affirmative action is implemented corruptly, and that in fact everyone influential, everyone who matters, quietly takes it for granted that it is implemented corruptly, and you would respond by arguing that the official reality of how affirmative action is supposedly implemented is evidence that it is in fact implemented in that fashion – that those with affirmative action credentials were granted them in the normal fashion because the official record shows that they were granted in the normal fashion rather than bypassing normal channels that white possessors of those credentials have to go through. You would address my arguments by pretending that they were never made and that it was quite unthinkable, and indeed socially unacceptable, to make such arguments.

              This resulted in me endlessly repeating the rebuttal of your arguments, and you endlessly repeating your assertion as if it had never been rebutted, which is how arguments between a Jew and a non Jew tend to degenerate.

          • pdimov says:

            “The view you are defending is shared by almost all elite whites.”

            Which by itself should be enough reason to suspect blue pill.

            “However, the way you were defending it is very Jewish.”

            Disdain for sub-105 IQ whites is also very Jewish… and probably also shared by almost all elite whites. 🙂

            A reactionary, neo- or otherwise, should be familiar with the concept of noblesse oblige, though.

          • Irving says:

            Our disagreement on affirmative action in the universities, which is the only where it counts, has to do with you not understanding what I was saying.

            I admitted that there is plenty of rule bending, that more than a few Michelle Obamas end up getting Harvard degrees, etc., which is to say that I agreed with you when you said that the universities aren’t implementing the affirmative action as it is, according to the official rules, supposed to be implemented.

            That said, I did insist that at the very top schools, like the top 6 law schools for example, most of the affirmative action beneficiaries are not Michelle Obamas, that they are usually fairly intelligent, and that this can be proven with reference to the data that is available. You responded at this point by saying that the numbers are unreliable, falsified or else non-existent, because in your view elite schools exempt NAMs and women from taking the tests. I responded by saying that this isn’t true, that there’s no evidence that this is true, that schools have no incentive to do such a thing given that they are always willing to accept Michelle Obamas with low scores no matter what it does to their numbers (and by the way, Michelle Obama’s mother admitted that Michelle did awful on tests, proving that she took them), and that the data that is available is intuitively plausible (e.g. the fact that there’s a 1SD disparity in LSAT scores between whites and blacks, whereas if there was any funny business going on, you’d expect that the disparity would be narrower). Then you cited individual cases of particularly egregious corruption in the way that affirmative action is used, assuming that these individual cases prove that elite universities and other organizations that use affirmative action do so in such a way that the don’t discriminate at all among the NAMs and women that they are promoting, that just the fact of being a NAM or a woman is good enough to get you in the door, etc.. Then I responded that these individual cases prove nothing, and that it is in fact the case that the typical Harvard Law grad, for example, is much closer to Barack Obama (who, whatever we might think of his politics, is obviously an intelligent, if not brilliant, man) than to Michelle Obama.

            If I misunderstood you at any point on the affirmative action issue, please correct me, but it really isn’t fair for you to accuse me of arguing like a Jew.

            Anyway, the guys who came on to accuse me of being a Jew seem to have taken exception not at my argument concerning affirmative action but rather at my argument concerning the present woes of the white working and middle classes. When I said that most white elites would agree with me, I meant that they would agree with me on this issue, not on the affirmative action one, although they might agree on that too (in fact, it is likely that they would agree, given that they seem to have no problem implementing affirmative action at their universities and employing affirmative action beneficiaries at their companies). As far as what I said about white middle and working class whites is concerned, I stand by all of it, and although I realize that it sounded harsh, there isn’t anything inherently Jewish about refusing to coddle white working and middle class types with lies meant to make them think that they are victims or to give them a false sense of their natural superiority over other races.

            • jim says:

              I admitted that there is plenty of rule bending, that more than a few Michelle Obamas end up getting Harvard degrees, etc.,

              Michelle is an example of affirmative action working as it officially does. She attended university, she submitted essays, she took tests, and was pretty smart for a black woman – which is not very smart at all by the standards of smart white males.

              This is not typical, and most black female beneficiaries of affirmative action at elite universities are even dumber than Michelle.

              The fact is, that when a particular case suffers close scrutiny, we usually see not rule bending as with Michelle, but rule breaking as with Obama, and, more importantly, far more importantly, we see that the elite reaction to that rule breaking treats rule breaking as normal and expected.

              This is the argument that I endlessly repeat, and you endlessly ignore, simply repeating your original claim that Michelle Obama is the genuine face of affirmative action, a claim you have never attempted to support, nor ever responded to my refutation, but merely reasserted as if no evidence contradicting it had ever been presented.

              If Michelle Obama was the typical face of affirmative action, Huntgreen and Obama would be scandals.

          • Irving says:

            >Disdain for sub-105 IQ whites is also very Jewish… and probably also shared by almost all elite whites.

            Very true, but I don’t have any disdain at all for sub-105 IQ whites. It is true that I think that people with sub-105 IQs are stupid, and I do look down on them for being stupid, but I don’t hate them for it, and I do wish the best for them. For instance, if I really had disdain for stupid whites, as Jews do, then I would behave as the Jews do, and tell sub-105 IQ whites that getting high is cool, that sodomy is moral and acceptable, that they are ‘privileged’ and should therefore refrain from opposing mass immigration of similarly sub-105 IQ blacks and browns.

            >A reactionary, neo- or otherwise, should be familiar with the concept of noblesse oblige, though.

            Noblesse oblige is one thing, but calling dumb blacks apes and gorillas, dumb browns “muds” and “shitskins”, Jews “overworthy”, etc. , and then turning around and telling dumb whites that their problems are entirely the fault of others, that they are a master race, that the “shitskins” are “no match” for them, etc., seems inherently misguided to me.

          • pdimov says:

            Let’s identify the actor in each sentence:

            “calling dumb blacks apes and gorillas”

            Google.

            “dumb browns “muds” and “shitskins””

            Peppermint.

            “Jews “overworthy””

            /pol/, TRS, etc

            “telling dumb whites that their problems are entirely the fault of others”

            ???

            “that they are a master race”

            Hitler?

            ““shitskins” are “no match” for them”

            Not sure. “No match” is mine, but I haven’t used “shitskins”, that’s Peppermint’s. I used “swarthy third-worlders”, but only because you used it first, and I replied with same, as I tend to do.

            So you’ve basically built up a composite image of the evil alt-right straw man, attributed an incoherent mashup of supposed claims to him, and demolished it. Congratulations are in order.

            TL;DR: stop digging.

          • Irving says:

            >So you’ve basically built up a composite image of the evil alt-right straw man, attributed an incoherent mashup of supposed claims to him, and demolished it. Congratulations are in order.

            The individual examples that I cited were meant to exemplify a particular attitude which is prevalent on the alt right.

            The alt right and white nationalists like to demean non whites with rhetoric that is often extremely crude while at the same time having the nerve to get upset when someone points out that actually, the typical white guy isn’t really so great and in fact shouldn’t be above criticism. For example, get on an alt right forum and tell them any of the obvious and undeniable “hate facts” that apply specifically to whites, like for example the fact that average IQs in Eastern Europe are in the 86-93 range, and see the response that you get. The alt right and white nationalists will absolutely insist on their right to insult out-groups, mocking you for being politically correct or whatever if you insist that they show moderation, or else defending themselves with some stupid comment about how “reality itself is racist”, but then will want to pick a fight with you the minute you point out facts that portray whites in an unfavorable light.

          • Irving says:

            And by the way, there are alt right types who do say that whites are something like a master race. I can refer you to a podcast interview Mike Enoch did with Richard Spencer in which Enoch says that Jews are wrong to consider themselves ‘God’s chosen people’ or ‘the light unto the nations’, claiming that in reality whites are all of those things, not Jews. I’m sure that there weren’t many listeners who heard Enoch say that who disagreed with him.

          • pdimov says:

            “The individual examples that I cited were meant to exemplify a particular attitude which is prevalent on the alt right.”

            That attitude, however, is not prevalent here, but you argue as if it is.

            You also saw fit to specifically include my words of “no match” into your potpourri, implying that I also exemplify said attitude.

          • Irving says:

            >Michelle is an example of affirmative action working as it officially does. She attended university, she submitted essays, she took tests, and was pretty smart for a black woman – which is not very smart at all by the standards of smart white males.

            >simply repeating your original claim that Michelle Obama is the genuine face of affirmative action

            Have a look at her senior thesis at Princeton. It was so bad that even Christopher Hitchens was allowed to mock her for it, in Slate of all places. An honest assessment of her IQ on the basis of that thesis alone would have to conclude that she’s got an IQ of about a 95.

            My point all along was that Michelle Obama is an example of a quota-filler that elite schools will accept to make sure that they have enough blacks, not that she’s a “the genuine face of affirmative action” working as it is supposed to work. To the contrary, she is an example of a case of corruption committed by two elite schools (Princeton and Harvard Law) in the way that they do affirmative action. The typical black woman who attends Princeton or Harvard Law is not as dumb as Michelle Obama.

            >This is not typical, and most black female beneficiaries of affirmative action at elite universities are even dumber than Michelle.

            Most black female beneficiaries of affirmative action at the most elite elite universities simply aren’t dumber than Michelle Obama. Blacks at these schools are usually either mulattoes or the descendants of high-IQ African immigrants (at Harvard, it was found that about ~70 percent of the black students were of one of these two categories, and quite a bit of noise was made about it by the sjw professors of African American Studies). They aren’t as smart as the white or Asian students, obviously, but they aren’t by any means dumber than Michelle either.

            That said, there’s a huge drop in quality at the lesser elite schools, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the typical black student at a school like Duke were dumber than Michelle.

            >The fact is, that when a particular case suffers close scrutiny, we usually see not rule bending as with Michelle, but rule breaking as with Obama, and, more importantly, far more importantly, we see that the elite reaction to that rule breaking treats rule breaking as normal and expected.

            Maybe there’s info that I’m not privy to, but I’ve yet to understand why you think the case of Obama is so suspicious.

            As far as the reaction that elites have to rule breaking, well, I really don’t know what to make of it. What do you think that it tells us? And, how do you expect them to react? My impression has always been that white elites are generally OK with affirmative action, but that they think there is too much of it and that it should be reduced, but not eliminated. I think that part of the reason for the attitude that I think they have on this issue is due to their awareness of the particularly idiotic students that have been allowed into schools like Princeton (i.e. Michelle Obama) on the basis of affirmative action. So I guess when they see cases of corruption, they aren’t surprised, and so they don’t react.

            • jim says:

              >Michelle is an example of affirmative action working as it officially does. She attended university, she submitted essays, she took tests, and was pretty smart for a black woman – which is not very smart at all by the standards of smart white males.

              >simply repeating your original claim that Michelle Obama is the genuine face of affirmative action

              Have a look at her senior thesis at Princeton. It was so bad that even Christopher Hitchens was allowed to mock her for it, in Slate of all places. An honest assessment of her IQ on the basis of that thesis alone would have to conclude that she’s got an IQ of about a 95.

              My point all along was that Michelle Obama is an example of a quota-filler that elite schools will accept to make sure that they have enough blacks, not that she’s a “the genuine face of affirmative action” working as it is supposed to work. To the contrary, she is an example of a case of corruption committed by two elite schools (Princeton and Harvard Law) in the way that they do affirmative action. The typical black woman who attends Princeton or Harvard Law is not as dumb as Michelle Obama.

              Again, argument by changing the subject You deny the existence of the affirmative scandals that everyone in the elite winks there eyes at by calling Michelle the scandal. But Michelle is affirmative action working as it is supposed to work and producing the results it is supposed to produce. Michelle is not the big embarrassment. Michelle is not the scandal. By calling her the scandal, you deny the actual scandals, the actual scandals being stuff that only evil stupid nazis notice.

          • Irving says:

            >That attitude, however, is not prevalent here, but you argue as if it is.

            I don’t consider this an alt-right blog, and so my criticism wasn’t directed towards it, although I do think that that attitude is existent, if not prevalent, here. My real issue was with the alt right in general and, more narrowly, the 4 or 5 guys who came by and called me a Jew, simply because I had the audacity to point out certain “hate facts” about the white working and middle classes.

            >You also saw fit to specifically include my words of “no match” into your potpourri, implying that I also exemplify said attitude.

            I included your words because I thought that the attitude manifested by the “no match” comment perfectly exemplified the attitude that is characteristic on the alt right. There was nothing personal in it.

          • Irving says:

            >You deny the existence of the affirmative scandals that everyone in the elite winks there eyes at by calling Michelle the scandal. But Michelle is affirmative action working as it is supposed to work and producing the results it is supposed to produce. Michelle is not the big embarrassment. Michelle is not the scandal. By calling her the scandal, you deny the actual scandals, the actual scandals being stuff that only evil stupid nazis notice.

            Okay, I understand you now. Up til now, I’ve been saying that the Michelle Obamas are the scandals, while you are saying that Michelle Obama is the average, and the scandals are much worse.

            All that I can do is ask you how you’ve come around to the view that you have of the matter? You say the available official data is all falsified, whether by distortion or by omission, but how do you know this? Remember, I was only talking about the most elite elite universities, who are able to suck up the relatively little NAM talent there is. I don’t speak for the lesser elite universities.

            Also, why is it that you believe that the individual cases of particularly egregious cases of corruption are sufficient to confirm that the corruption is actually widespread?

            Lastly, what do you think is in it for the elites, why is it that they are conspiring in the way that you say they are where affirmative action is concerned? Remember, you’re the same person who in another place said that the Cathedral is not a conspiracy, that Cathedral operators aren’t acting according to a deliberate plan, but are rather doing what they’re doing as a result of a combination of stupidity and unchecked status signalling. What makes you embrace a conspiracy theory here, when usually you don’t do conspiracy theories?

            • jim says:

              All that I can do is ask you how you’ve come around to the view that you have of the matter? You say the available official data is all falsified, whether by distortion or by omission, but how do you know this?

              Because Obama did not attend Columbia, and because Hultgreen did not come seventh in her class, or even pass, but rather failed horribly, and because the elite reaction to these and other scandals was that it was just fine.

          • Irving says:

            >Because Obama did not attend Columbia, and because Hultgreen did not come seventh in her class, or even pass, but rather failed horribly, and because the elite reaction to these and other scandals was that it was just fine.

            I see.

            And if I were to cite evidence that Obama did attend Columbia, if there is any (I’m sure there is, but I’ve never checked), you’d say it was fabricated. When I point out evidence that NAMs and women aren’t exempted from taking tests, but are required to take them, the same as white and Asian students, you’d say it was fabricated. I can cite 10 examples of affirmative action beneficiaries from the most elite elite schools for every single case of egregious corruption that you can cite, but then you’d say that my examples don’t count because those students didn’t actually attend the schools they claim to have attended.

            • jim says:

              And if I were to cite evidence that Obama did attend Columbia, if there is any

              Obviously official records saying simply that Obama attended are worthless. If you could find students he got drunk with, essays he submitted, activities he participated in, stuff like that, girls from Columbia that he nailed, that would constitute evidence.

              Had he actually attended Columbia, he would have left a trail of such stuff, and friends, enemies, and publicity hounds would be industriously mining it, or attempting to mine it. Remember the enthusiasm with which they mined Bush’s college years. No one is likely to doubt that Bush attended college.

              In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We have piles and piles of evidence that his wife attended, a curious absence of evidence that Obama attended.

          • pdimov says:

            “I included your words because I thought that the attitude manifested by the “no match” comment perfectly exemplified the attitude that is characteristic on the alt right. There was nothing personal in it.”

            You specifically called me out by name in your reply to Corvinvs. But that’s not the point.

            The point… Let me put it this way, we’ll see if it gets through.

            If you’re going to use my words as an example that perfectly exemplifies a certain attitude you detest, do not turn around and act surprised and unjustly offended when people think of your words as perfectly exemplifying a (((certain attitude))) they detest.

          • Corvinus says:

            Irving…

            “And if I were to cite evidence that [x], [Jim would] say it was fabricated.”

            Now you’re getting it. That’s his thing.

            Jim…

            “If you could find students he got drunk with, essays he submitted, activities he participated in, stuff like that, girls from Columbia that he nailed, that would constitute evidence.”

            
You mean like this evidence? Or is the source fabricating things out of convenience? Or is Boerner is a paid shill? Or is…

            http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/obama-at-columbia-university/

            In an article published in Columbia College Today, Phil Boerner also wrote: I remember often eating breakfast with Barack at Tom’s Restaurant on Broadway. Occasionally we went to The West End for beers. We enjoyed exploring museums such as the Guggenheim, the Met and the American Museum of Natural History, and browsing in bookstores such as the Strand and the Barnes & Noble opposite Columbia. We both liked taking long walks down Broadway on a Sunday afternoon, and listening to the silence of Central Park after a big snow. I also remember jogging the loop around Central Park with Barack.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Phil Boener was Obama’s off-campus roommate, and only recalls seeing Obama outside of class. At most this evidence shows is that Obama was living in NYC at his claimed address.

            The biggest problem with Obama conspiracy theories is that I do not believe Obama was marked for greatness from birth. If he was given an easy ride, it was for much pettier reasons than setting up a presidential run. In fact if someone had been pre-positioning him for the presidency I find it more likely that they would have made sure he graduated “legitimately” in some easy major. You can’t attack Barack Obama for majoring in black studies; can attack him for somehow getting a faculty appointment on a publication record of one student newspaper article and one unsigned note.

          • Irving says:

            >OK. You are right, I was wrong, Obama actually did attend Columbia.

            >But Kara Hultgreen did not come seventh in her class.

            No Jim, you don’t get off that easy. That you now concede that Obama did in fact attend Columbia must result in a corresponding change in your view as to how affirmative action operates at the most elite elite universities. You’ve made the extreme claim that blacks at the most elite elite universities are, on average, dumber than Michelle Obama, which I demand that you retract.

            The Hultgreen case has more to do with the military than anything else.

            • jim says:

              Casual observation is consistent with the proposition that blacks at most elite universities are dumber than Michelle Obama. Even though Obama attended an elite university, and he is clearly higher than IQ 105.

              Henry Louis Gates, professor at Harvard, graduated Yale summa cum laude, recipient of umpteen degrees, is probably smarter than Michelle but that is not saying a whole lot. His behavior in the incident where he was arrested was pretty dumb. I don’t talk to cops like that, and if I did, would expect to get my ass kicked. Going by sentence length when he writes, reads like a smart person, but his use vocabulary is limited, and a lot of his long sentences are not long because they express complex ideas, they are long because he is pompously writing the way that academics who are actually smart write. When he speaks ex-tempore, his sentences are mighty short, and express only simple ideas. When speaking ex tempore, sounds pretty much like a standard black. A lot of the long complex sentences in the article I link to above are lifted almost unchanged from the cited academics summaries of their own work, rather than reflecting his understanding of their work and his understanding of their relevance to his argument. He was smart enough to see the relevance, not smart enough to explain it in his own words.

              Thus for example he says:

              “Through the work of Professors Thornton and Heywood, we also know that the victims of the slave trade were predominantly members of as few as 50 ethnic groups. This data, along with the tracing of blacks’ ancestry through DNA tests, is giving us a fuller understanding of the identities of both the victims and the facilitators of the African slave trade.”

              This sentence superficially sounds like someone of high IQ, being largely copied from someone of high IQ.

              But if he was actually capable of digesting their work and presenting its relevance to his arguments he would have said something like “DNA evidence shows that most slaves were taken from a small number of black tribes and ethnicities, that were frequently ruled by different black tribes or ethnicities.” He could not write a sentence that expressed the relevance of their work to his argument.

              Oddly, blacks educated in elite topics (well, the elite topic of computer science) in traditionally black universities, in far from elite universities, are in fact pretty smart – smart enough to actually do computer science. If someone is accredited in a traditionally black university to do computer science, the label on the can is accurate. If a traditionally black university says someone can do computer science, yes he can. Indicating that elite universities are performing poorly at their traditional function of filtering for intelligence, and performing this function far worse for women and blacks. If someone is accredited by an elite university as being able to do computer science, the label on the can is frequently wrong.

              What the employer is buying from an elite university is a guarantee of not being sued into the ground.

              You get sued for lack of holiness, and the more priests you employ, the holier you must be.

          • Irving says:

            >If you’re going to use my words as an example that perfectly exemplifies a certain attitude you detest, do not turn around and act surprised and unjustly offended when people think of your words as perfectly exemplifying a (((certain attitude))) they detest.

            Let me try again. My objective was not to criticize any one individual but to criticize a certain attitude that is prevalent on the alt-right. The quotes that I made had to do with the citation of exemplary instances of this attitude which I was criticizing, not with personally attacking the people that I was quoting. As for you, I think that the “no match” statement was particularly off-base and plainly unhelpful and stupid in every way, but I don’t equate you with the average alt-right prole, who screams “Aha, you are a Jew!” at everyone with whom he disagrees. I thought that this would be self-evident, but I guess it wasn’t.

          • Jack says:

            Irving, it’s only natural for Nationalists of nationality X to be deaf and inimical to criticism concerning their own nationality. The alt-right happens to be a White Man’s safe space. If you went on, say, a Black Nationalist website and argued that Whites are obsessed with sexual puritanism and exhibit an innate cuckiness in their relations with women, and presented as evidence the theory that Feminism is a White conspiracy to destroy the Black family in order to prevent Blacks from reproducing, they’d probably respond with “das rite”.

            Really, the only criticism Nationalists of whatever nationality love to hear is “oh we’re just too kind, forgiving, merciful, and nice — too good for our own good.” Literally the same thing is believed by Jewish, White, and Yellow Nationalists. “Our problem is that we’re just too good.” No one likes to hear that they’re not really all that good. But at least White Nationalists just ignore you; try going on a Jewish Nationalist website and argue that the Jews had the Holocaust coming, see the response.

            The best way to deal with Nationalists is to pretend to be one of them except 1,000,000% more extreme. “Jews stole the Bible from Whites! They then renamed Mary to Miryam and Jesus to Yeshua! What a disgrace, those damn Jews; they won’t even let us have our White names; you see, in Germany it’s illegal to use the name Adolf but Abraham is legitimate!” Let me tell you: Joshua “Trollberg” Goldberg wasn’t the only Jew writing for National Socialist websites.

          • Irving says:

            I agree with pretty much everything you say Jack, but i do think that there are certain things about white nationalism and the alt right which distinguishes it from other nationalisms.

            All nationalisms seem to attract proles to their cause, but the nationalisms that you see among non whites, with the possible exception of black nationalism, tend to be created and led by elites. Nationalism in the third world, for example, was basically a power grab on the part of indigenous elites against the colonial (i.e. white and mixed race) elites. This was the case in India, Iran, China, in certain African countries, etc.. There’s also the post-Soviet countries, where their nationalisms had a lot to do with indigenous elites revolting against their Soviet, mostly Russian and Jewish, masters. Even today, the nationalisms of the third world are largely about indigenous elites wanting to protect their position against the globalized, most white, Jewish and increasingly high-caste Asian, elites.

            The alt right and white nationalism, however, is for the most part a prole phenomenon; the high-quality whites attracted to them are few in number and tend to be your basically high-IQ but downwardly mobile liberal arts degree holders, like Spencer and Johnson, or else whites in elite positions but who for whatever reason have refused to get on board with the elite consensus in academia, etc., like Macdonald or Taylor. What this means in practice is that all of the problems that are associated with nationalism in general are exponentially amplified on the alt right and in WN because of generally low quality of the people associated with them.

          • pdimov says:

            “As for you, I think that the “no match” statement was particularly off-base and plainly unhelpful and stupid in every way…”

            It’s none of those things. It’s factually correct. If I replace “whites” with “Koreans” or “Japanese” in it you won’t even blink. “Germans”, “Canadians” or “Australians” would probably also fly undisturbed. But “whites” triggers you.

          • Irving says:

            >It’s none of those things. It’s factually correct.

            No, it isn’t.

            >If I replace “whites” with “Koreans” or “Japanese” in it you won’t even blink. “Germans”, “Canadians” or “Australians” would probably also fly undisturbed. But “whites” triggers you.

            The only thing that triggers me are ‘hate facts’ that aren’t true. If you want to take the best qualities that are distinctive only of a minority of NW Europeans and then project them on every paleface of European descent, be my guest, but don’t expect others not to call you out on the falsity of your position.

          • Jack says:

            Irving,

            Nationalism today is generally quite proletarian (do you know any Kahanists? not the elite of Jewry!), but Northwestern Europeans are particularly non-ethnocentric and therefore their elite is particularly non-ethnocentric. But artistically even those Slavs you look down upon are more talented than basically all Blacks, all Arabs, and also many Asians. Yeah, they get drunk and behave like clowns, but I’d still rather live with them than with the black and brown races — look up homicide rates globally, for instance.

            The issue though is that you’re expecting a minority of ethnocentric Northwestern Europeans to grow wings on their backs. This is an unrealistic expectation you have of people who openly fantasize about “race war” and “day of the rope”. White people, at least the ones who participate in alt-right discourse, want their countries back. Betrayed by their elites, they radicalize (the alt-right itself used to be more civilized back in the day), and it so happens that radical ideologies attract frustrated bourgeois and a mass of proles. What makes you think that this is somehow unique? It isn’t.

            You can’t tell political radicals “actually you’ve got your facts mixed up” and not expect a backlash and being called a conniving kike. Heck, if Jim wasn’t Jim, he would’ve banned both of us a long time ago, for the obvious reasons. The fact that we’re even having this conversation on a radical rightist website should tell you something about the relative kindness of Whites. Again, come as a Gentile to a Jewish Nationalist website and educate them about how they play loose and fast with their facts – you won’t last very long over there.

            It’s annoying when Whites insist on mixing fact and fiction, but nothing unordinary. People generally don’t like it when you pop their parties, much less when you’re attempting to disprove their whole emotionally-charged religion, and once you do that, shouldn’t be surprised when faced with metaphorical swirlies.

          • Irving says:

            Jack,

            I don’t criticize the alt right or white nationalists for wanting their countries back, or for being angry at backstabbing elites, or for wanting to expel problematic non whites from historically white countries.

            I criticize them because they not only want their countries back, but they also seem to want to be pampered by white elites, they want their elites to give them free money and jobs that are vastly disproportionate in their quality and wages to their economic worth, they want to be told emotionally pleasing but false stories about how they’re somehow so functional and superior, etc., and they justify all of this with a woefully illiterate reading of modern American and European history.

            Also, I don’t look down on Slavs, I look down only on proles, no matter their race or ethnicity. For what it’s worth, I’ve always felt that Anglos and Russians were the two most superior groups of whites.

            As for this blog, I get that Jim is probably the most right wing guy currently living, but I felt as I could safely criticize the alt right and white nationalists here, given that Jim doesn’t appear to be particularly sympathetic to these groups either. I didn’t think his tolerance of my views had anything to do with the natural gentleness of whites.

            • jim says:

              they want to be told emotionally pleasing but false stories about how they’re somehow so functional and superior, etc.,

              Ride a bus that has a substantial black ridership. The whites on the bus will be poor working class and white underclass.

              And it will immediately be glaringly obvious that the whites on the bus are far more functional than the blacks, are clearly superior to the blacks.

              If you are driving around California and have a traffic accident, chances are that the other guy in the accident was mestizo or indio, had no license, and was quite likely drunk.

              If you go into a shop with with a lot of Indio or mestizo customers, they are paying with EBT. Go into walmart, whites are not paying with EBT. So white working class subsidizing NAMs.

              Again, consider the performance of whites at ruling the world before World War II.

              It is immediately obvious that all nonwhites except east Asians should be under white rule.

          • Irving says:

            By the way Jack, doesn’t Russia have some of the highest homicide rates in the world?

          • Irving says:

            Henry Louis Gates doesn’t have “umpteen degrees” unless you’re counting the honorary ones that he may have gotten. He’s got a BA from Yale and a PhD from Cambridge. Cambridge doesn’t do affirmative action, at least not officially, and so, unless evidence is presented to the contrary, we have to conclude that he got that degree fair and square.

            And, the PhD was in English Literature. A degree such as this, especially from a school like Cambridge, requires that the student not just study English literature, but also the literatures written in the other European languages, in their original languages. Moreover, the student will have to have mastered the history of the time period in which the literature he is focusing on was written, and well also have to do a fair amount of coursework in philosophy too. This is not something that just anyone is capable of doing.

            Maybe Henry Louis Gates isn’t the brightest academic in his field, but if all you can do is cite his stupid behavior during one encounter with a cop (which, by the way, was probably done for attention more than anything else) and one excerpted paragraph, then that’s simply not enough. At any rate, I’ve actually heard the guy speak ex tempore before, in person, and he doesn’t sound like an ordinary black at all. Pick a better example for why you believe blacks at the most elite elite universities are dumber than Michelle Obama.

            I can’t speak on black computer science graduates from HBCUs, but I will say that besides Morehouse and Spelman, the HBCUs are completely dysfunctional places, and it is hard to believe that any black with any self-respect would ever want to attend them.

            • jim says:

              we have to conclude that he got that degree fair and square.

              When Henry Louis Gates opens his mouth to speak ex tempore, it is transparently obvious that he did not get his degree fair and square. Short sentences, limited vocabulary, expressing simple concepts.

              but also the literatures written in the other European languages, in their original languages.

              It is obvious that he is incapable of that. Tell me, what languages can he read? He does not even read English well enough to adequately paraphrase other people’s scholarly work.

              And, by the way, Chomsky can barely read French, though I am sure Chomsky can read some foreign languages, unlike Gates. When he criticized “Year Zero” he committed numerous howlers.

          • Irving says:

            >Ride a bus that has a substantial black ridership. The whites on the bus will be poor working class and white underclass.

            >And it will immediately be glaringly obvious that the whites on the bus are far more functional than the blacks, are clearly superior to the blacks.

            “Clearly superior”? The only difference that I can observe between underclass whites and underclass blacks is that underclass blacks are considerably more violent. If this fact by itself makes underclass whites “clearly superior”, then so be it.

            >If you are driving around California and have a traffic accident, chances are that the other guy in the accident was mestizo or indio, had no license, and was quite likely drunk.

            The mestizo has no license because he’s here illegally. Other than that, all you’re saying is that mestizos drink too much, and I readily agree with this.

            >If you go into a shop with with a lot of Indio mestizo custom, they are paying with EBT. Go into walmart, whites are not paying with EBT. So white working class subsidizing NAMs.

            Give me a break. Welfare dependency is rife among working- and under- class whites. They aren’t subsidizing anyone.

            >Again, consider the performance of whites at ruling the world before World War II.

            It is true that lots of poor whites were dragged off the streets and forced into the navy, etc., in order to do hard labor, what can only be called slave labor, so that the colonial empires could flourish. I agree that poor whites did their job well. I would also add that blacks made for fairly productive workers as slaves in the antebellum south.

            >It is immediately obvious that all nonwhites except east Asians should be under white rule.

            No, it is not obvious that Levantines or Hindus should be under the rule of Bulgarians.

            • jim says:

              >Ride a bus that has a substantial black ridership. The whites on the bus will be poor working class and white underclass.

              >And it will immediately be glaringly obvious that the whites on the bus are far more functional than the blacks, are clearly superior to the blacks.

              “Clearly superior”? The only difference that I can observe between underclass whites and underclass blacks is that underclass blacks are considerably more violent.

              The human speciality is cooperation – in particular cooperation for violence. Underclass whites are clearly more capable of cooperating than blacks, therefore clearly more human.

              The mestizo has no license because he’s here illegally

              Mexican driving licenses are legal in California, and illegals can obtain a Californian licenses. If an Indio has no license, and he usually does not, it is because he is too drunk, lazy, and disorganized to get a license.

            • jim says:

              At any rate, I’ve actually heard the guy speak ex tempore before, in person

              Well I have not heard Henry Louis Gates in person, but I heard him on you tube, and on the you tube video he is the muscle, the dumb thug who gets out the mob of black thugs to beat up the politically incorrect, and the white guy is the brains, the guy who glibly provides plausible rationales for sicing mobs of dumb blacks on his white political enemies.

              On this video Gates sounds like a dumb black thug hired by Harvard to call out gangs of dumb black thugs to beat the shit out of heretics. The white guy does the talking.

              And the talking.

              And more talking.

              The moderator does not want it to turn into a white guy monologue, so prods Gates to get him talking

              “Well, it was something of … umh … healing gesture …um… for Charleston”, says Gates.

              Moderator stares at Gates expectantly.

              “I had interviewed Reverend Pinkie for ‘Many rivers to cross’, and we used him in the trailer, and I was”

              Moderator interrupts “And does everyone know who Reverent Pinkie is?” (The moderator has clearly never heard of Reverend Pinkie.)

              “He was the minister who was murdered” says Gates.

              Pause. Moderator looks at Gates, expecting Gates to say more. Why murdered? Who murdered him? Why does this matter more than a zillion other murders? What does this say about the state of race relations in America?

              “Umm, err, mmmph …” goes Gates.

              Notice how Gates uses a sentence that is far too short and simple to be understood without context, when a more complex, context rich, sentence is clearly required. Which is pretty much the same cognitive limitation as got him arrested.

              I am not cherry picking. This is the first Gates video that came up in a search, and the first words by Gates in that video. He is plainly the dumb thug. Point him in the general direction of your enemies and stand well back.

          • Irving says:

            >The human speciality is cooperation – in particular cooperation for violence. Underclass whites are clearly more capable of cooperating than blacks, therefore clearly more human.

            Non sequitur

            • jim says:

              >The human speciality is cooperation – in particular cooperation for violence. Underclass whites are clearly more capable of cooperating than blacks, therefore clearly more human.

              Non sequitur

              If you cannot follow the logic, you are not terribly bright. I am fairly sure that nearly all the alt rightists that you have been pissing on can follow the logic just fine.

          • pdimov says:

            “The only thing that triggers me are ‘hate facts’ that aren’t true. If you want to take the best qualities that are distinctive only of a minority of NW Europeans and then project them on every paleface of European descent, be my guest…”

            The context was American white workers and their replacement by “swarthy third worlders” in your words. The average American white worker is significantly more productive than the “swarthy third worlder” that replaced him. This is not rocket science.

            I forgot to give the Chinese as an example, by the way. Here: the swarthy third worlder is no match for the Chinese, economically or otherwise.

            Are you going to jump up and down now? No? Why would that be, I wonder?

          • pdimov says:

            “No, it is not obvious that Levantines or Hindus should be under the rule of Bulgarians.”

            Levantines are white(*), and Bulgaria murdered its elite in the 40s and then proceeded to strangle itself building communism, but even so, Bulgarian engineers built Syria’s infrastructure and industry, not vice versa.

            (*) If you consider Bulgarians white, of course, which many WNs do not. They are to the right of Hitler on the BQ.

          • pdimov says:

            “If you cannot follow the logic, you are not terribly bright.”

            I’ve observed this phenomenon several times – someone whose ability to follow complex C++ code is on par with my own, indicating an IQ at least as high, inexplicably becomes obtuse when a third rail is the topic. It’s as if he takes a -3SD penalty.

          • Irving says:

            >If you cannot follow the logic, you are not terribly bright. I am fairly sure that nearly all the alt rightists that you have been pissing on can follow the logic just fine.

            You begin by saying that the human specialty is in acts of violence done in cooperation with a group. Then you say that underclass blacks, because they are less capable of cooperative violence than are underclass whites, are therefore less human. But of course this doesn’t make sense. It is as if you were to say that soccer player #1 were less of a soccer player than soccer player #2, because soccer player #1 is less skilled at the sport than is #2, but of course no one would ever say such a thing. Your argument’s premise says that the human specialty is to commit cooperative acts of violence, period, not that you can measure someone’s level of human-ness by measuring their ability to cooperate while committing acts of violence, which is what your conclusion assumes. Therefore, non sequitur.

            >The context was American white workers and their replacement by “swarthy third worlders” in your words. The average American white worker is significantly more productive than the “swarthy third worlder” that replaced him. This is not rocket science.

            The average white American worker may be more productive, but again, the simple fact of his higher productivity doesn’t mean that the swarthy third worlders are “no match” for him. This is evidenced by the fact that the swarthy third worlders have just put him out of a job. If they were really “no match” for him, then they never would have been able to take his job no matter what, “regulatory burdens” or not.

            >Levantines are white

            Depends. There’s significant Arab mixture in the Levantines, that is, except for among the endogenous ethnic and religious minorities.

            >and Bulgaria murdered its elite in the 40s and then proceeded to strangle itself building communism, but even so, Bulgarian engineers built Syria’s infrastructure and industry, not vice versa.

            OK, so what?

          • Irving says:

            Worth noting, too, pdimov, is that Lebanon, which is more demographically ‘Levantine’ than Syria is, has a much larger economy than Bulgaria.

          • peppermint says:

            oh hey, now that we’re done blaming the White working class for affirmative action, we can start comparing second world countries with third world oil countries

            next up, blaming the White working class for the whole second world debacle to begin with?

          • pdimov says:

            “The average white American worker may be more productive, but again, the simple fact of his higher productivity doesn’t mean that the swarthy third worlders are “no match” for him.”

            Maybe it doesn’t mean that for you, but this was precisely what I meant. Ceteris paribus, pound for pound, whites are more productive.

            “OK, so what?”

            So you deliberately picked the least white whites (at least according to your limited understanding which you share with Stormfront*) and the whitest non-whites and the whites still came on top. See Jim’s law of poster girls.

            “Worth noting, too, pdimov, is that Lebanon…”

            … also had its infrastructure built by Bulgarian engineers.

            (*) A few years ago I stumbled upon a Stormfront thread about Bulgarians. The only reason the thread wasn’t full of “ovenworthy” was because the word hasn’t been invented yet.

          • peppermint says:

            — It is as if you were to say that soccer player #1 were less of a soccer player than soccer player #2, because soccer player #1 is less skilled at the sport than is #2, but of course no one would ever say such a thing.

            SJWs refuse to recognize reality, and, when pressed, will make up facts to suit the narrative, any kind of facts. And when those facts are about things they don’t understand, they can be hilariously wrong facts.

            With running and swimming, there’s much more room for people to say that they’re not much of a runner or more of a runner. Soccer was chosen for this reason, “more of a soccer player” is a metaphor, but it’s a metaphor that everyone but an SJW practicing crimestop will be able to recognize.

          • peppermint says:

            — dumb whites that their problems are entirely the fault of others,

            (1) dumb Whites don’t control the government
            (2) dumb Whites aren’t the majority, so don’t even nominally control the government
            (3) dumb shitskins don’t control the government either; no one says that they caused the government to make it illegal to run a factory in the US without a huge amount of administrative overhead for regulatory compliance, specifically, compliance with “civil rights” law, not to mention massive taxation for transfer payments to shitskins
            (4) whenever dumb Whites are given the chance to vote on affirmative action, they vote against affirmative action. Which is why the right wing of the establishment exists – to keep dumb whites voting about abortion, wars for Israel, gay marriage, etc. See Bob Whitaker’s commentary on the formation of the religious right.
            (5) it’s interesting that you project agency on the dumb Whites. It’s almost like you expect more of the master race than you do of the shitskins.
            (6) In the end, the religious right was gaslighted into evangelicals literally cuckolding themselves by adopting niglets as embryos, while dumb leftist elites mutilate their own children. Politics as usual are over.
            (7) The phrase “420 blaze it” comes from Auschwitz guards since Hitler sadistically ordered that the crematoria be run nonstop regardless of how many Juden failed selektion for his birthday.
            (8) Heil Hitler

          • Irving says:

            >oh hey, now that we’re done blaming the White working class for affirmative action

            I never blamed them for affirmative action

            >Maybe it doesn’t mean that for you, but this was precisely what I meant. Ceteris paribus, pound for pound, whites are more productive

            You said that they are “no match, economically or otherwise” for whites. This means much more than just that whites make for more productive workers. All that I was pointing out is that if whites were really so matchlessly superior workers, so many wouldn’t have lost their jobs to third world competition, “regulatory burdens” or not.

            >So you deliberately picked the least white whites (at least according to your limited understanding which you share with Stormfront*) and the whitest non-whites and the whites still came on top.

            My problem is with those who define white as racial identity + quality. For instance, these people would say that such an obviously white group of people as the Serbs are non white because they’ve an average IQ of ~87, whereas I say that they don’t get to deploy such a self-serving and false definition of race and not be criticized for it. They don’t get to define the white race as a group which doesn’t include those ethnicities with less geniuses, less notable cultural and scientific achievements, etc.. Race is simply a question of one’s ancestry, not on one’s personal qualities. Bulgarians are obviously white in my book, relatively lower (I think, mid-90s) IQs and all.

            Also, Bulgarians do not come out on top of Levantines. Syria has a substantial population of Arabs and half-Arabs, but Lebanon is for the most part a Levantine country, and they’ve got a much higher per capital GDP than Bulgaria, and their national GDP isn’t so much lower than that of Bulgaria’s, despite Lebanon’s much smaller population (~5 million vs. ~8 million). That Bulgarian engineers may or may not have built Lebanon’s infrastructure means nothing. You are using, oddly enough, an argument that is similar to one used by those American blacks who want reparations, when they say that America owes them because black slaves “built this country”. Please don’t stoop so low.

            • jim says:

              If it is a race, the line is hard to draw. That is what race means.

              If the line was easy to draw, we would call them species.

              If serbs are white, and obviously they are, then there are several white races, as obviously there are. And some of those white races are markedly superior to others.

          • pdimov says:

            “You said that they are “no match, economically or otherwise” for whites. This means much more than just that whites make for more productive workers.”

            The “economically” part in context means exactly that. The “otherwise” part does mean more. Such as, for example, militarily. Or crime level-ly.

            “You are using, oddly enough, an argument that is similar to one used by those American blacks who want reparations…”

            Obvious nonsense. This is no longer obtuseness, it’s malice. We’re done.

          • Irving says:

            >The “economically” part in context means exactly that. The “otherwise” part does mean more. Such as, for example, militarily. Or crime level-ly.

            This is preposterous. Of what use is the economic superiority of white workers if it isn’t helping them successfully compete for jobs with supposedly inferior non-white workers? If white workers were really superior, they wouldn’t be in the position that they currently in. In the end, it makes no sense to say that an unemployed worker is a superior worker to an employed worker.

            >Obvious nonsense. This is no longer obtuseness, it’s malice. We’re done.

            You said that Bulgarians beat out the Levantines. I said they don’t, and pointed out the greater economic success of Lebanon as support. You responded by saying that Lebanon’s greater economic success proves nothing because, according to you, Bulgarian engineers built the infrastructure of the Levantines, thereby implying that the Bulgarians somehow deserve credit for the economic success that Lebanon has achieved. I pointed out that actually, your reasoning is exactly similar to that which is used by American blacks when they argue for reparations, in that they argue that American blacks are owed X amount of dollars by whites because American blacks “built this country” and therefore deserve credit for a large part of its success. There’s no malice involved in any of this. I made the analogy which seems to have offended you because I expect you to retract your claim that Bulgarian engineers deserve credit for Lebanon’s relative economic success for the same reason that I know that you would never concede any value whatsoever to the argument used by American blacks who want reparations that I have cited above.

            • jim says:

              Of what use is the economic superiority of white workers if it isn’t helping them successfully compete for jobs with supposedly inferior non-white workers?

              You are assuming fair competition, just as you are assuming in cheerful defiance of the glaringly obvious that Henry Louis Gates is not a barely literate thug, and that Ivy League graduates are selected from the best.

          • Irving says:

            >In nonteam activities, such as running, it is standard English to say one is more of an X or less of an X.

            Whatever.

            The main point is that the differences between the races are exclusively quantitative in nature. Some are more or less intelligent, more or less prone to violence, etc., but no race has some special quality that makes it “more human” than another.

            • jim says:

              Some are more or less intelligent, more or less prone to violence, etc., but no race has some special quality that makes it “more human” than another.

              You are a creationist.

              Chimps and men evolved from a creature that lived much like a chimp. Some kinds evolved more than others – developed the characteristics that make humans different from chimps to a greater or lesser degree. Those that have more in common with chimps and the common ancestor of chimps and humans are less human.

              We can estimate the amount of genetic change from the hypothetical common ancestor, and it is substantially greater for some races than others – pretty much the races that you would expect.

              See “The Root of the Phylogenetic Tree of Human Populations” by Masatoshi Nei and Naoko Takezaki, Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, which tells us that the genetic distance between human populations is smaller than but of the same order of magnitude as the genetic distance between humans and chimps, and that not all human populations have evolved at the same rate, with humans in environments very different from that of the common ancestor of man and chimp evolving substantially faster than humans in environments resembling that of the common ancestor of man and chimp.

          • Irving says:

            >If it is a race, the line is hard to draw. That is what race means.

            >If the line was easy to draw, we would call them species.

            Agreed.

            But the line, inevitably, is going to have to be drawn somewhere, by someone, in a context in which people, like white nationalists for example, are going to try and use race as a principle of state and political organization, and I was only inveighing against the dishonest tendency of many white nationalists who would cast obviously white ethnicity out of the fold, simply because their IQs aren’t high enough or whatever.

            >If serbs are white, and obviously they are, then there are several white races, as obviously there are. And some of those white races are markedly superior to others.

            There is one white race, with several sub-groups (ethnicities) within it. Anglos are one, Serbs are another, etc.

            • jim says:

              Your race terminology is modern and politically correct.

              Older race terminology is cladistic. You can, and normally do, have a race that its subdivided into several races, and some of those subdivided into several races. When I was young, that was the way the word was used. And gay meant cheerful and lighthearted.

              Whites are a race, and serbs are a race, and Jews are a race.

              Blacks are a race, and Hutus are a race, and Tutsi are a race.

          • pdimov says:

            “thereby implying that the Bulgarians somehow deserve credit for the economic success that Lebanon has achieved.”

            OK, it’s not malice. No, I didn’t imply that. Bulgarian engineers built Lebanon’s infrastructure presumably because Lebanon didn’t have capable engineers of its own at the time. This has nothing to do with who deserves credit for Lebanon’s today’s economic success. It’s just that I considered it obvious that when country X relies on country Y’s engineers that would be evidence in favor of country Y not being inferior, but this is apparently not obvious to you. Fine.

            It’s true that Lebanon (132% public debt to GDP ratio, 75.8% services, because tourism) is roughly on par with Bulgaria (28.4% public debt to GDP ratio, 64.1% services) by GDP PPP per capita. Lebanon is a nice country and, as I said, I consider Levantines white, or if not that, very close in whiteness to Bulgarians.

            Still, to repeat myself, you picked the two countries most favorable for your case, and you managed at best a draw.

            Pro tip: next time you try such an argument, use Moldova.

          • Irving says:

            >You are assuming fair competition, just as you are assuming in cheerful defiance of the glaringly obvious that Henry Louis Gates is not a barely literate thug, and that Ivy League graduates are selected from the best.

            1) What do you mean, “fair competition”? White workers have been cleaned out by a combination of third world workers and technological advancement. All that I’m doing is pointing out that the only superiority that counts for white workers is the superiority which would keep them gainfully employed. That they have lost their ability to remain gainfully employed means that whatever superiority they have doesn’t matter and really isn’t worth mentioning at all.

            2) Henry Louis Gates is not a barely literate thug. This is not an assumption but a statement of fact.

            3) I won’t restart the discussion over admissions practices at Ivy League schools. You have no hard evidence for your beliefs on this subject, and you continuously and groundlessly accuse me of using fabricated evidence to defend my own view on the matter.

            >Whites are a race, and serbs are a race, and Jews are a race.

            >Blacks are a race, and Hutus are a race, and Tutsi are a race.

            This is all well and good, but even the older racial terminology would have allowed for someone to say that both the Anglos and the Serbs are members of the white race. Yet some white nationalists are trying to say that there is an white race and [insert Eastern or Southern European ethnicity here] are not a part of it. This is what I was criticizing.

            • jim says:

              White workers have been cleaned out by a combination of third world workers and technological advancement

              You are blithely ignoring the fact that, starting with Detroit, white businessmen have been forbidden to prefer better workers over worse workers, forbidden to prefer white workers over colored workers, which of course smashes productivity as it smashed and burned Detroit.

              Obama could not get his Obamacare website up except by hiring businesses that operate illegal, in violation of affirmative action law.

              Also, environmental law makes it pretty much illegal to manufacture any physical object in America. Any manufacturing that takes place is an unprincipled exception, grandfathered in and maintained by bribing politicians and regulators. The “Art of the Deal” might well be interpreted as “The Art of the Bribe”

              The white working class is being forced to carry their inferiors on their backs.

              Of course I am not that worried about what happens to the white working class, except that when the white working class is forced to carry subhumans on their backs, the end result is that the white middle class got terrorized out of Detroit, the inner city, etc. History shows the white middle class needs the white working class to do their fighting, so throwing them to the wolves to appease the NAMs was profoundly unwise.

            • jim says:

              This is all well and good, but even the older racial terminology would have allowed for someone to say that both the Anglos and the Serbs are members of the white race. Yet some white nationalists are trying to say that there is an white race and [insert Eastern or Southern European ethnicity here] are not a part of it. This is what I was criticizing.

              The borders of the white race are ill defined, and it is entirely reasonable and legitimate for people to disagree about the borders. That is why they call it the white race not the white species.

          • Irving says:

            >It’s just that I considered it obvious that when country X relies on country Y’s engineers that would be evidence in favor of country Y not being inferior, but this is apparently not obvious to you. Fine.

            My point was never to try and prove that Bulgarians are inferior to Levantines. I only initially made the comparison because Jim said that all non-white races that aren’t East Asian are inferior to whites and should be ruled by whites. So I pointed out that Bulgarians are not obviously superior to Levantines. Then you said Bulgarian engineers built the infrastructure of the Levantines. I thought that by saying this you were implying that Bulgarians are superior to Levantines, and so I proceeded to make the comparison between Bulgaria’s and Lebanon’s respective economies.

            >Still, to repeat myself, you picked the two countries most favorable for your case, and you managed at best a draw.

            We can play this game all day. For instance, Jamaica, which is about ~98 percent black, has a per capita GDP of ~$10,000, which puts it ahead of most Eastern and Southeastern European economies.

          • pdimov says:

            “I only initially made the comparison because Jim said that all non-white races that aren’t East Asian are inferior to whites and should be ruled by whites.”

            Yep.

            Of what non-white race are Levantines?

            Which country is more successful, the whiter Lebanon or the less white Syria?

            When will Lebanon be more successful, when the whiter Levantines rule it, or when the less white Levantines rule it?

            Here’s the prime minister of Lebanon, by the way.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Tammam_Salam_2014-09-26.jpg

            You can look up the picture of the prime minister of Bulgaria for yourself and see who looks whiter. Compare with Assad, too. Because one link per post.

            “What do you mean, “fair competition”?”

            Fair competition means fair competition, that is, not suffering a penalty for employing whites, employing legal workers, or both.

            You’ll note that American companies do not import Ukrainian workers en masse, even though Ukrainians work for much less than American whites. That’s because employing Ukrainians is employing whites, and employing whites means that your workforce is not _diverse_, and the EEOC may come after you.

          • pdimov says:

            “We can play this game all day. For instance, Jamaica, which is about ~98 percent black, has a per capita GDP of ~$10,000, which puts it ahead of most Eastern and Southeastern European economies.”

            Yes we can.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009487/We-stayed-Britain-Shock-poll-reveals-60-Jamaicans-think-theyd-better-colony.html

          • peppermint says:

            — The main point is that the differences between the races are exclusively quantitative in nature. Some are more or less intelligent, more or less prone to violence, etc., but no race has some special quality that makes it “more human” than another.

            The most important differences between the races are the qualitative differences in sexual behavior that drive all the other differences. The reason Whites are cooperative and White women are beautiful is that Whites are monogamous. And so forth.

          • Irving says:

            >Of what non-white race are Levantines?

            This is a complicated question. The original peoples of the Levant were Phoenicians, but the area has been conquered and ruled by so many people, and all of them have left their traces of their genes on modern Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. Some Levantines can easily pass for white, but others, no. Modern Levantines are basically a mix of Phoenician, Assyrian, Kurd, Arab, Turk, Greek, Roman, Slavic, Armenian, and a few other groups.

            >Which country is more successful, the whiter Lebanon or the less white Syria?

            And which country is more successful, the white Lebanon or the more Arab United Arab Emirates?

            Anyway, I’m interested in why you haven’t mentioned the example of Jamaica, which I brought up in a previous post, and which is doing better than both Bulgaria and Lebanon.

            >Fair competition means fair competition, that is, not suffering a penalty for employing whites, employing legal workers, or both.

            There’s no legal penalty for employing whites, and the only reason why legal workers are disadvantaged is because they want more money than illegal workers. Therefore, legal workers are basically trying to get the state to protect them from competition from foreigners. Because the state refuses to do so, white workers suffer, but this is hardly unfair from the point of view of economics, as the problem here is political.

            >You’ll note that American companies do not import Ukrainian workers en masse, even though Ukrainians work for much less than American whites. That’s because employing Ukrainians is employing whites,

            No, this is because Ukrainians don’t have many workers to spare, considering their birth rates. Of course, given that Ukraine has become a third world country, I’m sure there are plenty of Ukrainians working menial jobs illegally in the UK now.

            • jim says:

              And which country is more successful, the white Lebanon or the more Arab United Arab Emirates?

              Take a look at the King and Crown Prince of Dubai.

              Proves the benefit of rule by whites.

            • jim says:

              There’s no legal penalty for employing whites,

              Stupid liar. Of course there is a legal penalty for employing whites, and in particular white males. And this penalty destroyed Detroit. The carmakers were forced to employ blacks at white rates, black productivity was too low to pay those rates and make a profit, and the city burned.

          • Irving says:

            >Yes we can.

            >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009487/We-stayed-Britain-Shock-poll-reveals-60-Jamaicans-think-theyd-better-colony.html

            And how exactly is this relevant?

            Jamaica would be better off if the Anglos were still running it, Jamaicans deserve credit for being honest enough for acknowledging this. None the less, Jamaica is still a more prosperous places than most white countries that aren’t in Western Europe. This was the main point.

          • pdimov says:

            “There’s no legal penalty for employing whites, and the only reason why legal workers are disadvantaged is because they want more money than illegal workers. Therefore, …”

            We keep telling you WHY there is a penalty for employing whites, and WHY legal workers are disadvantaged, and you refuse to listen and just keep repeating the opposite, therefore… something.

            “No, this is because Ukrainians don’t have many workers to spare…”

            Heh. All of Ukraine would gladly move to the US in a heartbeat if it could. Some of them are moving to Bulgaria of all places.

            “Anyway, I’m interested in why you haven’t mentioned the example of Jamaica…”

            Yes I did. Jamaicans themselves disagree with you and prefer white rule.

          • Irving says:

            >Take a look at the King and Crown Prince of Dubai.

            >Proves the benefit of rule by whites.

            Arabs are a Caucasoid people and so it makes sense that some elite Arabs, who haven’t as much Negroid admixture as underclass Arabs do, would resemble white people. This, of course, does not make them white people.

            The UAE is an Arab country run by Arabs.

            • jim says:

              The UAE is an Arab country run by Arabs.

              I am pretty sure that there are a lot of Stormfront members that would not have any very strong objections to Dubai royalty living next door.

          • pdimov says:

            “And how exactly is this relevant?”

            Jim says that other races should be ruled by whites, and Jamaicans agree with him that they should be ruled by whites, and this is not relevant how exactly?

          • Irving says:

            >You are a creationist.

            Well, I am a Christian, yes.

            >Chimps and men evolved from a creature that lived much like a chimp…those that have more in common with chimps and the common ancestor of chimps and humans are less human.

            The boundary between closely related species aren’t always as clear from the naturalistic view as we’d like them to be. But of course everyone who knows better knows this, so you aren’t actually saying anything new.

            In any case, before you begin to speak of who is more, and who is less, human, you’re going to have to define human. You haven’t done that yet, and until you do so everything that you’re saying isn’t even worth considering.

            >See “The Root of the Phylogenetic Tree of Human Populations” by Masatoshi Nei and Naoko Takezaki, Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, which tells us that the genetic distance between human populations is smaller than but of the same order of magnitude as the genetic distance between humans and chimps,

            I’ll be sure to check this out.

          • pdimov says:

            “>Of what non-white race are Levantines?

            This is a complicated question. The original peoples of the Levant were Phoenicians, but the area has been conquered and ruled by so many people, and all of them have left their traces of their genes on modern Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. Some Levantines can easily pass for white, but others, no. Modern Levantines are basically a mix of Phoenician, Assyrian, Kurd, Arab, Turk, Greek, Roman, Slavic, Armenian, and a few other groups.”

            This doesn’t answer the question, because none of those ethnicities are races by your terminology. Similarly with the white Arabs – you say they aren’t white, but do not say of what race they are.

            How many races there are, in your opinion?

          • Irving says:

            >I am pretty sure that there are a lot of Stormfront members that would not have any very strong objections to Dubai royalty living next door.

            The Arabs who run Saudi Arabia are also pretty white looking, though, like the Crown Prince of Dubai, not white looking enough to not be identified as Arabs. I’m sure Stormfront members wouldn’t tolerate their presence. And if they did, they’d stop doing so once the Dubai royalty starting snatching away their female family and friends into their harems.

          • Irving says:

            >This doesn’t answer the question, because none of those ethnicities are races by your terminology. Similarly with the white Arabs – you say they aren’t white, but do not say of what race they are.

            >How many races there are, in your opinion?

            There are five races: Caucausoids, Mongoloids, Negroids, Capoids and Australoids. There are various groups that are mixed however. For example, Horners (Ethiopians and Somalis) seem to be 40 to 65 percent Caucasoid, depending on the group, with the rest being some kind of non-negroid black, I guess Capoid. Indians seem to be a mix of Caucasoid and Australoid.

            If you consider all Caucasoids to be white, I guess Arabs are white. But my understanding is that white has a more exclusive meaning.

            I concede that my thoughts on this subject are somewhat muddled.

            • jim says:

              So, what race then are the Australian aboriginals? It is pretty ridiculous to suggest that dot Indians are a mix of caucasoid and Australian aboriginal. What race are the Maori? What is the big difference between Tutsis and other subsaharan blacks?

              Slicing the world into a definite number of definite races gets you the same problems as figuring out the boundaries of the white race, only more so. Hence the cladistic approach. Anglo saxons are a race, whites are a race, and anglo saxons are white. Even worse, Jews are a race, and some Jews are white and some Jews are not white.

          • Irving says:

            >So, what race then are the Australian aboriginals?

            Who knows?

            >It is pretty ridiculous to suggest that dot Indians are a mix of caucasoid and Australian aboriginal.

            From what I’ve read, they mostly are. Before the Aryan invasion of the subcontinent, it was mostly populated by Australoid peoples. After the invasion, substantial interbreeding ensued.

            >What race are the Maori? What is the big difference between Tutsis and other subsaharan blacks?

            The Maori are of the Capoid race. I’m not so sure about the Tutsis. But the real question which interests me is that of the populations of the Horn of Africa. Somalis have some Negroid, but other than that it turns out that none of the Horners have any Negroid in them. Some Ethiopians, particularly the Amhara and Tigrayans, have ~60 percent Caucasoid ancestry.

            >Slicing the world into a definite number of definite races gets you the same problems as figuring out the boundaries of the white race, only more so. Hence the cladistic approach.

            The cladistic approach has its uses, but my understanding is that geneticists and physical anthropologists still use the method that I’ve been using here.

            • jim says:

              From what I’ve read, they mostly are.

              Australoids and Australian aboriginals are very different. Any theory that makes them the same or similar, or even vaguely related, is just transparently silly.

              The cladistic approach has its uses, but my understanding is that geneticists and physical anthropologists still use the method that I’ve been using here.

              My understanding is that geneticists and physical anthropologists are walking on eggshells because so much of their data is unspeakably politically incorrect.

          • Irving says:

            >Australoids and Australian aboriginals are very different. Any theory that makes them the same or similar, or even vaguely related, is just transparently silly.

            If I’m wrong, tell me why, aren’t Australian aboriginals generally classified as Australoids?

            Anyway, though all of my knowledge on this is pretty hazy at this point, from what I’ve read concerning South Asian history, it seems that the populations of the subcontinent was made up entirely of proto-Australoids and Australoids, and that when the Aryans came and conquered them, they intermixed with them. The modern ‘Desi’ seems to be the result of this intermixing.

            >My understanding is that geneticists and physical anthropologists are walking on eggshells because so much of their data is unspeakably politically incorrect.

            Do you mean that geneticists and physical anthropologists refuse to use a cladistic approach because it is somehow more politically incorrect than their current approach?

          • pdimov says:

            “My understanding is that geneticists and physical anthropologists are walking on eggshells because so much of their data is unspeakably politically incorrect.”

            If we applied the usual animal criteria to humans, certain subgroups would be species, and most others would be subspecies.

            Although in fairness it must be noted that wolves and dogs were recently reclassified as the same species due to DNA evidence, so maybe not.

            In either case, African pygmies do not fit any of Irving’s races. Not that it matters.

            Always and everywhere, Mongoloids excepted, increased % Caucasoid ancestry, as measured by the highly scientific method of looking at people and seeing who’s whiter, correlates with better rule.

        • Irving says:

          I probably do owe jack Highlands an apology though. So, sorry. I still think that you’re lying about having a PhD, but my outburst was mostly do to frustration at being called a jew, simply for offering a different point of view. Where the ethnostate is concerned, I still think that for it to be viable, it would have to keep the white masses enslaved, in the same way that the Chinese enslave theirs. Pretending as if the ethnostate is going to be some kind of socialist utopia is wrong, and I think only done in order to rally the white masses around the idea, so that they’ll take up arms in the name of the ideas of the likes of Macdonald

          • pdimov says:

            “… simply for offering a different point of view…”

            Oh, the poor contrarian, persecuted for merely offering a different point of view that just so happens to coincide with that of the Cathedral. (“jobs Americans won’t do”, “crops rotting in fields”)

          • Irving says:

            >Oh, the poor contrarian, persecuted for merely offering a different point of view that just so happens to coincide with that of the Cathedral. (“jobs Americans won’t do”, “crops rotting in fields”)

            I was called a Jew because I refuse to tell white working and middle class people lies. I believe that much of the blame for their current woes should be placed squarely on their own shoulders. They obviously don’t like hearing that, and so they lash out in the only way they know how, by not addressing the accusation head-on and by pretending as if I said what I said because I’m “anti-white” or whatever.

            As for the Cathedral, well, what makes it distinctive is that it denies agency to everyone except heterosexual white males, although it is currently attributing some agency to high-IQ heterosexual Asian men as well. As such, it blames heterosexual white men for their problems while refusing to blame NAMs or women for theirs. That my view does not correspond with the Cathedral is clear because I have no problem blaming NAMs for their problems as well. I deny any agency to women however, and I think that the problems created by women must be dealt with by the restoration of patriarchy, and not by getting women to be more responsible, which is impossible.

          • peppermint says:

            Irving, the civil rights agenda is plausibly the responsibility of The White race, though Jew media domination can’t be overlooked, but he White working class has repeatedly tried to vote against it, for what little good voting does.

            But now Trump is sick of SJWs who tried to purge him a few times. They just purged the Red Sox famous pitcher from ESPN.

      • Jack says:

        The real interesting question is what’s the ratio between actually smart alt-righters vs. the dumb alt-righters (I call them alt-wrongers), and whether or not it’s higher than the ratio between “Harvard-educated Jewish SJWs” vs. the leftards smugly insulting Trump’s haircut on Facebook, enamored with their own brainfarts.

        The former is probably higher, i.e too many drooling idiots shitposting inane bullshit on various comment sections and thereby stifling intellectual discourse, whereas on the Left there seems to be more balance — 1:60 on the alt-right vs. 1:30 on the Left. I could be wrong though.

  19. peppermint says:

    As the trade deficit shows, offshoring happened in the ’90s. That’s not ’50s or ’30s labor agitation.

    The Civil Right Act of 1964 was rightly claimed not to contain racial quotas. It instead contained a 50 year program of lawfare, a.k.a. barratry (once upon a time, trying to slowly build up precedent by picking and choosing cases and harassing defendants into settling was considered illegal behavior, not admirable behavior), with the intention of banning Whites from saying or thinking the word nigger or saying or thinking that a holy man shouldn’t be allowed to go anywhere he pleases, including the women’s locker room at the pool right before your daughter goes swimming.

    It was discovered in 1971 (Griggs) that, since niggers are in fact equal to Whites (no one will dispute this, c.f. CRA), it is discriminatory (cf CRA) to refuse to hire them by means of a test that “isn’t substantially related to the job”.

    It was finally discovered in 2009 (FDNY) that, since niggers are in fact equal to Whites (CRA), it is discriminatory (CRA) to refuse to hire them by means of a test that is directly related to the job.

    Between 1971 and 2009 is 1990, when offshoring factories began in earnest.

    In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA didn’t bar employers from favoring women and minorities; the United Steelworkers was sued by a FUCKING WHITE MALE who argued that the union’s affirmative action program was violating his civil rights, meaning the unions were on board with affirmative action programs in the ’80s.

    In 1988, advocacy groups for nigger and spic interests alleged that a police sergeant exam in New York City was discriminatory because it had a disparate impact on niggers and spics. The niggers and spics got a settlement, a consent decree that niggers and spics would get promoted despite their lower scores. Subsequently, a bunch of FUCKING WHITE MALEs sued alleging that their scores were higher than the scores of the niggers and spics getting promoted; the Supreme Court ruled that the rules are the rules, only parties to a lawsuit are eligible to appeal its judgment, cf Ted Cruz.

    (offshoring here)

    Later on, in 1999, Nassau County had been under a consent decree to reduce the disparate impact the police entrance exam had on niggers, so some FUCKING WHITE MALEs and spics sued alleging that it discriminated against them.

    » The Second Circuit rejected the Equal Protection claims, because the test was facially neutral, administered and scored in the same way for all candidates, was not designed with an intent to discriminate, and had not resulted in an adverse impact upon the plaintiff class of white, Latino and female applicants. The court emphasized the distinction between the County’s legitimate intent to minimize the discriminatory impact of the test on black applicants, and an intent to discriminate against non-black applicants. — Wikipedia

    Ten years later, the FDNY decision.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ZjqJKt6sY

    • pdimov says:

      “unions were on board with affirmative action programs in the ’80s.”

      (((unions)))?

      • peppermint says:

        don’t discount the possibility that the unions were steeped in marxism and trying to join the entire working class together against capitalism, and run by commies because who but commies tries to get elected union leader?

        and yeah, commies are often ((commies)).

        • pdimov says:

          “who but commies tries to get elected union leader?”

          My guess would be (((someone))) whose job is to ensure a steady supply of (D) votes.

  20. peppermint says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991

    It’s worth noticing that the velvet glove of just justice being done in particular cases slipped off when the barratry campaign lost a bunch of times.

    Also important is the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which overturned another Supreme Court decision, mandating that a company that takes one federal contract needs to comply with civil rights laws in its every activity, which would have been very important to the kind of large companies that send factories overseas.

  21. Mister Grumpus says:

    My best guess that the “Alt Right Revolution” can/will happen when various overseas/trans-national financial authorities figure it out that if Whites don’t get a Safe Space to live and work in, then they’ll never be able or willing to work hard enough to pay off our government’s T-Bills.

    Note how Iceland’s credit rating improved so much after it defaulted on its debts to foreign banks.

    It would appear that Whites (and Japanese and Koreans?) are the only nationalities that foreigners expect to ever pay their bills to said foreigners.

    Of course if Uncle Sam has his way then he’ll pay the debt with printed money, but that’s a bigger loss to the Chinese, Saudis and whoever else than the currency of a more-White nation.

  22. […] A poem of successful revolution. […]

  23. […] slow week over at Jim’s, but he did manage to dig up a darkly didactic poem On successful revolution, designed to illustrate the Iron Law of Rebellious […]

  24. Zach says:

    “Corvinus, for example, loudly claims to see visible leprechauns.”

    lol

  25. peppermint says:

    By the way, I was just at a seder, in which the Jews celebrate how glorious freedom is.

    The blessings in Hebrew were in the traditional masculine form, while the English translations were gender neutral.

    Oh, and malakh ha-olam was repeatedly translated into some gay spirit of divinity stuff.

    • Irving says:

      Are you joking, or serious? If serious, where did you learn Hebrew? Are you, like Jack, a neo-Nazi Jew?

      • peppermint says:

        It’s not hard to pick up a few words of any language, which is why it’s so surprising that the Heeb who wrote that Seder book tried to jew the Zhids reading it who presumably know more Kike than I do. Lying for Ha-Shem is always popular, but for some nongendered spirit that probably doesn’t exist?

        Many White supremacists think that feminism was invented by the filthy rat kikes with the express intention of destroying the White race. That isn’t supremacist enough for me. It was funny to see the Jews bragging about how free they are while intimidated into gender neutrality in a way that the Cucktholics haven’t been.

        Feminism was invented by the only people it appeals to, the White race, and we imposed it on their ceremony.

    • Irving says:

      You still haven’t responded to my point about Jamaica.

      Jamaica, which is ~98 percent black, is wealthier than most white countries outside of Western Europe. They’ve also apparently got a fairly mature and intelligent population, which is more than most European countries can say, that is honest enough with itself to know that things would be better if the Anglos ran things.

      • pdimov says:

        What is your question?

        • Irving says:

          Theres no question. Its just that you argued that “Always and everywhere, Mongoloids excepted, increased % Caucasoid ancestry, as measured by the highly scientific method of looking at people and seeing who’s whiter, correlates with better rule.” I used the example of Negroid Jamaica, which is wealthier than the Caucasoid countries excepting the Western European or oil-rich Arab countries, to refute this argument.

          • pdimov says:

            Look at Jamaica’s government.

            http://opm.gov.jm/the-administration/members-of-the-cabinet/

            Is it not whiter than the median Jamaican?

          • Irving says:

            >Is it not whiter than the median Jamaican?

            As I said, Jamaica is a black country with a black and mulatto political elite. The pictures of the heads of Jamaican government confirms what I said. Every single one of them is either black or has a non-trivial amount of black in them.

            As well, if we’re going to be consistent, take a look at a picture of the Ethiopian government if you can find one, which is currently made up of mostly Tigrayans, with a smattering of Amhara, both of which ethnicities are usually classed as Caucasoids. And yet, most of Ethiopia, besides the cities and a few rural areas, is dismally poor compared to Nigeria, which has an all-black government.

            >Re wealthier. GDP per capita, Jamaica vs our guinea pig Bulgaria:

            I’m getting conflicting info on the Jamaican economy. Wikipedia says its got a per capita GDP of just under $10,000. But whatever. The main point is that Jamaica fares well when compared with, and even surpasses more than a few, Caucasoid countries.

            • jim says:

              Every single one of them is either black or has a non-trivial amount of black in them.

              The second image I see is the Hon Minister of Finance, who is white, and seems to be surrounded by white staff.

              Countries are in practice run by the public service. Politicians are just pr men for the public service. So if you have black voters, you put up black frontmen.

          • pdimov says:

            Look back at what I wrote and you quoted:

            “Always and everywhere, Mongoloids excepted, increased % Caucasoid ancestry, as measured by the highly scientific method of looking at people and seeing who’s whiter, correlates with better rule.”

            Now tell me, if the Jamaican government is replaced with people more representative, skin tone wise, of the median Jamaican, would its government improve or deteriorate?

            Or restated, would decreasing the % Caucasoid ancestry of the Jamaican government members correlate with worse rule?

          • Irving says:

            >Now tell me, if the Jamaican government is replaced with people more representative, skin tone wise, of the median Jamaican, would its government improve or deteriorate?

            >Or restated, would decreasing the % Caucasoid ancestry of the Jamaican government members correlate with worse rule?

            Deteriorate. But I had already conceded that Jamaica would be better off with Anglo rule, so you’re not proving anything.

            Your original assertion was that increased % of Caucasoid representation always and everywhere, except for in Mongoloid countries, makes for more functioning societies. And I’m saying that not all Caucasoids are created equal. It seems obvious to me, for example, that Jamaica would be worse off if some groups of Caucasoids took over their country, and that Jamaica would probably wouldn’t be much different, for better or for worse, if certain other groups of Caucasoids took over their country.

          • pdimov says:

            “Your original assertion was that increased % of Caucasoid representation always and everywhere, except for in Mongoloid countries, makes for more functioning societies.”

            Ancestry. Not representation. It’s right above. I have copied it from your quote, so it’s not like you’ve never seen it. Ancestry. Measured by skin color. More Caucasoid ancestry – whiter skin. Whiter Jamaicans running things – better rule.

            “It seems obvious to me, for example, that Jamaica would be worse off if some groups of Caucasoids took over their country…”

            That’s another story. Maybe it would. It depends on which group. Are you thinking of Bulgaria again? Because if you are, this is not at all obvious to me.

          • Irving says:

            >That’s another story. Maybe it would. It depends on which group. Are you thinking of Bulgaria again? Because if you are, this is not at all obvious to me.

            Jamaica would be worse off if Albanians, Algerians, Bosnians and certain other Caucasoid groups took over. It would probably be more or less the same if Bulgariano took over.

          • pdimov says:

            “Jamaica would be worse off if Albanians […] took over.”

            That would certainly be a very interesting experiment.

            Knowing little about Albania or Jamaica, I have no idea what would happen, but if I had to bet a large sum of money on either “worse off” or “better off”, I’m not at all sure I’d pick the former.

          • Irving says:

            >That would certainly be a very interesting experiment.

            >Knowing little about Albania or Jamaica, I have no idea what would happen, but if I had to bet a large sum of money on either “worse off” or “better off”, I’m not at all sure I’d pick the former.

            According to Wikipedia, Albanians have a similar per capital income to Jamaica, yet Albanians get much foreign aid from the US and the EU. Also Albanians have an IQ in the low 80s, and they’re Muslim. Many of them are among the “rapefugees” or whatever who are currently raping and pillaging their way to and through Western Europe. It seems unlikely that they’d make much of a positive contribution to Jamaica.

          • pdimov says:

            It would be the government of Albania running Jamaica, not the median Albanian. Look at their pictures (if you can open their web site, that is, because it’s giving me errors at the moment.)

            They don’t look like refugees.

            Also look at pictures of Albania and pictures of Jamaica.

          • Irving says:

            >The second image I see is the Hon Minister of Finance, who is white, and seems to be surrounded by white staff.

            He’s obviously at least a quarter black. Just look at his nose. He certainly wouldn’t pass as white under the one-drop rule.

            >Countries are in practice run by the public service. Politicians are just pr men for the public service. So if you have black voters, you put up black frontmen.

            Again, it is simply a fact that Jamaica is a black country with a black and mulatto ruling elite. It is still a shitty country in many ways, but it is obviously relatively successful compared to most other countries in the world.

            • jim says:

              He’s obviously at least a quarter black. Just look at his nose. He certainly wouldn’t pass as white under the one-drop rule.

              OK, Checked more images of him, and yes, you are right, I was wrong. He is at least a quarter black – which is blacker than most of the top public servants who actually run the country.

          • Irving says:

            >He is at least a quarter black – which is blacker than most of the top public servants who actually run the country.

            Even if all of the public servants were white — which they aren’t, because the are all black and mulatto — the country itself would still be ~98 percent black. The focus here should be on the fact that Jamaica is a black country and not on the supposed white-ness of that country’s public servants. After all, if blacks are inherently what you say they are, if they really are sub-human, cannibals, apes, etc., then the white public servants that a ~98 percent black country might have wouldn’t be able to do much good. Either blacks are sub-human or they aren’t. If they are, then Jamaica’s relative prosperity can’t be due to the white public servants, because white public servants can’t make a ~98 percent black country relatively prosperous. If they aren’t, then there shouldn’t be any problem accepting that a ~98 percent black country could achieve relative prosperity.

            • jim says:

              After all, if blacks are inherently what you say they are, if they really are sub-human, cannibals, apes, etc., then the white public servants that a ~98 percent black country might have wouldn’t be able to do much good

              Compare Rhodesia and the Congo under white rule, with Rhodesia and the Congo under black rule.

          • Irving says:

            “If they aren’t, then there shouldn’t be any problem accepting that a ~98 percent black country could achieve relative prosperity.”

            should be amended to:

            If they aren’t, then there shouldn’t be any problem accepting that a ~98 percent black country could achieve relative prosperity without having white pubic servants

          • Irving says:

            >Compare Rhodesia and the Congo under white rule, with Rhodesia and the Congo under black rule.

            Obviously both were better off as colonies, but that’s not relevant here. Being colonized is much different than having mere public servants of a different race.

            • jim says:

              Being colonized is much different than having mere public servants of a different race.

              Is it? I feel mighty like I am being colonized by hostile aliens.

          • Irving says:

            >Is it? I feel mighty like I am being colonized by hostile aliens

            You’re being invaded, not colonized. Colonization will come when the invaders move to convert their numerical superiority into political power.

      • jim says:

        I would guess that the 2% of whites and whitish people are running things.

        Nigeria also is doing pretty well because the Chinese are running things, but Nigerians, nonetheless, are still eating each other.

        • Irving says:

          >I would guess that the 2% of whites and whitish people are running things.

          Jamaica is a black country run by blacks and mulattoes.

          >Nigeria also is doing pretty well because the Chinese are running things, but Nigerians, nonetheless, are still eating each other.

          China is not “running things” in Nigeria and Nigerians are not “eating each other”.

          • jim says:

            China is not “running things” in Nigeria and Nigerians are not “eating each other”.

            You are pig ignorant, stupid, and in denial.

            Of course nigerians are eating each other.

            What do you think blacks do when not under white supervision? Cannibalism has always been a huge problem in subsaharan Africa, and continues to be so. If it was not for strong and continual federal government intervention they would be eating each other in Detroit.

            If after the restoration, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. gets deported to Liberia, pretty soon he will eating people if they don’t eat him first.

          • Irving says:

            >You are pig ignorant, stupid, and in denial.

            Calm down.

            >Of course nigerians are eating each other.

            Everything that we know about human nature tells us that cannibalism, though it may happen in isolated instances, can never become a widespread practice.

            >What do you think blacks do when not under white supervision?

            A few do OK, others don’t.

            >Cannibalism has always been a huge problem in subsaharan Africa, and continues to be so.

            No and no.

            >If it was not for strong and continual federal government intervention they would be eating each other in Detroit.

            Possibly — Detroit is pretty bad.

            >If after the restoration, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. gets deported to Liberia, pretty soon he will eating people if they don’t eat him first.

            This made me laugh, but no, Gates wouldn’t eat anyone and he wouldn’t be eaten by anyone.

            • jim says:

              Everything that we know about human nature tells us that cannibalism, though it may happen in isolated instances, can never become a widespread practice.

              Read the conquistador diaries. Eating human flesh was routine, universal, and omnipresent until the conquistadors suppressed it with fire and steel. Bernal Díaz del Castillo tells us that in the markets, live and butchered people were on display like pigs.

              White travelers in the Congo still face real and substantial risk of being eaten if they go off the beaten track.

              Gates wouldn’t eat anyone and he wouldn’t be eaten by anyone.

              If you go to Liberia and stray outside the safe areas where white visitors get protection, you face a good chance they will eat you. Why would they not eat Gates? Outsiders, strangers, etc, get eaten.

          • peppermint says:

            » Everything that we know about human nature tells us that cannibalism, though it may happen in isolated instances, can never become a widespread practice.

            who’s we?

            https://www.google.com/search?q=cannibal+warlords+of+liberia is not an unknown documentary

            Is “we” supposed to refer to mid-20th century Western educated men who have only briefly if ever left White countries? The kind of people who believe that (1) all talking animals are IMAGO DEI (2) all IMAGO DEI have the Law written on their souls (3) widespread cannibalism is therefore probably an atrocity hoax to justify colonialism, but the Holocaust was totally real and to prevent things like the Holocaust from happening again we need Europe to be invaded by shitskins

            because if so, “we” are going to die in nursing homes soon, while my generation removes kebab from premises

          • Irving says:

            I’ve read Castillo but I’m doubtful about his narrative. I’ve no doubt that cannibalism was practiced among the pre Columbian Indiana but I think his narrative distorts things.

            Where Africa is concerned, I’m sure that cannibalism is more common there than elsewhere. The main point though is that the vast, vast majority of Africans have never tasted human flesh.

            • jim says:

              I’ve read Castillo but I’m doubtful about his narrative.

              He was there. Everyone who was there tells much the same story – that cannibalism was routine and practiced on a large scale. Why doubt his story?

              The main point though is that the vast, vast majority of Africans have never tasted human flesh.

              And you know this how?

          • Irving says:

            Fine, so what percent of Africans do you think have eaten someone, or some part of someone?

            • jim says:

              Among urbanites, few, but in the countryside, would guess most of them at one time or another. In the countryside, no refrigeration, so when there is a windfall of meat – some unpopular outsider who never will be missed, some stranger from far away, some enemy or alleged enemy casualties in the never ending civil wars, near wars, riots, and civil disturbances, everyone shares.

          • peppermint says:

            » the vast, vast majority of Africans have never tasted human flesh.

            » what percentage of Africans have eaten someone?

            typical Christian argument from incredulity.

            The scene in District 9 with the Nigerian gangster who wants to eat the protagonist’s hand – why wasn’t the movie widely panned as racist for it? Could it be because everyone knows that cannibalism is common in Africa?

            You’re grasping at straws to maintain your worldview that all IMAGO DEI are equal and have equal souls that need equal opportunity for great justice. Your worldview is too cucked to even pass on to the immediate biological descendants of its votaries.

          • Irving says:

            >Among urbanites, few, but in the countryside, would guess most of them at one time or another.

            Given that most Africans still live in the countryside, what you’re claiming, without any hard evidence to back it up, is that most Africans have eaten human flesh at one point or another.

            I agree that the simple fact of rampant malnutrition and frequent wars creates conditions which would seem to make higher levels of cannibalism inevitable among Africans. But this is not the same thing as saying that most Africans have eaten human flesh.

            >typical Christian argument from incredulity.

            There’s no credulity here. My rejection of what Jim is saying concerning cannibalism in Africa is firm and is based both on hard evidence and an understanding of human nature.

            >You’re grasping at straws to maintain your worldview that all IMAGO DEI are equal and have equal souls that need equal opportunity for great justice. Your worldview is too cucked to even pass on to the immediate biological descendants of its votaries.

            The equality of souls would still be true even if cannibalism was rampant in Africa, which it isn’t. Christianity doesn’t teach that all men are equal, only that all souls were created by God, are loved by God and that all will equally be accountable for their sins on the day of judgement.

            Admission into heaven, as far as I know, moreover, is not based on affirmative action. It is entirely plausible that one racial group will be underrepresented in heaven. If it were really true that Africa was rampant with cannibalism, and on top of that sodomy was widespread, in addition to other equally abhorrent sins, than we would only have to conclude that most Africans will likely be damned on the day of judgement. None of this contradicts the Christian teaching of the equality of souls.

          • pdimov says:

            “My rejection of what Jim is saying concerning cannibalism in Africa is firm and is based both on hard evidence and an understanding of human nature.”

            Even Wikipedia is to your right on this issue.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Africa

            What hard evidence do you possess?

          • Irving says:

            >What hard evidence do you possess?

            There is cannibalism in Africa. Also in Wisconsin. The question here is whether it is rampant in Africa, or not. Personal experience + the findings of anthropologists + an understanding of human nature says that it isn’t.

            • jim says:

              You are being silly. There is no cannibalism in Wisconsin. There is enough cannibalism in Africa that there are large areas where visitors should not go because of the substantial likelihood of being eaten.

              Just as you can visit parts of New York with no risk of being mugged, parts with acceptable risk of being mugged, and parts with a very high likelihood of being mugged, you can visit parts of Africa with no risk of being eaten, parts with acceptable risk of being eaten, and parts where no white man should go because of the very high likelihood of being eaten.

          • pdimov says:

            “the findings of anthropologists”

            And we can trust anthropologists to report each and every instance of cannibalism they come across, because no anthropologist has ever been vilified for reporting his politically incorrect findings that contradict the myth of the noble savage?

            “an understanding of human nature”

            Are the incidents cited on Wikipedia in line with your understanding of human nature?

          • Irving says:

            >You are being silly. There is no cannibalism in Wisconsin.

            Have you never heard of this guy? — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

            There’s also cannibalism in Germany too. Look up the name “Armin Meiwes”.

            >There is enough cannibalism in Africa that there are large areas where visitors should not go because of the substantial likelihood of being eaten.

            From what I can tell, it does appear as if cannibalism is relatively high, though not rampant, in south-central Africa (i.e. Central African Republic, Congo, etc.) and perhaps in certain parts of West Africa, like Liberia. Yet we can also say that the average Congolese or Liberian has never eaten anyone.

            >And we can trust anthropologists to report each and every instance of cannibalism they come across, because no anthropologist has ever been vilified for reporting his politically incorrect findings that contradict the myth of the noble savage?

            Where there is a cover up of some politically incorrect anthropological truth, it is usually the case that there will be a minority of anthropologists who are assiduously backing up the politically incorrect truth with considerable and undeniable evidence while the politically correct scholars defaming them as a means of shutting them up.

            In this case, there isn’t anyone even making the claim that cannibalism is rampant in Africa. The consensus is that there are in fact various and numerically insignificant tribes that still practice cannibalism in the Asia Pacific, in India and, yes, in Africa. No one denies this, but no one says that cannibalism is rampant anywhere in the world.

            Apart from those tribes that practice cannibalism, it is obvious that places with lots of malnutrition and frequent wars will likely have more instances of cannibalism than more prosperous and peaceful countries. We can therefore deduce from Africa’s food insecurity and its many bloody wars that there’s more cannibalism there than in, say, Europe. But there’s no reason, and no evidence, to suggest that it is rampant there.

            >Are the incidents cited on Wikipedia in line with your understanding of human nature?

            Yes.

            • jim says:

              Yet we can also say that the average Congolese or Liberian has never eaten anyone.

              If the average Congolese or Liberian has never eaten anyone, a restaurant with human flesh on the menu could not operate.

              Those incidents of cannibalism that come to our attention often are of a nature that implies that cannibalism is routine and widespread, that everyone does it from time to time.

              Sometimes, often, people eat people in order to be scary and intimidating. Sometimes, they are just hungry for meat. The latter cases imply that cannibalism is, in some areas and among some ethnicities, fairly routine.

          • peppermint says:

            A few reviled insane remarkable White cannibals are the same as unremarkable large scale cannibalism in Africa that is casually included in major hit movies, because IMAGO DEI.

            You Christians will say anything to convince yourselves of your delusions. You’re only trying to convince yourself or your rationalizations and fibs would be consistent.

          • Irving says:

            >A few reviled insane remarkable White cannibals are the same as unremarkable large scale cannibalism in Africa

            To reiterate, I concede that there is cannibalism in Africa, and that cannibalism is more common in Africa than it is in most, if not all, other parts in the world. What I am denying is that cannibalism in Africa is “large scale”.

          • Irving says:

            >If the average Congolese or Liberian has never eaten anyone, a restaurant with human flesh on the menu could not operate.

            And indeed, there doesn’t appear to be any restaurants with human flesh on the menu.

            Even the Nigerian example you cited didn’t actually have human flesh on the menu. The restaurant seems to have been selling it as a kind of ‘mystery meat’, not telling the patrons what the meat actually was.

            >Those incidents of cannibalism that come to our attention often are of a nature that implies that cannibalism is routine and widespread, that everyone does it from time to time.

            No

          • pdimov says:

            “>Are the incidents cited on Wikipedia in line with your understanding of human nature?

            Yes.”

            What _is_ your understanding of human nature then? I really can’t tell. What part of human nature makes it obvious that cannibalism cannot be widespread and yet does not preclude these incidents?

            Innate revulsion at the thought of eating a human is either universal or it isn’t. If it is, we shouldn’t be seeing those incidents and reports. If it isn’t, why does it follow that there cannot be large scale cannibalism in Africa?

            And in either case, why _should_ it be universal? Anatomically modern humans were cannibals. Neanderthals likely were as well.

          • Irving says:

            Pdimov,

            I know that cannibalism isn’t rampant in Africa for the same reason that I know that Jews in medieval Europe didn’t routinely kidnap Christian children, kill them and the drink their blood. That said, I’m sure that Africans, many of whom are quite uncivilized, violent and not very bright, do engage in more cannibalism than do europeans or other groups, especially given the high rates of malnutrition and frequent wars in Africa, just as I’m sure that some medieval jews did in fact kidnap, kill and drink the blood of some christian children.

            Revulsion at the eating of human flesh seems more or less universal to humanity and so we must have hard evidence that cannibalism is rampant to a group of people before we accuse them of engaging in rampant cannibalism. We don’t have that evidence for africans, so we shouldn’t accuse them of rampant cannibalism.

            There’s no reason to believe that raw or roasted pieces of human flesh are a significant part of African cuisine, in fact we know that it isn’t, so there’s no justification for for accusing Africans of rampant cannibalism.

            • jim says:

              so we must have hard evidence that cannibalism is rampant to a group of people before we accuse them of engaging in rampant cannibalism.

              The ultimate progressive argument. No evidence can every be sufficiently hard to disprove what a progressive wants to believe, while what a progressive wants to believe needs no evidence at all, other than that all right thinking people agree with him.

              Whereas Christianity merely required one to believe in things unseen, its modern descendent demands its adherents disbelieve in things seen.

              If authority required me to believe in Leprechauns, and to get along with people that it was important to get along with required me to believe in Leprechauns, I would probably believe in leprechauns, though not in the way that I believe in rabbits, but I can see people not being equal, whereas I cannot see leprechauns not existing.

          • peppermint says:

            — I know that cannibalism isn’t rampant in Africa for the same reason that I know that Jews in medieval Europe didn’t routinely kidnap Christian children, kill them and the drink their blood.

            I.e. because Jews tell you that and ban you from discussing other opinions. Oh, and because IMAGO DEI.

            — I’m sure that some medieval jews did in fact kidnap, kill and drink the blood of some christian children.

            How can you possibly say this conspiracy happened once or twice without discussing it as a routine institution of at least some Jewish sect?

            — Revulsion at the eating of human flesh seems more or less universal to humanity

            Bullshit. Presumably, you know this because IMAGO DEI

            — There’s no reason to believe that raw or roasted pieces of human flesh are a significant part of African cuisine, in fact we know that it isn’t, so there’s no justification for for accusing Africans of rampant cannibalism.

            So, for it to be not uncommon, it needs to be a significant part of their cuisine, while Jeffrey Dahmer means Whites are equally guilty of this sin against IMAGO DEI.

            Do you suppose the Nigerian gangster in District 9 is a good Christian like you, and Nigeria isn’t full of Satan-worshipping cannibals? This is why cuckstainty is dead: the last cuckstains will say anything to maintain the equivalence between their religion and every religion other than National Socialism.

            By the way, would you rather your daughter marry a Nigerian Christian or a White pagan?

          • Irving says:

            >I.e. because Jews tell you that and ban you from discussing other opinions. Oh, and because IMAGO DEI.

            No, it is because there is nothing about the Jews that would make one believe that they would routinely kill children, even Christian children, in order to drink their blood as a part of a religious ritual.

            >How can you possibly say this conspiracy happened once or twice without discussing it as a routine institution of at least some Jewish sect?

            From what I have read, it does seem to be the case that there were a few Jews in some parts of Europe during the medieval era who ascribed a certain medicinal quality to the blood of children, and it does also appear to be the case that at least some of the reported cases of kidnapped and killed Christian children occurred in the vicinity of these Jews who held this particular belief.

            As well, there are about 2 or 3 cases that I am familiar with of Christian children that were likely kidnapped and killed by Jews, though these cases, as far as I know, did not involve the drinking of blood.

            Other than this, there’s no evidence that would allow us to believe that the Jews of medieval Europe routinely kidnapped, killed and drank the blood of Christian children.

            For further reading, I would suggest anything on the subject by William Thomas Walsh, as well as (((Ariel Toaff’s))) extremely interesting book Passovers of Blood, which is available for free online as a PDF.

            >Bullshit. Presumably, you know this because IMAGO DEI

            The reality is that there are a lot of people in the world who are suffering from malnutrition. Obviously one way that these poor people could improve their condition would be to start eating each other. One reason why they don’t is because they don’t want to.

            >So, for it to be not uncommon, it needs to be a significant part of their cuisine,

            Yes. One way that we can know what a people eats is by examining their cuisine, and, as far as I know, there’s no group of Africans, besides a few tribes here and there, that includes human flesh as a part of its cuisine. That is a major reason to suspect that cannibalism is not common in Africa.

            Another way of approaching this question is by examining the behavior of Africans who live in the West. One reason why we know that the raping of teenage boys is disturbingly common in Pakistan is because of the behavior of Pakistanis in places like the UK. In the same way, if cannibalism were common among Africans, we should expect that Africans in the West would commonly be found to eat human flesh. But as far as I know, the Congolese in Belgium, etc., do not commonly eat human flesh.

            >while Jeffrey Dahmer means Whites are equally guilty of this sin against IMAGO DEI.

            I’ve already said that I believe that Africans do cannibalism more often than do whites. The question here is whether cannibalism is rampant in Africa.

            >By the way, would you rather your daughter marry a Nigerian Christian or a White pagan?

            I don’t have a daughter. But, I don’t in principle have any problem with interracial marriage. Under normal conditions, it won’t happen often, but when it does, so long as both parties are aware of the challenges that they will face, so long as they are willing to bear them in a mature and responsible way, etc., then I see no issue with it.

            • jim says:

              No, it is because there is nothing about the Jews that would make one believe that they would routinely kill children, even Christian children, in order to drink their blood as a part of a religious ritual.

              But there is plenty about blacks that would make one believe they would kill someone because they felt like a snack if they were in an environment where they could get away with it.

              if cannibalism were common among Africans, we should expect that Africans in the West would commonly be found to eat human flesh. But as far as I know, the Congolese in Belgium, etc., do not commonly eat human flesh.

              Supply problem. In the west, if you kill someone, or if someone just dies, people come and take the body away. Much drama ensues, making it inconvenient to hold a barbecue. Cannibalism in practice seems to be a matter of convenience. If you can hold a barbecue and all the neighbors come around and think you are fine guy and offer you a beer so that they can have some of the meat, then cannibalism is common.

              Widepread cannibalism is social and collective, hence fairly easy for the state to suppress. Where the government’s writ runs, and the government suppresses cannibalism, then no cannibalism. There is very little cannibalism in any African city, and what cannibalism occurs in African cities, is of meat that was butchered, cooked, and smoked or salted, in the bush. Where the government’s writ not so strong, you get human meat on the restaurant menu.

              In the countryside, human meat is butchered and prepared for consumption, in ways that imply it was openly and socially butchered and prepared for consumption, that everyone knew, and many people participated.

          • Irving says:

            >The ultimate progressive argument. No evidence can every be sufficiently hard to disprove what a progressive wants to believe, while what a progressive wants to believe needs no evidence at all, other than that all right thinking people agree with him.

            The progressive approach is to demand that an unattainable standard of evidence be satisfied before a politically incorrect truth can be accepted as true. But I am not demanding an unattainable standard of evidence. The fact is, you have offered no evidence for your assertion that a practice as grotesque and contrary to human nature as cannibalism is rampant in Africa. It is not progressive for me to call you out on this, and demand that you back up your assertion with evidence.

            >Whereas Christianity merely required one to believe in things unseen, its modern descendent demands its adherents disbelieve in things seen.

            Who has seen evidence of rampant cannibalism in Africa?

            • jim says:

              The fact is, you have offered no evidence for your assertion that a practice as grotesque and contrary to human nature as cannibalism is rampant in Africa.

              Oh come on.

              You cannot operate a restaurant with human meat on the menu unless a large proportion of your customers are used to eating human meat and miss it.

              In the African countryside, there is no way to smoke human meat furtively. The preparation of smoked human meat implies the entire village got some.

          • Irving says:

            >But there is plenty about blacks that would make one believe they would kill someone because they felt like a snack if they were in an environment where they could get away with it.

            Criminal blacks commit all kinds of crimes that are difficult to get away with (i.e. drive-by shootings), and sometimes with even less justification. There are criminal blacks that will kill you for a pair of shoes, for example. I’d be more sympathetic to a guy who kills in order to eat him as opposed to a guy who kills in order to get a pair of fancy shoes.

            If criminal blacks were really willing to kill a man in order to eat him as a snack, they would do it. Yet according to the evidence, not even criminal blacks kill people in order to eat them.

            >Supply problem. In the west, if you kill someone, or if someone just dies, people come and take the body away.

            Please. It wouldn’t be difficult at all to snatch up a runaway child, a prostitute or a homeless person, and to kill and eat them. Supply is not an issue. People go missing all the time, especially people that no one cares about, without the authorities ever finding them.

            • jim says:

              If criminal blacks were really willing to kill a man in order to eat him as a snack, they would do it. Yet according to the evidence, not even criminal blacks kill people in order to eat them.

              If you kill someone for a snack, have to cook him and all that. Logistically complicated. They don’t hunt cats and dogs for snacks either, whereas Mexicans do.

              The food preparation step requires widespread participation and social acceptance. Otherwise it is rather difficult.

              For example, most human flesh consumed in African cities was salted and hung out to dry in the countryside, which is a rather public activity.

              Cannibalism is inconvenient if you cannot invite all your neighbors around for the barbecue and tell them to bring some beer.

              And often enough, we see incidents of cannibalism in Africa that amount to inviting all the neighbors to the barbecue and telling them to bring some beer.

          • pdimov says:

            “I’ve already said that I believe that Africans do cannibalism more often than do whites.”

            Why? There is no evidence for that. Going by the list,

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_cannibalism#21st_century

            it looks like cannibalism is almost nonexistent in Africa. There are what, two incidents or so, total.

            In other news, Russia has a higher murder rate than Tanzania, and the top African countries by murder rate, the only ones in the top 30, are Lesotho, SA, Swaziland, Namibia and Botswana.

            Those South Africans really drag the continent down.

          • Irving says:

            >Why? There is no evidence for that.

            My assumption is that incidences of cannibalism are less likely to be reported in Africa coupled with the fact that it simply makes sense that there would be more cannibalism in areas that are poor and war-torn compared to places that are prosperous and peaceful.

          • pdimov says:

            “Who has seen evidence of rampant cannibalism in Africa?”

            There is no direct evidence of rampant cannibalism in Africa. There is however evidence of CASUAL cannibalism, cannibalism practiced as if it were normal.

            “On 31 October 2014, a crowd stoned to death, burned and then ate a suspected ADF insurgent in the town of Beni, North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

          • Irving says:

            OK, I’m done talking about cannibalism in Africa. I’ve made my thoughts on this issue clear. I will be willing to re-engage, however, provided that hard evidence is provided that would seem to back up the assertion that cannibalism is rampant in Africa. [Such evidence was repeated provided, and repeatedly ignored] Because such evidence hasn’t been provided, [Bare faced lie, repeated several times]

            Repeating yet again the evidence for widespread, commonplace, and routine cannibalism in some substantial parts of Africa, for the umpteenth time.

            If someone operates a restaurant, and human meat is on the menu, that implies that a large proportion of the customers are cannibals.

            The preparation of human meat for later consumption by smoking is necessarily done in public, hence normal and publicly acceptable in the village where the meat was preserved.

            If a crowd chows down on someone, spontaneously holding a barbecue, that implies that the random average person who happened to be in the crowd is a cannibal. Hence the random average person in that society is a cannibal.

            In Africa, when cannibalism occurs, it occurs as a collective and group activity, which is only possible when most people, or most people in that area, ethnicity, and social group, are cannibals.

          • pdimov says:

            The Nigerian restaurant may be a hoax.

            http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/nigeria.asp

          • Irving says:

            The only piece of evidence referred to to prove that cannibalism is rampant in Africa is the story about the Nigerian restaurant, and that story, even if it were not a hoax, and it appears that it is a hoax, did not say that people were free to order human flesh, but only that there was an expensive ‘mystery meat’ on the menu which later turned out to be human flesh. So even if it were true, it would make for weak evidence

            The rest of what you’re saying are mere assertions, not backed up by any evidence at all. Some of those assertions are not falsifiable, and therefore not worth responding to, and others are obviously false, like your assertion that blacks don’t cannablize people in the West because of a supply shortage, and when I show that they are false, you continue on without acknowledging it, as if it didn’t happen.

            • jim says:

              Snopes declares this story (cannibal restaurant) to be false on the basis that restaurant owner, serving time in jail, proclaims his innocence.

              But he still, according to Snopes, in jail for cannibalism, continues to be in jail for cannibalism, and, according to Snopes, pleaded guilty.

              Clearly Snopes very very very very much wants this story to go away, but has no real way of making it go away.

          • pdimov says:

            “In Africa, when cannibalism occurs, it occurs as a collective and group activity…”

            Precisely.

            Elsewhere, incidents of cannibalism involve loners (occasionally small groups) operating in secret, or crazy people.

            In Africa, a crowd roasts and eats a person in public.

            This is not direct evidence for rampant cannibalism, but it’s certainly evidence that the social norms regarding cannibalism in Africa are somewhat different.

          • Irving says:

            >Elsewhere, incidents of cannibalism involve loners (occasionally small groups) operating in secret, or crazy people.

            >In Africa, a crowd roasts and eats a person in public.

            >This is not direct evidence for rampant cannibalism, but it’s certainly evidence that the social norms regarding cannibalism in Africa are somewhat different.

            If what you are saying is that African social norms regarding cannibalism are different from those of most or all other peoples, given the isolated cases of crowds roasting and eating people in public, you’re wrong.

            Cannibalism happens today in China. Many are the reports of aborted or infanticided Chinese babies being roasted and eaten outright, or else crushed to dust and converted into pill form, to be consumed by ignorant Chinese who think that by doing so, they will cure themselves of disease or else experience a general improvement in their health. Some are even making ‘baby soup’ out of these poor children because they think that by eating it, it will help them perform better in bed. Here’s a relevant link in case you have the stomach to read it, and to look at the damning photos accompanying it: http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=7333

            Who knows, however, what other justifications they have for participating in this abhorrent practice? But obviously no one would ever say, on the basis of this evidence alone, that cannibalism is rampant in China.

            This isn’t even to mention to the widespread cannibalism that ensued in China following the Mao-induced famine in the 50s and 60s.

            It is clear that cannibalism is a thing in some parts of Africa, that it happens with relative frequency those parts of Africa. There’s no justification, though, for saying that it is rampant in all of Africa, or even in those parts of Africa in which most of the reported cases of cannibalism have emanated.

            • jim says:

              If what you are saying is that African social norms regarding cannibalism are different from those of most or all other peoples, given the isolated cases of crowds roasting and eating people in public, you’re wrong.

              Nuts

          • peppermint says:

            » If what you are saying is that African social norms regarding cannibalism are different from those of most or all other peoples, given the isolated cases of crowds roasting and eating people in public, you’re wrong.

            everyone has heard about the Maoist cultural revolootion eating human hearts of whoever they could accuse of capitalism and kill

            everyone has heard about niggers casually eating each other

            you’re the first person i’ve ever heard of drawing a parallel between niggers and chinks and then claiming that therefore all IMAGO DEI are equally cannibal

            this makes no sense

            its like saying that chinks and Whites built seaworthy boats and therefore all IMAGO DEI are equally shipbuilders

            but hey, commie christcucks would probably agree with that too

            once upon a time Christians would announce matter of factly that they are morally superior to cannibals

            today cuckstains think that they are morally equal to everyone, that no one is a cannibal or everyone is a cannibal, and the only bad people are nazis who think that some IMAGO DEI are better than others

            fuck your IMAGO DEI

            apathy and tolerance are the last virtues of a dying ideology, because those virtues are by definition impossible to pass on: the youth say, okay, if you’re so tolerant, tolerate this, and be apathetic about it

            tolerate this, christcuck:
            (卐つ◕ل◕)つ·︻┻═━一 ᕕ(✡ᐛ )ᕗ

          • Irving says:

            >everyone has heard about the Maoist cultural revolootion eating human hearts of whoever they could accuse of capitalism and kill

            Yes, but not everyone has heard of the recent instances of Chinese eating other Chinese

            >everyone has heard about niggers casually eating each other

            Accusations have been made, but I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence that cannibalism is rampant in Africa.

            >you’re the first person i’ve ever heard of drawing a parallel between niggers and chinks and then claiming that therefore all IMAGO DEI are equally cannibal

            >this makes no sense

            What I was doing was responding to pdimov’s statement that African social norms regarding cannibalism are “different”, which I interpreted as meaning more tolerant, than are those of other races. I pointed to the Chinese examples of cannibalism because they are actually confirmed to be true and, by Jim’s standard of evidence concerning this issue, would appear to be sufficient to allow us to conclude that cannibalism is rampant in China. But of course cannibalism is not rampant in China, no one believes that it is.

            >today cuckstains think that they are morally equal to everyone, that no one is a cannibal or everyone is a cannibal, and the only bad people are nazis who think that some IMAGO DEI are better than others

            >apathy and tolerance are the last virtues of a dying ideology, because those virtues are by definition impossible to pass on: the youth say, okay, if you’re so tolerant, tolerate this, and be apathetic about it

            I don’t know what to tell you besides that I am not your ordinary Christian. I don’t attend a Church, nor do I have anything anything to do with mainstream Christianity or Christians. My Christianity is mine alone, and no one else’s, and the last thing that I am interested in is proselytism. That normative Christianity is a “dying ideology” is no concern of mine.

          • peppermint says:

            when are you going to reply regarding the Nigerian gangster in District 9 saying he’s going to eat Wikus’ arm?

            a simple “that movie was reactionary anti-animist xenophobic apartheid agitprop” would do

          • Irving says:

            >when are you going to reply regarding the Nigerian gangster in District 9 saying he’s going to eat Wikus’ arm?

            >a simple “that movie was reactionary anti-animist xenophobic apartheid agitprop” would do

            I haven’t replied to your reference to the movie because I’ve never seen it, but I guess now that you’ve mentioned it, I’ll take a look when I have a chance

            • jim says:

              Obviously no one is going to depict a white gangster, a Muslim terrorist, or even a Nazi terrorist, planning to eat human flesh.

              If a film maker can get away with depicting a black Nigerian gangster planning to eat human flesh without progressives lynching him for evil stereotyping, it is because even progressives know what they dare not actually say out loud: that cannibalism is as unremarkable and common in Nigeria as it is in large parts of the rest of black Africa.

              Analogously, the progressive reluctance to hold women responsible for the consequences of their actions admits what they deny – that women are similar to children and should be under the supervision of fathers or husbands.

              And similarly the progressive demand that the white working class carry blacks on their back admits what they deny – that blacks cannot look after themselves and need to be under white supervision.

          • Irving says:

            >cannibalism is as unremarkable and common in Nigeria as it is in large parts of the rest of black Africa

            Repetition is not evidence. You have no evidence. You have arguments, but no evidence.

            Moreover, the only hard evidence that you’ve linked to to support your claim has been shown to be a hoax.

            Moreover, your interpretation of the hoax evidence that you cited, in which you claimed that because the cannibalism was performed in such a way as to be a collective and social activity, it is right to conclude that tolerance for cannibalism, and the practice of it, must be rampant in Africa, is just as applicable to the real evidence that I have provided of cannibalism transpiring in China as a collective and social activity. Are you prepared to say, then, that cannibalism is rampant in modern China?

            Moreover, are you going to explain why you feel you must so tenaciously hold to a point of view which is so transparently untenable? I’m sure that when you initially said that Nigerians are “still eating each other” you didn’t even mean it literally. It was only when I said that that statement was not true that you went and linked to a piece of evidence that I’m sure you never looked at before you actually linked to it, otherwise you’d have known it was a hoax, and then doubled down, and made the more radical claim that cannibalism is rampant among all Africans, regardless of country.

            • jim says:

              >cannibalism is as unremarkable and common in Nigeria as it is in large parts of the est of black Africa

              Repetition is not evidence. You have no evidence. You have arguments, but no evidence.

              Liar

              If a restaurant supplies human meat, that is compelling evidence that cannibalism is routine and common among the restaurant’s customers.

              If a crowd publicly barbecues and eats someone, that is compelling evidence that cannibalism is routine and common among the random man in the street.

              If people engage in cannibalism socially and collectively, rather than secretly and individually, your society largely consists of cannibals.

          • pdimov says:

            “Here’s a relevant link in case you have the stomach to read it, and to look at the damning photos accompanying it…”

            I can’t help but wonder what those photos tell us about the universals of human nature.

        • pdimov says:

          Nigeria is not a very good example. When I hear of a high-IQ black person, I always guess that he’s a Nigerian and I’m usually correct.

          • peppermint says:

            Lagos has 10 million Imago Dei’s and no sewer system. At some point, there will be a plague.

          • Irving says:

            >Nigeria is not a very good example. When I hear of a high-IQ black person, I always guess that he’s a Nigerian and I’m usually correct.

            Why wouldn’t Nigeria be a good example? It isn’t as if having a low IQ is a defining characteristic of black-ness.

            At any rate, most Nigerians are savages. There’s two ethnic groups there, though, that seem to do pretty well IQ-wise, which are the Igbo and the Yoruba, the Igbo especially, and Nigerians in the West tend to be of those two ethnic groups.

          • pdimov says:

            “Why wouldn’t Nigeria be a good example?”

            It has a native high IQ elite and it could be that elite that’s been running things reasonably well, not necessarily the Chinese.

            Although I admit I’ve no idea who’s running Nigeria now or whether its condition improved markedly after the Chinese entered Africa, and I’m too lazy to check.

Leave a Reply