The enemy within

Trump’s CIA director, Pompeo, tells us that Julian Assange, the leader of wikileaks is “on the wrong side of history.”

That is commie language, commie thinking. To say that history has a side in earthly political struggles is history reified and personified as the Jewish God.

Probably he is a cultural Marxist rather than an old style Marxist, since old style Marxists are mighty thin on the ground these days.

Personifying “History” is characteristic of Jewish descended leftism via Marx. Puritan descended leftism via Harvard immanentizes salvation, rather the immanentizing the deity.

This ideology puts one on a course that necessarily results in the murder of very large number of people. Pompeo is ticked with Julian Assange for exposing, and thus disrupting, various color revolutions, but the biggest color revolution that is cooking right now is in America itself, which revolution, if it goes through, will likely result in the deaths of Trump and all his family, and probably most republicans in office. If you favor color revolutions, you favor antifa, you favor killing Trump, his family, and Trump supporters.

The Marxist does not think of himself as intending to murder the peasants, and the cultural Marxist does not think of himself as planning to send all hetero males to the Gulag. Rather he thinks that if it was not for “bullying” all nine year old boys would be gay and they would all be fucking in the classroom a great big pile. When a great big pile fails to ensue in the classroom, escalates the war on “bullying”, until it eventually starts to look remarkably like sending all cisgender males to the Gulag.

The original Marxists were going to emancipate the peasants from the landlords, and utopia and abundance would ensue. Utopia and abundance failed to ensue. Obviously invisible intangible landlord oppression. Therefore, war on kulaks, which liberation of the peasants looked curiously similar to war on the peasants. And thus, today, instead of war on kulaks, war on cis hetero patriarchal oppressors. They are liberating us from being “bullied”. They are indignant at our lack of gratitude. And the war on bullying inevitably escalates.

“ohh mai gosh, people like you, cishet white privileged DUDEBROS, are the reason women and POCs are oppressed, wow just wow, the white race must be abolished (don’t worry, only as a social construct, I have nothing sinister in mind *rubs hands*), so listen now, fratboyrapist microaggressor douchenozzle, we’re sending you and your associates to the gulag – k bye!”

The Czar failed to support Pyotr Stolypin, and appointed a bunch of lefties to the council of ministers, who, when the Czar was away at the front, refrained from any serious effort to restrain revolutionaries who intended to kill the Czar and his family, and who when trouble broke out, resigned in favor of the revolutionaries. Giving Pompeo power and taking power away from Bannon is a similar error. Politics is war by other means, and for the past couple of decades has been drifting closer to war by the usual means.

143 Responses to “The enemy within”

  1. Erebus says:

    >”Personifying “History” is characteristic of Jewish descended leftism via Marx.”

    Actually, it’s characteristically Hegelian.

    Schopenhauer had Hegel right: He was a “flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan,” who achieved “the intellectual corruption of a whole generation.” And, indeed, this may be the sole instance where Schopenhauer didn’t go far enough, for not only did Hegel corrupt his own generation, he corrupted, via Marx and some of the others he influenced, all subsequent generations as well!

    • Garr says:

      Evolutionary pantheism seems like a pretty basic item on the menu of doctrines. Hegel obscured it with his magical verbiage.

    • Turtle says:

      Thank you, Erebus, for correcting jim’s error. I, having read Marx to do due diligence, agree that he is a Hegelite, not very Judaistic. Marx is alleged, in fact, to have been a satanist, not a reform/ atheist Jewish man. This aspect of his religion makes him seem more sinister, but is not very different than reform/ atheist Jadaism.

      When I last read Marx, in discussion with a communist Boomer family friend, I found that he was obviously wrong on many points, and a hypocrite. He reifies the same things that classical economists did, only differently. Also, he hated the lumpenproletariat, which is sad, given that leftism could, in idealistic theory, help socioeconomic classes come together. Hating the underclass as much as the overclass is funnily non-leftist, according to their rhetoric, but really, they all are elitists, and somehow believe the proles are a natural aristocracy.

      It’s strange, but in short, the main counterargument against Marxism is that it’s offensively bourgeois, racist, etc. These criticisms appeal to contemporary leftism, which is very different than what Marx believed and taught. Very few people read Marx’s writings, because, like, books are books, so it’s a big advantage to be familiar with him (when debating smart fools). With ordinary minds, just say, Marx was a rich racist.

      “That is commie language, commie thinking. To say that history has a side in earthly political struggles is history reified and personified as the Jewish God. ”

      Believing in history being a deity is nominally humanist, even including neocons (Trotskyites?), I think. I also think Pompeo is trolling. Trump could pardon Assange, and appoint him “media commissioner,” something with power over propaganda. Mentioning how violent Ukrainian “activists” who might identify as Nazis, but seem to support Soros in the end, threatened the media is important too. They beat hundreds of journalists, but American journalists don’t give a fuck. Let’s expose the hypocricy of this meme, where “some (only leftist) journalists’ lives matter. Hypocricy,when blatant and stupid-seeming, is a weakness. At least pointing out we’re not afraid and know what they’re up to is meaningful. And then, the mindful among them will realize their violence could backfire. At this rate, given their stubborn expectation of a revolution it will.

    • jim says:

      Google “the arc of history” and the “side of history”. All guys who invoke history personified are Marxists or cultural Marxists. Dialectics is Talmudism imannetized. “history” is the God of Israel imannentized.

      Now it is true that Kant begat Hegel, and Hegel begat Marx, but it was Marx who worked it up into a religion, and the religion that Marx constructed from Hegel was warmed over Judaism.

      You say Marx was not a real Jew – probably not, but he pirated his schtick from Judaism just as Mohammed did. Hegel and Kant was not working as a religion, needed a dose of Judaism to make it catch on.

      • Turtle says:

        Do you agree that exposing hypocrisy helps our victory? It’s a tempting indulgence to appeal to logic, but it can work with rational minds.

        Hegel officially preferred Rousseau to Kant, and criticized Kant! Kant, I feel, was not so bad as a man, just daft and autistic, disappointing his many friends by obsessing over philosophy. Hegel was like a sociopath, and autistic. It’s common among philosophers- their minds are lonely, and replace people with ideas.

        • Turtle says:

          I also want current politics/ war to include respect for Jews like Trump’s key adviser Stephen Miller. Jews who say “I am a Jew, not Jewish” tend to treat whites well, without being ethnomasochists. Self-respect is related to giving respect to others.

          So a surprisingly reasonable standard for “which Jews do we trust” is, which Jews trust that God made them Jews, not Jew-ish? It’s also a mental test- what is an adjective, as opposed to a noun, and how are parts of speech used? -Those who identify as jew-ish would rather be just called __-ish than Jews. It’s bizarre and pathetic.

          I found the excerpt where Hegel endorse Rousseau:
          https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling4.htm#Pill5

          It’s a lie, I think:
          In the Social Contract Rousseau held that the laws of the state must spring from the universal will (volonte generale) but need not on that account be the will of all (volonte de tous). This, says Hegel, is a striking expression of ‘the distinction … between what is merely in common, and what is truly universal’.

          This is what jim would call Jewish lying, right? But Hegel was German, I think. Does anyone think the volonte generale | volonte de tous difference means anything real, besides announcing that revolutionaries are a special kind of “majority,” even when there are more normal people opposed to the revolution?

          And here’s more:

          https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling6.htm#Pill13

          Maybe Hegel was a good historian of philosophy, just not right when expounding his own thoughts:
          https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpconten.htm

          At least we should, if interested and when not busy, examine Hegel’s most popular work. I’ll look at his history of philosophy first, it’s more accessible.
          https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/hegels-logic/index.htm

        • jim says:

          If you want to debug philosophy, to make philosophy work for understanding the world and economics, as Ayn Rand wished to do, then it is important to derive Marx from Hegel and Hegel from Kant.

          If, on the other hand, you are going to fight a holy war, logic and sound philosophy can be left to another day. Progressivism is religion immanentized. The problem is not that our enemies are making logical and philosophical errors, but that they are making these errors out of religious zeal.

          Ayn Rand has already amply covered all this stuff, which is great for intellectually understanding the case for capitalism and the errors in the case for socialism. For fighting a holy war, less important.

          Debate and reason have ceased to be possible. If we cannot talk to Scott Alexander without being demonized, vilified, and no platformed, who is going to talk with us?

          When no platforming became a thing, Kant and Hegel no longer mattered.

          • Turtle says:

            I will derive foreign philosophies from their places of origin, anthropologically speaking. I don’t isolate Western figures when they were influenced by, say, “the Sanc’hya Philosophy of Capila.” I don’t know how to fight, I’m a nerd. I do know I was briefly tempted by socialism, so I believe funding education efforts to clarify these issues is worthwhile in the long run, mostly to teach gullible children. I wouldn’t want children to read Ayn Rand though. Hegel read Aristotle a lot, but, by the way, was a monarchist. There are many surprised in actual philosophy. I know it’s mostly irrelevant to the Battle of Berkeley, but isn’t it, like, a college town? Are there really no intellectuals to reach out to? Am I being naive?

            I like philosophers who understand science, just for context. They’re wiser.

            • peppermint says:

              Philosophers get famous for writing down what everyone is thinking and then namedropped. Socialism is of interest to upper middle class children fearing falling into the working class, as well as all children because old people have all the property. In addition it’s basically taught in schools, see Moldbug. Christcuckoldry is basically a socialist doctrine and the old semi-Christians that are the grandparents of me and my friends are the most hardcore socialists, and they of course control what is taught in schools.

              Also note that they are relieved to see Trump behaving as he is now behaving. They expect to be able to beat him in four years instead of him utterly destroying their entire worldview.

          • Alrenous says:

            Some feel bound by morals. When these morals are philosophically wrong, they work for the enemy instead for the holder. Since one wishes to unbind the ally from false moralities, not the enemy, philosophy still matters.

            Yes, the morality of Kant and all his descendents sucked mightily.

      • Turtle says:

        The French revolutionaries begat Hegel and Marx more than Kant did. I like Kant, as a person. Maybe his philosophy sucks, but it was on many topics, and he seems really smart and sincere, unlike Hegel.

        “Marx who worked it up into a religion, and the religion that Marx constructed from Hegel was warmed over Judaism.”

        I think we could ask B about Judaism’s place in Marxism. (Yes, I trust B on some questions). I don’t know about this topic. Marxism is extremely twisted- there probably are fewer than 10,000 living Marxists, but those who read Marx year after year, religiously, number maybe 5,000 globally. So “Marxism” is memetic- liars claim “Marx endorses my claim to fame and power” without caring what he actually said. It’s like “what would Jesus do?”- stupidly insincere. He’s more conservative than everyone thinks- actual Marxists were not so revolutionary once in power, only before. Marxist art is actually boring, not innovative.

        I don’t think Mohammed pirated only from Judaism. His uncle was Christian, allegedly. If Mohammed were serious about Judaism, wouldn’t he have had an easier time with his wives? I wonder… what if he had not done such a haphazard job of being a religious leader?

        Hegel studied eastern and Greek philosophy, so consider those influences on his ideas. I don’t think he knew any Judaism, and Marx was raised in Judaism, but left early. I am intellectually suspicious of the idea that Judaism, which was present in Europe for centuries, somehow metastasized way late, while the eastern religions, which came in in the 19th century, somehow have no role in changing the West. All the 19th century cultural heroes we hear about studied Japan and India, etc. religiously. There was a huge Japan craze in France around van Gogh’s time, and he participated in it. It’s like watching anime these days, only more mature and sophisticated, so jim can relate.

        https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpconten.htm

        (Hegel’s) Oriental Philosophy

        Introduction
        A. Chinese Philosophy

        1. Confucius
        2. The Philosophy of the Y-King
        3. The Sect of the Tao-See
        B. Indian Philosophy

        1. The Sanc’hya Philosophy of Capila
        2. The Philosophy of Gotama and Canade

        • jim says:

          there probably are fewer than 10,000 living Marxists

          I am a Marxist you are a Marxist, we are all Marxists now. Just some of us are consciously aware of it. Marxism is part of everyone’s thinking and frame, and you have to make a conscious effort to reject it.

          • Turtle says:

            Yeah… but I prefer Kant, Schopenhauer, and some minor philosophers. I like the counter-elite, who seem to be led by Trump. I am progressive in my idea that it’s good to limit consumption of luxuries and the scarcest resources, but that’s from growing up near so many Priuses. I’m not fully Marxist if I don’t hate Jews though 😉

            • miles says:

              There is no counter-elite, least of all lead by Trump. His sole claim to any departure from Neoconservatism is the appointment of Sessions and the now forgotten Miller/Bannon campaign rhetoric of Nationalism. His, largely Jewish cabinet, members are going to see that no more of his campaign promises are kept and you will return to writing apologies and missives that explain why not all Jews are so treacherous while society continues to degenerate.

          • Alrenous says:

            Since I was willing to put forth unlimited effort, I was able to successfully stop being a Marxist.

        • Turtle says:

          Early 19th century revolutionaries, including young Marx, were not yet Marxist- it’s partly a reactin to the 1848 revolutions all failing. The elites failed to deal with their problems (including under-developed economic theories, over-relying on Smith and Ricardo… who are both pre-Marxist, not really capitalist).

          “Marx and Engels soon broke with them and criticized the idealist trend in The Holy Family (1844) and The German Ideology (1845-46).”
          https://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/y/o.htm
          I should read “The Holy Family,” (for lulz) not Das Kapital.

          Further, it’s Goethe who leads to Marx, not Kant!!!

          “Marx also appropriated Goethe’s idea of Urphänomen and Gestalt in his use of the commodity relation as the cell of bourgeois society, and the starting point for his analysis of Capital.”

          The essence of Marxism is “Capital” (no, not just wealth, it’s a special concept in marxism)- “commodity relation,” which just means that selling and buying products is evil, and the rich and underclass somehow abuse the working poor, not only underpaying them, but also ‘alienating’ them from…. I guess, the spirituality of satanists.

          Jim, you’re too smart to blame Kant, not to appeal to your ego. Just read what I link to, and remember, Marx referred to Hegel and Goethe, but never to Kant, so there’s almost no connection. I would say that those who read Kant are *never* communists, and often reactionary, strong evidence for my support of Kant.

          “According to Hegel, through their activity, people created a culture which then confronted them as an alien force. But for Hegel human activity was itself but the expression of the Spirit (or Zeitgeist) which acted through people.

          In the first place, Marx insisted that it was human labour which created culture and history, not the other way around; in other words spirit was a human product, not the other way around.”

          Alien culture just means Hegel was high on weird, foreign ideas and religious content from India, China, etc. It’s a globalization and psychopathology issue- autists tend to be deracinated, because of loneliness, and their normal desire for any human community they can get, even identifying with all of humanity, because they lack local friends. So I feel sorry for marxists and hegelites.

          My intention to help them by studying philosophy will not distract me from a real career. But I’m not good at math, either, so I’m not so economically useful.

          Marx’s satanism is obvious now: “…human labour created culture and history…; in other words spirit was a human product.” “Only proles have souls” is closely related to Darwinism, in which God’s creatures are all the same, except for competition/ oppression, and timing.

          The Ayn Rand neo-Darwinist movement seems like a leftist thing, to me- it’s hyper-individualist, and agreed with the hippies that a draft for war in Vietnam was wrong, just like civic cooperation in general. Also, their sexual ethics are similar- promiscuous, no official reason to form families or raise children, basically hedonic nihilism. Why don’t Randites have children, almost always? They’re infertile, huh?

          • Turtle says:

            Now I’m getting excited by how easy it is to quickly study the origins of Marxism.

            ““The special interest of passion is thus inseparable from the active development of a general principle: for it is from the special and determinate and from its negation, that the Universal results.

            Particularity contends with its like, and some loss is involved in the issue. It is not the general idea that is implicated in opposition and combat, and that is exposed to danger. It remains in the background, untouched and uninjured. This may be called the cunning of reason, – that it sets the passions to work for itself, while that which develops its existence through such impulsion pays the penalty and suffers loss.”

            It sounds like Marx imaginatively leaped from reason-passions to bourgeoisie-proles. That’s odd… because people think he urged the classes to separate, so the proles can win in revolt, but if the analogy with a meta-person’s reason and passions is right, then he meant that the bourgeoisie are superior, but that’s offensive to his sense of the passions being oppressed. Again, Marx was not so Marxist, the ideology is falsely derived. Marxism comes from envy and wrath, not Marx.

            Further, early leftists, just like today’s antifa, are loser rich kids.

            “Born into a bourgeois family, Hébert moved to Paris where he lived in poverty from 1780 until the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789.”
            https://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/h/e.htm

            So… it’s an elite-counter elite thing, and today, the real elite are the counter-elite, against Soros and co.

            ” Marx later wrote in his preface to the second edition of Capital (Volume 1):

            Marx was not very Hegelian later on, only in his early shit-posting career:

            Marx later wrote in his preface to the second edition of Capital (Volume 1):
            My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

            “The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.”

            Marx decided that passions are better than reason because he thought ideals (his insulting description of spirituality) are worse than the brain (thoughts). It’s not logical, but I think that’s the main innovation he provides. Spirit/believers and clergy < mind/ bourgeoisie/ Marx's own competitors < prole soul.

            • Turtle says:

              I’ll stop over-commenting, but this is great:

              Heine, Heinrich (1797-1856)

              German poet and revolutionary democrat, friend of Karl Marx, first to recognise the underlying revolutionary character of classical German Philosophy.

              So… Marx plagiarized from his bros. Ok, shall we call Heinrich a Jew too? LOL.

              (The actual Jew who taught Marx Judaic stuff is Moses Hess). I’m glad to agree with jim when I can, and with Hess and Heine, it’s clear that Marx plagiarized a lot. Maybe that’s Jewish.

              https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/hook/1934/12/hess-marx.htm
              https://www.marxists.org/archive/hess/index.htm

              By the way, is anyone here anti-marxist enough to support child labor?

              “Mother Jones led a march of child-workers on Washington which forced the passing of legislation against child labour” – Marxists don’t give her credit for this. They must be sexist! (I really think they are).

              • jim says:

                I am confused as to why we are supposed to oppose child labor. People put their kids to working around the house and their land as soon as they are able. What is wrong with that?

                Not only do I support child labor, the anti child labor law looks like a plot by priests against the family – they want kids to spend the maximum time being taught holiness, and the least possible time being socialized into dealing with other people and being useful. Everyone needs to learn reading, writing, and numbers, but thereafter, nothing wrong with working, preferably in an apprenticeship situation where the child works with adults learning from them.

                • Turtle says:

                  The irony is that leftists, while championing the working class, believe work is bad for people. I wanted to work as a boy, rather than being bored by school, but that might be rare.

                  The other issue is that if children work, it’s much harder to justify abortion on grounds that children are parasites, and abortion is a higher priority than children’s right to work.

                  Libs seem to think school is always an apprenticeship, in expressing their kind of piety.

                  Libs focus on the worst child labor, like chimney sweeps who got stuck in chimneys, and I don’t know if that’s representative at all. Probably not, but I don’t see any examples of good child labor.

                • jim says:

                  Well when I put my kids to work on house and land, that looked pretty good to me. And the traditional paperboy on his bicycle in the morning before school looked pretty good. Productive work is good for people even though they do not like it, and particularly good for children. Inculcates the work ethic and discipline. All children should work as soon as they are physically and mentally capable of it,though learning to read and write needs to take priority.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Teenage males should be able to provide for their teenage wives and their children. Schools should either be abolished, or restricted to the top 5%, with ample subsidies. 95% of male teenagers should work to provide for their family, and 100% of teenage females should be housewives.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Its part of the labor shortage issue as much as a policy choice.

                  The demand for labor remunerative enough for a man to start a family and support them at any skill level has been in steady decline since the 1930’s

                  And note baring extreme social changes, men will not sacrifice everything to start a family, to keep one, yes , start no.

                  In the past they might have done this but baring a massive war most women have more than one prospect so men need surplus resources to get a good mate.

                  The current system steals from working men and mostly distributes them to war and old age care not welfare to the poor and dysgenic

                  We can cut war spending and gradually old age care costs but there are other consequences , savings rates go up and this cuts profits for decades. The only way to get savings up is to increase wages as percent GDP enough to create growth enough to make the surplus saved capital less deflationary

                  And as for child labor, other than chores, it has no real economic value , no one farms (only 3% of people work in agriculture) very few people own a small business that can use youth labor like say a small store and we have huge labor surpluses as it is.

                  Economies of scale have consequences, big ones

                  It has moral and educational value of course but that is limited. There isn’t that much to do in a modern home, Being unmarried and liking decently clean digs, II clean my own pad. It take a few hours a week, .The only thing time consuming is meal prep.

                  Its makes no sense to try and impose policies from 1817 or 1917 or 2017 until the material conditions change

                  As a side note, re: reproduction, If anyone is wondering when the birth rate is going up again, the answer is never

                  Western society is undergoing catabolic collapse and the natural outcome of that is increased death rates and lower birth rates till equilibrium ifs achieved and the population reaches whatever number it can support

                  In the case of Rome which underwent such a collapse it lost up to almost all of the cities population than recovered,

                  The only consolation is when it happens it will happen much worse in Africa and the Middle Eats than the West who seems slowly and creaking to closing the door and turtling up

                  Such a collapse can be mitigated and if great efforts are made and somehow there is a social revival , get a l little higher but baring breakthrough science and amazing leadership, its all down hill from here

                  After that’s over though, society will probably resemble the model you favor so is that

                • jim says:

                  And note barring extreme social changes, men will not sacrifice everything to start a family, to keep one, yes , start no.

                  Extreme social changes are exactly what I have in mind – a man will securely own his wife and children, and it is going to be hard to get pussy in any other way, because most of the pussy is going to be locked up or under firm supervision.

                  History tells us that economics has little effect on fertility, except in the most extreme situations such as military siege and wartime famine. People do not in fact decide to have children because they can afford them. They decide to have children and then do whatever it takes to afford them.

                  Notice that war, peace, victory, defeat, and even savage bitter wartime famine had only slight effect on Japanese fertility. What suddenly knocked their fertility down was female emancipation.

                • peppermint says:

                  Abolish all public education, period. No need for teaching reading and writing when there are cell phones and videogames. Training must be funded by employers who expect a higher value out of the students if they go through school first. Schools are a priestly plot against everyone and can’t but teach communism by their very nature.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Yep, we’re all on the same page here. Abolish the damn schools.

                  Here’s a case, btw, where you should blame neither the eternal Jew (hymie) nor the eternal Anglo (limey), but the kraut:

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

                • Alrenous says:

                  The krauts came up with Prussian school, but WASP Americans gleefully imported it.

                  Incidentally, the unschooled, those who aren’t even homeschooled, end up on average one grade level behind. In other words, by the age of 12th grade (17?) someone who has never been to school or be in any way forced to study ends up with an 11th grade education.

                  Almost every single dollar spend on tuition is wasted if the goal is scholarly attainment. Especially, the true scholar, those with a nonzero chance of expanding the sum of knowledge, will find a way to learn even if you actively impede them.

                • jim says:

                  That sounds right, but I would like to have the source so that I can persuade others of it.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The krauts came up with Prussian school, but WASP Americans gleefully imported it.

                  The Prussian school was gleefully imported by everyone, because everyone is ruled by social engineers. Not to go “full ancap”, but without the rise of the gargantuan modern state, forcing the entire world from Somalia to Iceland into Prussian school wouldn’t be conceivable.

                  Just as patriarchy was destroyed by the state, so was healthy productive fertile youth destroyed by the state.

                • Alrenous says:

                  “Unstructured homeschoolers also performed worse than the public school kids did, though not by enough margin to rule out chance.”

                  http://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html

                  “As depicted in Figure 1, the children in public school had a higher
                  mean grade level for all seven measures compared with the unstruc-
                  tured homeschoolers (mean differences ranged from 0.64 for the
                  Calculation test to 1.67 for the Reading Comprehension test).”

                  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232544669_The_Impact_of_Schooling_on_Academic_Achievement_Evidence_From_Homeschooled_and_Traditionally_Schooled_Students

                • jim says:

                  Way cool:

                  Dissolution of the monasteries is coming right up.

                  However “unstructured home schooling” or “unschooling” is not the same as no schooling. Presumably the stay at home mum made a reasonable effort to casually and informally educate her kids, and did not send her children to school because she and her husband believed she was doing a decent job. If a random kid was unschooled by a random parent, rather than a self selected parent, outcome would likely be worse.

                  Advocates of schooling kids would argue that without the availability of school, some kids would fall through the cracks. Maybe the state should inform parents that kids are supposed to learn certain things by certain ages, and check on them to see if they have – not because such an activity is particularly useful for the state to engage in, but to shut up people who say “think of the children”.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Unschooling doesn’t mean ‘neglect.’ Turns out kids ask questions and like learning about things, and for the most part all the parent has to do is not get in the way or refuse to help. Occasionally remedying their unknown unknowns is also helpful.

                  You’ll find fewer kids fall through the cracks in a no-school system than fall through the school system’s cracks.

                  But mainly the fact is the teacher-classroom model is ridiculously inefficient. Comically.

                  http://www.isegoria.net/2011/12/blooms-2-sigma-problem/

                  Random assholes (e.g. parents) can teach to sub-5 size groups as well as the top 2% of professionals can teach to large groups. And the top 2% also benefit by dramatically decreasing class size, so…

      • Lalit says:

        interrmesting you say that Marxism has Judaic roots. This writer too argues that Bolshevism has judeao-Christian roots.

        http://www.amerika.org/globalism/religion-and-the-case-of-capitalism-richard-l-rubenstein/

  2. Turtle says:

    “The Czar failed to support Pyotr Stolypin…”

    Having just read a quick biography of him… I guess jim means that many more trials and executions were needed, perhaps without trials for the kind of terrorists who killed Stolypin, the czar, and many others. There were 3,000 executions under Stolypin, and more deportations to labor camps. Perhaps this was not nearly enough. I guess so, but also, the fact that only Stolypin was capable seems to indicate the aristocracy was stupid. Stolypin graduated in physics and mathematics, wanting to be a chemist. Maybe he was just much smarter than his peers.

    http://russiapedia.rt.com/on-this-day/april-16/

    “In memory of the speech [Vladimir Lenin] made on this day a statue outside Finland Station was erected in 1926 depicting him in the midst of his address. The monument that became one of the most famous statues of Lenin was bombed by vandals on April 1 this year, leaving a huge hole in the lower part of Lenin’s bronze coat. No one was hurt in the blast, and it is not known who was responsible or what their motives were.”

    It seems like Russia is becoming more anti-antifa, meaning nationalist enough to not lose to Soros.

  3. Rreactionaryfuture says:

    Very confused. Try this question to simplify this and skip this narcissim of small differences- can property exist seperate from a structure of authority? Yes or no. If yes, then you are communist, whig, conservative, libertarians, neoreactionaries etc. All built on this simple, yet key, premise. All basically if taken to logical conclusions imply an anti-human anarchy which the first modern thinkers worked from. The dismal intellectual joke of the state of nature.

    Now communists, Whigs etc all differ on their theoretical rigor in relation to this question. Commies and libertarians most rigorous, conservative and mainstream leftists less so. If we could constitute a society on lines set by this idea of property, social relations would be impossible. All would be contractual, which you see as the ideal from left to right.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      Property rights obviously existed prior to the emergence of the state. The reason absolutist states were better than modern leftism is because they respected property more, not less. What exactly are you arguing here? How do communists believe in property at all?

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Translating: power existed prior to the state, and power is the state… whoops.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          ? I read Moldbug, you read Moldbug, get to the point please.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            That property might exist necessarily entails power that guarantees that property. Ergo, sovereignty, ergo, hierarchy, ergo, governance.

            The New Left of Adorno et all, in hand-wringing over why the final revolution has not happened yet, declaimed that wherever there is exclusive property, there exists a multitude of Hitlers in miniature; every business, every company, every organization, each and all incipient fiefdoms and fascisms, just waiting to bloom into flower.

            They are of course entirely correct in this observation.

            The irony of course is that all property is exclusive property. The New Left accused Being itself of being a shitlord; much like all the other lefts infact, each and all being warmed over re-expressions of gnosticism in intellectual character.

            “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

    • pdimov says:

      Neoreaction doesn’t consider property prior to sovereignty, as far as I know.

  4. jim says:

    Authority has no idea that this computer is mine. Most property rights to potentially moveable property primarily reflect willingness and ability to use personal violence in defense of them.

    Which means that women should not really own anything, because granting women property rights in anything tends to undermine all property rights. Everything then tends to become state property. Female ownership of anything is not really female ownership, but state ownership exercised to the benefit of women, which results in the state making war on the family.

    A property right in rental accommodation, on the other hand, is a promise by the state to to evict someone at your request. In principle there is no reason why a woman cannot own such a promise – other than that every property right becomes a promise by the state to use violence at your request, and if the state makes too many such promises, it is not going to keep them.

    All female property rights should be property rights of fathers and husbands exercised on behalf of females.

    State enforcement of property rights becomes important when we start discussing mortgages, hire, rental accommodation, limited liability companies, and suchlike. Which matters a lot, and is absolutely essential to civilization, but still, most day to day property rights are privately enforced, and if the state attempts to take over enforcement of most property rights the result is anarcho tyrannical socialism.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      I love you man.

      (But I still need to study more to really understand what “immanentize” means.)

      • peppermint says:

        Immanentize the eschaton: assert that the end times are coming soon and prepare for them, as the gommie (rhymes with gimmie) ((Jesus)) said

        Immanentize the diety: assert that the diety is actively participating in worldly affairs

        Immanentize salvation: assert that salvation is at hand e.g. we’ll all be uploaded the The Cloud within the next decade

  5. Mister Grumpus says:

    “Huh. These guys were all at my throat last week, then I shoot some missiles and drop a big-ass bomb, and now they’re at my feet all of a sudden. Just like that.

    “Shit d’eze niggaz be DANGEROUS!”

    –DJT, April 2017

  6. B says:

    Assuming that history has a vector is pretty universal. The other options are assuming it’s cyclical, Hindu-style (or pagan-style), or assuming it’s just a bunch of shit that happens. The latter case means you can’t have any deeper meaning to your national existence, no ideology, and thus no nation (Singapore is an exception, temporarily.)

    If history has a vector, it can either point up or down. The Greeks assumed it pointed down. Pretty much all of Western civilization assumed it pointed up.

    You don’t need to be a Marxist to assume history has, at any point, a side. People before and after Marx thought this way.

    Not just the Whig historians, but also Dante, Burnham, Augustine, etc.

    This optimistic view of history is, indeed, something the West got from us, as per Quigley and common sense.

    • jim says:

      Google for uses of the phrase. Nearly everyone who uses the phrase looks like some kind of Marxist, creating a reasonable suspicion that anyone who uses the phrase and does not look like a Marxist is likely a crypto Marxist.

      • B says:

        This is not very serious.

        When I look up the arc of history, this guy comes up on the front page:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Parker#Legacy_and_honors

        He’s hardly a Marxist. He IS a unitarian progresssive.

        Nearly everyone you will find discussing history on the first page of any generic google search is some kind of progressive.

        This is the ideology that won the competition over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries.

        If you discuss history today, unless you consciously do it in a non-progressive framework, you will do it in a progressive framework, using progressive terms and ideas. You yourself generally use an anti-progressive framework, which is just the prog one inverted; if drinking a strong acid is bad for you, drinking a strong base must be good for you.

        Pompeo may be a bozo, but he’s not particularly a Marxist, any more than anyone else in Washington. You might say he’s a Christian, or a Protestant, a Puritan or a Unitarian, with more accuracy. He believes that the arc of history involves the Shining City on a Hill ascending triumphant, and anyone who’s opposed is on the wrong side. He does not, to my knowledge, believe in the theory of surplus value, or that the means of production must be put in the hands of the worker, or any of the things that make Marxism different from e.g. Unitarianism.

        Rectification of terms, etc.

        • jim says:

          When I google “wrong side of history”, Adam Gopnik comes up as first relevant hit. He looks like the Pol antisemitic caricature “happy merchant”, the guy who snorts up ten dollar bills with his extra large snozzle.

          OK, instead of googling “wrong side of history”, I will google “arc of history” The first four hits are people criticizing the term, more or less on the grounds that it is commie bullshit. The fifth hit is the first relevant hit: commie bullshit: Martin Luther King.

          • B says:

            I thought that Google search had been subverted by Google hiring female engineers who can’t program?

            Sorry, wrong thread!

            Adam Gopnik is only copying the ideas of guys like Theodore Parker, who despite his modest-sized snozzle was as intellectually dishonest as you (but more talented and readable.)

            • jim says:

              Bullshit.

              Pompeo’s phrase was “the wrong side of history.”

              To get the result you wanted, you had to substitute a substantially different phrase “The arc of the moral universe”

              If you google for “wrong side of history”, comes up Marxist. “Arc of the moral universe” is the closest Puritan related idea, and it is just not that close.

              • B says:

                What is the difference between the idea that history, at any point, has a side, and the idea that there is a moral arc to history?

                Right, I’ve got it, totally different words.

                • Alf says:

                  What is the difference between new age spirituality and orthodox judaism? Right, I’ve got it, totally different words.

                  B, reading you argue is like watching an eel throw himself into the fisherman’s hands just to prove how slippery he is.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Aka Talmudism, aka “like slime through the fingers”.

                • R7_Rocket says:

                  A very Talmudic response, (((B))).

                • jim says:

                  You are still unable to directly quote a puritan descended ideologue, and have to rephrase hims slightly to get him closer to what Marxists say.

                  The fact that you had to paraphrase the puritan descended ideologue shows that there is a difference between what puritan descended ideologues say, and Marxist descended ideologues say.

                  By paraphrasing, you admit what you deny.

                • Eli says:

                  You people are nuts. If there is any absolute order and selection that operates on this Universe, including that of men, it operates not simply on individuals, but also on whole systems of them etc. In other words, there is no clean distinction between history and evolution of morality/law.

                  Is the Universe just a chaotic bunch of things that happen? Might these organize into structures, but only just temporarily? Is history, thus, finite?

                  Of course not! There is a moral arc (just like being on the right/wrong side of history), even if man’s history is not long enough to recognize it fully.

                  I’d say further: even if this whole planet blows up (“ending” history), life and intelligence, and thus, civilization and laws, are bound to happen elsewhere. Life itself is an inevitable product of Second Law of Thermodynamics, according to http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf. Given certain conditions, life is as inevitable as, e.g. someone dropping something from the palm of their hand, and that something following the trajectory that points it towards the floor. History, thus, continues.

                  Judaism vs New Age spirituality: in modern Western terms, Judaism (and Orthodox version is closest to truth), when operating as part of a community, is a system for building civilization capable of overcoming Hanson’s Great Filter and beyond. On the other hand, New Age spirituality is a system for 30+ y.o. single Western women to rationalize and soothe their loneliness by engaging in self-absorbing ritual, based on re-processed Buddhism.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Is the Universe just a chaotic bunch of things that happen? … Of course not!

                  >There is a moral arc (just like being on the right/wrong side of history), even if man’s history is not long enough to recognize it fully.

                  Your monkey brain (forebrain) is playing tricks on you.

                  “In the long run, we are all dead.” Immortality doesn’t disprove this point, but proves it, because immortality is statis, and statis is the opposite of progress. Thus, in the long run, we are all “static”, whether dead or alive, living forever or not living at all.

                  Progress will be rendered meaningless eventually, and the “final” form of all things, which isn’t ever really final, is not predetermined in moral terms. Morality is incidental to progress, and derives therefrom, rather than vice versa.

                • Eli says:

                  Atoms are not the final form of all things. Yet they are still fundamental, they play a role in both our conception and the way technology is designed, to take advantage of their interactions.

                  Organic molecules are not final, but same goes.

                  Same goes for next levels: living things, including individual cells, their colonies, multi-cellular organisms, societies. Notice that such things are built on laws, laws that are absolute even if contingent. A misbehaving cell in our body will obey a command to commit suicide, by apoptosis. Our bodies are a testament of cellular protocols. (Nick Lane and Martin Nowak are great resources for such explorations.)

                  You don’t need to postulate anthropomorphic teleology, to understand God as expressing totality of such absolute laws. Such thinking might take away from the “personal relationship” with God, beyond thinking of the Omnipresent Eternal Entity as a Perfect Mind that both pervades this World while also being simultaneously outside of it (in mathematical sense), but Godel’s proof, with Anderson’s emendation still stands. You don’t need to postulate “positivity attribute” in a moral sense, sure. But we can certainly agree that “positive attribute” implies property of existence. And even if morality is incidental to this grand scheme, it is still a building block, just like the strong/weak/electromagnetic forces between atoms etc, upon which next levels will get built.

                  You also don’t need to postulate universalism as a necessary condition. It seems, if entities obey the most proper behavior, structures that they are part of have much better chance of surviving and spreading. Hence, by spreading, these entities become universal. Again, universal not by some grand brotherly decree, but by virtue of obeying certain set of absolute norms. And since these norms dictate cohesive interaction between said related entities, “in-group universalism” too, while an epiphenomenon and never pursued directly, becomes fact of life.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Puritanism and Marxism are not greatly different in content or origin. Practically noone today will talk about “surplus value” with the words “surplus value”, but Puritan Progressives will use other words than mean the same thing. Use of Orthodox Marxist symbols, including its vocabulary, has become a form of LARPing since the fall of the Soviet Union, but the people neither went away, nor changed their minds, nor lost their status. And many of them have gained more status.

          • miles says:

            Puritan theory doesn’t wash. Mormons are also descended of puritans, as are a lot of low-church old-reactionary-religion groups in the south and mid-west. New England’s Puritans are authoritarian on their own sure, but they don’t become universal Marxists without Talmudic help.

            • Anonymous says:

              Exactly.

              Goy utopianism is Plato envisaging a theoretical society run according to high ideals, impractical as such imagination might be.

              Jew utopianism is “the future inevitably, ineluctably entails our triumph!”

              Once your utopianism is no longer confined to the realm of “this is how ideally the world should be” and turns into “this is what the ideal future world necessarily *will* and *must* be”, you know you’ve been kiked.

            • peppermint says:

              Episcopaliens import sand niggers.

            • jim says:

              proggism is not, for the most part, Marxism. Puritans were holier than Jesus when they abolished slavery, emancipated women, abolished alcohol, and raised they age of consent.

            • peppermint says:

              It’s all about the poor, but it’s actually all about status.

              Going to school instead of working is high status. Thus all kids must be herded into schools. And beaten up by niggers while the administration refuses to admit to itself that that happens.

              It’s sad that niggers go to jail and rich people have can have expensive lawyers. “Criminal justice reform”. This is basically based on lies.

              These old Christians will even talk about keeping jobs in the country, because they lie to themselves that the rich are moving jobs out of the country primarily for personal gain.

              Their first priority is that no one is higher status than them except their activists. Their second priority is that everyone but the nonbelievers is of equal status to them.

              Their ideology is no longer of any interest to the youth because material things are hard to come by anyway.

              • jim says:

                Now the official stats say the US was out of recession in 1915 I’m not sure of that and there may well be an economic component in there i’m not seeing, Japan as a counter example seemed to enter its death spiral right around the time its economy basically fizzled

                Again, this is baloney. Japan entered a death spiral when McArthur emancipated women.

                War and peace, boom and bust, feast and famine, nothing makes much difference except female emancipation.

                More precisely, nothing makes much difference except that a man and woman can make a binding commitment to form a single male headed household.

                • peppermint says:

                  The men and women of my generation refuse to “marry” until they have a real job. Thereafter they refuse to reproduce anyway.

                  At least in this region, the grandparents refuse to recognize the difference between marriage and gay marriage, because they are too Christian. Christian oldfags recite all manner of inconsistent political slogans, each as it is compatible with Jesus’ command to love everyone especially the enemies of the people.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It’s useful to imagine modern Feminist society as a meta-scale endless BDSM session, a meta-scale endless BDSM session in which poitnless, artificial sexual abuse abounds, and males are dominated by females, even though the owners of the dungeon are technically male.

                  The establishment of Patriarchy is beta males ridding themselves of the handcuffs and the chastity device, and burning down the dungeon for good. Feminism is women and alpha males telling (forcing) beta males to get back into the dungeon, get back into the cuffs and the chastity device, and accept their lot of infinite cuckoldry.

                  The reason the Japs and the Europeans aren’t reproducing is because Progmerica is preventing them from ending the sexual torture they are trapped in. You can’t reproduce as long as females dominate males. You can hardly even have sex as long as females dominate males, hence, very little sex goes on today, especially in Japan.

                  When males dominate females, it looks natural and harmonious, and everyone seems contented, because everyone really is contented. No need for any bondage facilities – males don’t derive pleasure from female misery, on the contrary, males derive pleasure from female pleasure. Hence, rapists want their victim to experience orgasm.

                  When females dominate males, it looks artificial, it looks like a female-dominated BDSM session in which males are miserable and females can only derive pleasure sadistically out of male misery, which is not what they really desire, albeit that’s what they think they desire, and that’s what social programming tells them they should desire.

                  Females feel much more “at home” in a BDSM dungeon than males, but both males and females aren’t truly happy in there.

                  You can’t have satisfying sex when you are trapped in a BDSM dungeon to a bunch of bondage facilities. Also can’t reproduce. Thus, there is very little sex, and very little reproduction, except among those who can afford to live normally, which isn’t a lot of people.

                • peppermint says:

                  Fun fact about BDSM. BDSM, as practised by virtually all women under 30, means that while the woman is formally equal to the man and more deserving of oral sex, she actually wants to choke on his cock and have her legs and arms pinned back so it’s not her decision how to do things.

                  The bizarre sex fetish in which the woman is in charge shares a name because it is politically correct and Boomer cucks love it and buy lots of fetish gear for it, the blindfolds and ropes of which is repurposed by virtually every woman under 30 for the purpose of giving her man power over her in the bedroom.

    • pdimov says:

      “You don’t need to be a Marxist to assume history has, at any point, a side.”

      Not in principle. In practice though if you assume that, you’re a Marxist with a probability of >0.85 if not 0.95.

    • Anonymous says:

      >You don’t need to be a Marxist to assume history has, at any point, a side. People before and after Marx thought this way.

      Eschatology?

      Jewish eschatology?

      Jewish eschatology in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Apocryphal books?

      Jewish end-times visions about how God kills all your enemies and you rule the world?

      Don’t be silly, goyim. Nothing to do with Judaic thought-patterns. Muh Hegel, goyim. Muh Hegel.

      • jim says:

        Instead of God making everyone into servants of the Jews, “History” makes everyone into servants of the Vanguard of the Proletariat.

        Marxism is a Jewish heresy, as progressivism is a Christian heresy.

      • Erebus says:

        Don’t underestimate Hegel’s influence. Every mainstream philosopher since Hegel has been tainted by his “idealism.” Even our existentialists are essentially Hegelian; the core philosophy of Camus’s Myth of Sisyphus is that we must content ourselves with the present for the sake of the future — and, indeed, ought to imagine Sisyphus happy while we’re at it.

        Hegel aside, the belief in historical progress will always appeal to some, even if it’s not called “progress,” and even if there are no Jews. “Today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better still” is an all-too-human attitude — easy to cling to, even when false, and easy to extrapolate from. It also wards against indifference to the suffering predestined for our descendants.

  7. Mackus says:

    Jim, official history is that last Czar was terrible tyrant who appointed evil reactionary aristocrats to ministerial posts.
    That being said, I just don’t see that many obvious leftists in later tsarist government other than Rodzianko.
    Which ministers on the council you’d say were actually leftists?

  8. Turtle says:

    “This optimistic view of history is, indeed, something the West got from us, as per Quigley and common sense.”

    Which Quigley, and what’s common sense, the pamphlet by Tom Paine?

    B, please specify this reference for us.

    The more marxism I read about, the more it looks like satanism, pantheism, and atheism. It’s strange few religious people realize this. I have noticed, somehow, but most churchians assume communism/economics/capitalism are all worldly, with no theological relevance. They’re obviously wrong.

    As for history’s place in Marxism, it’s related to the whole Marxism worldview, which is way more developed than just the popular pseudo-economic memes, like PROLETARIAT and CAPITAL.
    They have ‘self-consciousness,’ which means minds are only aware of others and the world to the extent they are self-aware, and so only the cognitive elite are fully human.
    https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/e.htm

    They have all sorts of non-leftist concepts, even Concept itself (which just means “meme”), from Goethe and Kant’s Romantic opponent, Johann Gottfried Herder.
    https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#concept

    Intellectual history shows that movements are not so limited to one guy, like Marx. And marxism is very Romantic, while Kant and religious people are not. Kant would not say that people’s essence is in social interaction, but the romantics accept no other sources of human meaning. Without romantic assumptions, marxism is impossible. The most “offensive” thing about reactionaries is that they are not romantic, not that they are pre-modern.

    We can’t actually live in a past time, but we can reject the passion > reason > spirit system. I know Spinoza is relevant to this Jewish contribution to leftism stuff, but nobody likes him, and I especially am disinterested in Spinoza.

    Hegel is the immediate antecedent to Marx, but he studied eeastern religions, not Judaism. Goethe was just a panentheist pagan.
    Here’ Hegel’s form of history’s Side or Arc:

    ” [Economics’] development affords the interesting spectacle (as in Smith, Say, and Ricardo) of thought working upon the endless mass of details which confront it at the outset and extracting therefrom the simple principles of the thing, the UNDERSTANDING [pseudo-God] effective in the thing and directing it. It is to find reconciliation here to discover in the sphere of needs this show of rationality lying in the thing and effective there; but if we look at it from the opposite point of view, this is the field in which the UNDERSTANDING [pseudo-God] with its subjective aims and moral fancies vents its discontent and moral frustration.” [Hegel, Philosophy of Right]

    Hegel said that history/a deified hive-mind of the people/ panentheist deity has subjectivity and morality. His heretical theology is gnostic. Nothing new here, nothing “modern” about sin.

    Incidentally, Hegel did not like P =/ not P. He likes fuzzy logic, non-binary stuff- this “New Age” cult-thinking started before modernity. The joke for believers like me is that only heretics are religious (following a rigid, impassioned belief system), while people granted faith by God are spiritually obedient, which is different, and chill.

    Heretical crap-theology on love, for example, is a hilarious debate on whether love is the devil, or a way of material knowledge. I had no idea there can be such serious, over-wrought nonsense.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm#4.3

    Marx and co.’s many straw man arguments and all their other dishonesty/ mistakes are easy to point out, so I won’t bore you. But you should at least know intellectual history at a cursory level, meaning, an hour’s worth of study. If there’s no accessible study guide… I’ll make one. Back to academics for me, because people need free, unbiased content.

    • jim says:

      Kant and Hegel were evil and foolish for the reasons explained by Ayn Rand, but it was Marx who turned this evil foolishness into a religion by transforming Judaism into Hegelian philosophy.

      With Cultural Marxism, it also got an infusion of Kabbalism and New Age, reflecting the fact that Cultural Marxists tended to be lower IQ than old type Marxists. Kabbalism is Judaism for dummies, as New Age is Christianity for people who watch Oprah.

      • Turtle says:

        So what should I read by Ayn Rand? Or some other critiques?

      • Alrenous says:

        Kant was sincere but happens to be largely incorrect.

        E.g. the analytic/synthetic distinction is an important question to raise, but it turns out ‘analytic’ is an empty set.

        Unfortunately he did not make his books sufficiently impenetrable, allowing incompetent fools to see his mistakes as gospel.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think it is a useful epistemic principle. The only use I see being made of it is clever people fooling themselves into believing stupid things by means of clever rationalizations.

          • Alrenous says:

            Thesis: white men are ruining everything.
            Antithesis: not-white men are ruining everything.

            Synthesis: some identifiable group is ruining everything, but we don’t know who. (Well, NRx knows who.)

            Thesis: Climate change is man-made and ruining everything.
            Antithesis: There is no climate change, because man cannot.

            Synthesis: there is climate change, but not man-made, and it’s not ruining everything. (In fact it’s actually good.)

            Thesis: Theism
            Antithesis: Atheism

            Synthesis: Theism, but existing theists are roughly on the level of Aristotelian physics or Hippocratic medicine.

            Thesis: Morality
            Antithesis: Nihilism

            Synthesis: Nihilism, except Gnon lays down rules for rational behaviour that look remarkably like classical morality.

            Or more generally, when you have two competing narratives, the truth is going to look something like a hybrid of the two plus some things outside the stories entirely.

            Thesis: women are equal to, if not slightly better than men.
            Antithesis: women are pretty useless and more prone to evil / dyscivic-ness.

            Synthesis: Some women are useful and should be allowed to prove as much. (Shocking idea: let responsibility be earned.)

            Thesis: [no divorce] is true marriage.
            Antithesis: if you really love her, you’ll let her go if she wants to go.

            Synthesis: there is room in society for both hard and soft marriage contracts. There should be courts to enforce both kinds. Let Gnon tell us which he prefers and when.

            But of course reason is not an algorithm. The synthesis zone is a place to look, not a demonstration. The principle is for discovery, not proof.

            • jim says:

              The theory that Jews are ruining everything is in no way a synthesis of the theory that white men are hogging the secret stash, and the theory that white men are carrying browns and blacks on their backs.

              And similarly for most of your other examples.

              In your analysis of marriage contracts, all three items, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, treat women as having equal and interchangeably agency with men, which obviously they do not. Marriage is part of a package, the traditional western, and traditional english, package being indissoluble marriage, monogamy, female chastity, and patriarchy. This is a beta male plot against women, beta males seizing the means of reproduction, and any gender neutral description misses the point. The point is to prevent defect defect equilibrum, to decisively settle the war of the sexes by handing males victory on a platter, thus attaining cooperate cooperate equilibrium.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              >Synthesis: Some women are useful and should be allowed to prove as much. (Shocking idea: let responsibility be earned.)

              Equality is not a stable equilibrium; push for equal opportunity entails push for equal outcomes.

              If you’re not down for supremacism for one thing, its another that’s going to be supreme.

            • peppermint says:

              as Jim said, a rubric for the clever to convince themselves of the silly by systematically destroying context and convincing them that they’re forwardly thinking bold thoughts.

              Thesis: white men are ruining everything.
              Antithesis: not-white men are ruining everything.
              Synthesis: some identifiable group is ruining everything, but we don’t know who. (Well, NRx knows who.)
              Truth: progressives are ruining everything

              Thesis: Climate change is man-made and ruining everything.
              Antithesis: There is no climate change, because man cannot.
              Synthesis: there is climate change, but not man-made, and it’s not ruining everything. (In fact it’s actually good.)
              Truth: there is climate change, it is by now roughly half man made and that percentage is increasing, it’s good for some bad for others, and it’s really not that big a deal. Climate scientists are driven by alarmism for political reasons.

              Thesis: Theism
              Antithesis: Atheism
              Synthesis: Theism, but existing theists are roughly on the level of Aristotelian physics or Hippocratic medicine.
              Truth: Atheism, but for social reasons there is a purpose to talking about gods, and the god we need right now is Kek

              Thesis: Morality
              Antithesis: Nihilism
              Synthesis: Nihilism, except Gnon lays down rules for rational behaviour that look remarkably like classical morality.
              Truth: White sharia is the only stable equilibrium when everyone knows the truth about women and race

              Thesis: women are equal to, if not slightly better than men.
              Antithesis: women are pretty useless and more prone to evil / dyscivic-ness.
              Synthesis: Some women are useful and should be allowed to prove as much. (Shocking idea: let responsibility be earned.)
              Truth: White sharia is the only way to treat women. Formal recognition of women doing men’s things demoralizes men and confuses women.

              Thesis: [no divorce] is true marriage.
              Antithesis: if you really love her, you’ll let her go if she wants to go.
              Synthesis: there is room in society for both hard and soft marriage contracts. There should be courts to enforce both kinds. Let Gnon tell us which he prefers and when.
              Truth: White sharia is the only way men of the future will allow their daughters out of their sight, and also the way Whites evolved our excellent features of industrious cooperative men and beautiful women, and thus the way to maintain these features.

          • Alrenous says:

            Thesis: wild strawberries are best.
            Antithesis: strawberries grown on otherwise biocided land are best.

            Synthesis: wild strawberries are painfully sour and bio-purified strawberries are tasteless. Cultivars who can survive in a neglected strawberry patch are best.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Thesis: factory farm produce is red tribe associated
              Anti-thesis: organic slow food is blue tribe associated

              synthesis: mandatory artisinal food production means higher prices and thus less easy sustain for untermenschen (and incidentally tastier and healthier food, but that’s a side benefit).

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            “In Hegel’s hands, it [dialectic] arrived at conclusions he had already reached without it.”

  9. A.B. Prosper says:

    I’m not seeing it at least in developed societies

    The Great Depression was a direct economically driven suppressor of fertility and in fact once the redistribution and war driven spending got into the system it recovered.

    The baby boom was a combination of the recovery and the usual post war baby boom that societies get. This along with being less developed is what drives the fertility in Timor Leste for example and did in Japan to a degree

    I suspect that of that nation ever becomes developed it fertility will crash and in fact it wouldn’t surprise me is the educated class in that society has a lower fertility .

    Also getting to the type of society you favor will require the destruction of modernity and a vast population reduction . The current numbers are an unsupportable bubble

    So you’ll get a masculine , male centered society that controls it women but it will support much smaller numbers and have much lower technlogy.

    Its a valid if harsh trade off I suppose

    As for the crossover between technlogy and fertility, think of it as punctuated equilibrium of a sort, It takes a bit of time for the effects to kick in but boy howdy when they do, they do,

    Another example would be the end of the US baby boom . it took a few years for feminism, birth control , television to propagate and once they did , the economic recession of 72-73 kicked off the new trend and fertility quickly hit its new level

    Now I do not know if there is much of an up option until modernity ends , order is much harder than dissolution in this situation

    It is possible that political shifts could create a new situation where Conservative/Religious fertility reaches a higher than replacement rate and gradually crowds out other groups though, Its somewhat dependent on the culture upstream and how effective Trump and the other nationalists are

    • BigCheese says:

      >The Great Depression was a direct economically driven suppressor of fertility and in fact once the redistribution and war driven spending got into the system it recovered.

      From the actual data it appears that the birthrate was in rapid decline from 1915 onward with the recovery after WW2 hitting 1925 levels only 1952. 1930 was also higher than 1945. The recovery in the 50s was probably due to a minor resurgence in the patriarchy from all the military men ruling the roost after WW2 rather prosperity wealth. Historically birthrates tend to rise dramatically during wars but we don’t see that.

      Year Births1 Rate2
      1910 2,777,000 30.1
      1915 2,965,000 29.5
      1920 2,950,000 27.7
      1925 2,909,000 25.1
      1930 2,618,000 21.3
      1935 2,377,000 18.7
      1940 2,559,000 19.4
      1945 2,858,000 20.4
      1950 3,632,000 24.1
      19523 3,913,000 25.1
      19533 3,965,000 25.1
      19543 4,078,000 25.3
      1955 4,104,000 25.0
      19563 4,218,000 25.2
      19573 4,308,000 25.3
      19583 4,255,000 24.5
      19593 4,295,000 24.3
      19603 4,257,850 23.7
      19613 4,268,326 23.3
      19623 4,167,362 22.4
      19633 4,098,020 21.7
      19643 4,027,490 21.0
      19653 3,760,358 19.4
      19663 3,606,274 18.4
      19674 3,520,959 17.8
      19683 3,501,564 17.5
      19693 3,600,206 17.8
      19703 3,731,386 18.4
      19713 3,555,970 17.2
      1972 3,258,411 15.6
      1973 3,136,965 14.9
      1974 3,159,958 14.9
      1975 3,144,198 14.8
      1976 3,167,788 14.8
      1977 3,326,632 15.4
      1978 3,333,279 15.3
      1979 3,494,398 15.9
      1980 3,612,258 15.9
      1982 3,680,537 15.9
      1983 3,638,933 15.5
      1984 3,669,141 15.5
      1985 3,760,561 15.8
      1986 3,731,000 15.5
      1987 3,829,000 15.7
      1988 3,913,000 15.9
      1989 4,021,000 16.2
      1990 4,179,000 16.7
      1991 4,111,000 16.2
      1992 4,084,000 16.0
      1993 4,039,000 15.7
      1994 3,979,000 15.3
      1995 3,892,000 14.8
      1996 3,899,000 14.7
      1997 3,882,000 14.5
      1998 3,941,553 14.6
      1999 3,959,417 14.5
      2000 4,058,814 14.7
      2001 4,025,933 14.1
      2002 4,021,726 13.9
      2003 4,089,950 14.1
      2004 4,112,052 14.0
      2005 4,138,349 14.0
      2009 4,131,019 13.8
      https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/live-births-and-birth-rates-year

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        Hmm.

        1915 is also the early into the factory/urban area as well though 1st wave feminism in the form of suffragettes was also extant. And of course by the 20’s women had a lot more opportunities to do things

        Now the official stats say the US was out of recession in 1915 I’m not sure of that and there may well be an economic component in there i’m not seeing, Japan as a counter example seemed to enter its death spiral right around the time its economy basically fizzled

        Also re: status, still there is a lot going to Steve Johnson’s idea of depressed status

        However baring collapse or some kind of Handmaiden’s Tale state, male status won’t on the aggregate rise very much. People in general are over carrying capacity and that and automation renders male labor overall of much less value

        My guess is that humanity has grossly overshot carrying capacity both physical and social

        We’ve thus far avoided the Malthusian trap of starvation through science but the social trap isn’t amenable to those kinds of solutions

        Unless male work and income go up and female status down, which will bump TFR up a bit , the population will go down slowly . and note too there are no generally acceptable hacks. Mormonism works well enough as does certain types of Evangelical and Catholic thinking but none of them seem to have general applicability as a meme hack

        This best thing for the TFR is going to be physically remove communists , well cultural Marxists which if my theory is true even with the residual Gramscian damage will bump the TFR to replacement or so caveat mass unemployment

        If I am wrong, it should bump at least as high or higher.

        Longer term as the society enters catabloic collapse, death rates will exceed birth rates for a few generations no matter what till a new equilibrium is achieved

        No idea what the bottom floor will be, 2 billion to zero

        • jim says:

          Wartime Japan was vastly more crowded and urban than today’s America, nonetheless had a way high TFR. It is not population, it is not economics, it is not even urbanization, except that it is harder to keep women under control in a big city. It is female emancipation.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Peacetime and wartime have pretty differing conditions and war conditions as well as post war conditions can but do not always lead to higher fertility.

            Its pretty much the same way feral cat colonies behave. If they get stressed by say animal control or somebody else shooting them, they end up with a lot more litters . That;’s why typically something akin to tubal ligation in colony management is used so mating happens but no births

            And in case anyone asks, I don’t own any cats or participate in cat rescue stuff or date cat ladies .

            This reproduction of course subject to simply not having food enough to breed which is pretty rare given rodent and bird populations as well as human trash.

            However the conditions are at peace right now pretty much everywhere in the developed world with none of them facing direct threats.

            However it does occur to me that as you noted importing feral humans might be an unconscious need to reproduce action from women. I don’t know

            All that said, removing Cultural Marxism and increasing men’s status and earning power should wok no matter who is correct, again subject to men having some resources which with increasing automation is not a given

            And note while it may be possible that men will reproduce if the circumstances even remotely allow it if they have true patriarchy as you suggest, its pointless.

            There is no need for more humans period since the human population is in near overshoot conditions and liable to wreck the ecology before long, the irony being though it consumes more energy, the West is really the only people who give a shit and have any chance for balance

            Regardless more is by no means better and if the goal is space or some such folderol , you need better wealthier people not more people

            The paradox of Space, any society wealthy enough for a large scale space program has neither need nor an interest in one and its better served with fertility control

            A better goal is Whites at 25% of all people as it was in the past . This is achieved through border controls and letting nature take its course not breeding wars so that everyone overshoots natural limits

            However it can’t happen with low TFR unless everyone else drops way lower, So far the Middle East and Africa have along way to go so we do need an uptick

            No matter what, it requires Cultural Marxism be ended and some sort of patriarchy

            • jim says:

              There is no need for more humans period since the human population is in near overshoot conditions and liable to wreck the ecology before long

              We are short of people, which is why Africans are pouring in. We are nowhere near overshoot conditions, for if we were Africa would have a population crash, not a population boom.

              With current advanced technology, and high density energy sources such as coal and nuclear, the earth can support about five hundred billion, about seventy times its current population. And technology will only improve.

              And even if it was true that the earth can support no more than seven billion, I want that seven billion to my descendants, not someone else’s descendants. So my sons should make someone else’s population shrink, not their own population shrink.

              The natural ecology is mosquitoes spreading deadly diseases by sucking your blood, and fruit bats (flying rats) destroying the flowers on your trees so that they bear no fruit, and if your tree does bear fruit, the fruit bats eat it and what they do not eat, they infect with their deadly diseases.

              What strawberry farmers do is they spread black plastic over the soil and inject poison into the soil and air under the plastic that kills every living thing, birds, insects, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses. Total biocide. We do not need the natural ecology and have been at total war with it since the invention of agriculture. What strawberry farmers do is just an improved version of slash and burn.

              There is a magnificent golf course not far from where I live, occupied by really rich people. Sometimes, rarely, I get to go there. It is absolutely magnificent. Looks like it was put together leaf by leaf by patient elderly japanese gardeners. It is a perfect recreation of nature as humans like it, swathes of of very short grass, trees and patches of forest and shrubs, little lakes here and there. And when I compare it with the natural forest surrounding it which it spiritually echoes, it is obvious that to create it they killed every single living thing larger than a bacterium, and started afresh.

              The golf course has spiritual and aesthetic continuity with the natural ecology that surrounds it. Near zero biological continuity, however.

              The evolved system is the jungle at the back of my yard, which is impenetrable to humans. If I allowed the trees to grow sufficiently, the understory would become penetrable, but that would cut off my view. Permaculture means you kill everything except plants that provide humans with food. Which is a lot of killing. There is no difference in principle between that and the way they grow strawberries.

              Because strawberries grow low to the ground, you every year gas the soil with a biocide that kills every living thing. Every worm, every beetle, every fungus, every seed, every ant, every snail, every single bacterium, all of them, total 100% erasure of the ecology, and then plant strawberries. Works pretty good.

              Strawberry growers reveal that we don’t need the naturally evolved ecology, and from the beginning agriculture has been a struggle to destroy it starting with axe and fire.

              The naturally evolved ecology is inimical to humans. We get romantic about it because we are nostalgic for the savanna.

              Wherever humans go they create land covered with short grass and well spaced trees, resembling the savanna where we evolved. But except for the savanna where we evolved, that is not the natural ecology and to create it you have to totally wipe out the naturally existing ecology and create a new artificial human controlled ecology of organisms symbiotic with humans.

      • Grampy_bone says:

        Right when first wave feminism hit.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “The Great Depression was a direct economically driven suppressor of fertility and in fact once the redistribution and war driven spending got into the system it recovered.

      The baby boom was a combination of the recovery and the usual post war baby boom that societies get. This along with being less developed is what drives the fertility in Timor Leste for example and did in Japan to a degree ”

      The alternative theory to the Great Depression depressing fertility was that it depressed men’s status – men reduced to selling apples and begging were lower and men who feared that fate for themselves acted lower.

      Post war soldiers who had seen combat were high status (and pretty numerous) and likely to take no shit from their wives. Throw enough men like that into society and you’ll have knock on effects where other men try to emulate that attitude.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

      Article is fun reading – of note is that the phrase “bust a cap” was used to mean shooting someone.

      • jim says:

        The great depression had no significant effect on fertility. Fertility fell leading up to the depression because of female emancipation, the flappers, girls with short haircuts. It did not fall during the depression.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm

          Fertility declines from ’29 – ’38 where it starts to rebound – the correlation is that the drop started when the Depression started. Still a better fit for the social status model than the economic model.

          • jim says:

            No the drop in fertility did not start when the depression started. On the contrary it ended shortly after the depression started.

            The drop in fertility started during the roaring twenties – flappers, female emancipation, girls in pants and short haircuts. Amelia Earhart supposedly flies. It bottomed out in 1934, shortly after the depression started.

            • Anonymous says:

              “The point I wish to make is that the whole teaching of Bushido was so thoroughly imbued with the spirit of self-sacrifice, that it was required not only of woman but of man. Hence, until the influence of its precepts is entirely done away with, our society will not realise the view rashly expressed by an American exponent of woman’s rights, who exclaimed, “May all the daughters of Japan rise in revolt against ancient customs!” Can such a revolt succeed? Will it improve the female status? Will the rights they gain by such a summary process repay the loss of that sweetness of disposition, that gentleness of manner, which are their present heritage? Was not the loss of domesticity on the part of Roman matrons followed by moral corruption too gross to mention? Can the American reformer assure us that a revolt of our daughters is the true course for their historical development to take? These are grave questions.”

              Bushido, the soul of Japan, 1905.

            • Anonymous says:

              In traditional Japanese and traditional Vietnamese culture, woman sacrifices herself for man, man doesn’t sacrifice himself for woman. “Women first” or “ladies first” was entirely inconceivable. Wife sacrifices herself for husband, just as surely as servant for master, and child for parent*.

              *an exception to this one is that in Vietnamese culture, mother sacrifices herself for eldest son, because eldest son keeps alive the family cult to propitiate the ancestral spirits.

              That’s something the gynocentric West should learn.

          • jim says:

            Fertility declines from ’29 – ’38 where it starts to rebound

            Not what that graph shows. The fall in fertility started in 1923-1924, and the rebound started in 1933-1934 Therefore not caused by the depression, and not cured by the ending of the depression.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Ooops – my original link was for Canada (so much for relying on google to produce a link for US fertility when I search for “us fertility by year 20th century”).

              http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

              That matches your time line.

              Dropping fertility in the 20s, flat in the 30s at a low point, rebounding in the 40s and increasing until the late 50s where it flattens – then starts dropping in 61.

              I have no idea what the cultural trends in Canada were over that period so am not sure about whether or not the theory fits the Canadian data.

              We’ve got a live test case in contemporary Russia though.

              • jim says:

                They have recently eased up their laws against wife beating, which should raise fertility. But I suspect that what makes the biggest difference is the social acceptability of wife beating – if the media depicts it as normal and respectable for husbands to spank misbehaving wives (I love Lucy), and if it becomes harder for the wife to blow up the family and take her husband’s children away just because she got a well deserved spanking, then fertility will go right up

              • Anonymous says:

                The fertility of urban middle-class bourgeois city dwellers has already been in a state of decline when the 20s began, as attested to by contemporaries. The 20s brought this trend to the general population (hence the graphs). Possible mechanism at work is that in the 20s the general population became thoroughly urbanized. City life is perilous to fertility, unless religious conviction artificially compels you to reproduce, as among the Bs of the world.

                • peppermint says:

                  Herp derp some inexplicable city force so let’s ignore Jim’s proposed mechanism.

                  How about
                  * no oneitis / pedistalization means women need to justify their existence in their man’s life rather than the other way around
                  * the way women do that is they get pregnant, then the man can’t leave because he has kids to take care of

                  Your refusal to entertain the possibility implies you’re a pedistalizing cuck.

                • Anonymous says:

                  The city force is very explicable, though.

                  (Haven’t you been lurking at MPC and reading about Pman’s “scale” theory, which he bases on Calhoun’s experimentation with rats? Haven’t you read Stoddard’s 1922 book “the revolt against civilization”, which, although that’s not the main theme, explains how complex living hinders breeding? The mechanism is quite explicable indeed)

                  >the way women do that is they get pregnant, then the man can’t leave because he has kids to take care of

                  I’m sorry: wuuuuuuut?

                  Unless sperm theft is involved, and assuming the impregnated woman isn’t a concubine (of negro or other inferior extraction?), why is it wrong for white/asian men to not be impulsive zero-agency high time-preference niggers? If anything, the kids should belong to the father first and foremost, as private property, and he damn right should take care of them and not leave them with incompetent mommy.

                  You’re making here a nigger argument in favor of single motherhood.

                • Anonymous says:

                  The high cost of living vs. the cost of high living – that’s how he phrased it.

                • peppermint says:

                  Herp derp saying that women’s utility to men lies in their ability to create and nuture offspring is nigger-teir argument not like my intellectual books thus we can ignore Jim’s thesis on the mysterious city force and continue the bizarre policy of pedistalizing while using the state to defang any attempt at protecting

                • Anonymous says:

                  Patriarchal monogamy means that both parents take care of the kids, but in different ways, because there are sex roles. Husband doesn’t need to change shit-soiled diapers, at least not regularly, and wife doesn’t need to shuffle-papers in a cubicle and cuck hubby with the boss, because housewife.

                  The children should be the father’s privately-owned property. State intervention is unnecessary and harmful, but social technologies to make sure papa isn’t an absent, gambling drunkard are fine, in the same way that social technologies to make sure mama isn’t an irresponsible, revelrous, entitled, snob-faced spendthrift cunt are fine.

                  My purpose is to promote rather than undermine paternal authority, but isn’t the very raison d’etre of paternal authority the raising of high-functioning kids for (race growth and thus) civilization building? Single mama can’t do that.

                  What’s the issue, then?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Whatever your quibble is, you’re wrong because of chronology. If fertility among city dwellers had been in decline even before the 20s, the issue isn’t the Feminist regime, because first wave Feminism (or as I call it: Lesbo-Feminism) has just begun, and haven’t had enough time to abolish patriarchy and patriarchal breeding yet.

                  Nor is the issue the Puritan regime, because first of all, the Puritans reproduced aplenty, and second of all, Puritans haven’t ruled over Europe yet, while this trend manifested in Europe as well as in America. So it’s not Feminism, not Puritanism. It’s urbanization and complex living.

                  I know, it’s not a “cool” explanation, in that you can’t blame any particular single group for it, but it makes the most sense.

                • Anonymous says:

                  In fact, Feminism and the Prussian School System can only develop to the extent they have developed in a large-scale, city-centered society. A small-scale, rural society is unlikely to organically produce either, but of course, outside forces can impose them.

                • peppermint says:

                  Right, so, considering that the way the woman makes herself useful is by having babies, and not by e.g. working or providing the man with sexual services that are technically illegal to provide to White men, it is in the interest of the woman to have babies, instead of waiting for someone better to come along until her ovaries dry up.

                  This is not a difficult concept.

                  You mention compulsory schooling and feminism as factors. They certainly are, but women get into feminism because the sexy men they want are into it, and schooling just increases their contact with tons of additional men who they have the illusion of choice between.

                  This is also not a difficult concept.

                  You say we can’t blame one idea. Correct. We blame women’s decision algorithms and priests for deliberately confusing their inputs.

                  Thus, gas the christcucks weltanachauung war now, with the war aim of establishing White sharia.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >it is in the interest of the woman to have babies, instead of waiting for someone better to come along until her ovaries dry up.

                  Women don’t know, ever, what their actual interests are. As such, it is men who decide it for them, have to decide it for them, and men decided wrongly, by listening to dykes (1900-1950) and kikes (1950-present).

                  >schooling just increases their contact with tons of additional men who they have the illusion of choice between.

                  Come on, it’s not about that. It’s about the state socially engineering you to be a bureaucrat office drone, while undermining teen marriage, undermining patriarchy, and undermining healthy sex roles – to mold everyone into atomized interchangeable cogs, and at the behest of feminists and cucks. It’s not alpha fux, as much as it is beta bux.

                  >We blame women’s decision algorithms

                  Doesn’t make sense, the decision to cuck society and pozz the world was made by men, not in the interest of actual women, and of course, also not in the interest of men, but because of misguided ideals (which may be puritan-derived, but aren’t exactly synonymous with puritanism) and especially at the interest of the ever-expanding state, the state being centered at, and propelled by, the metropolitan urbanized zones. Which leads us to:

                  >and priests for deliberately confusing their inputs.

                  Priests didn’t kill Deutschland and Nippon. I’m not shilling here for Christianity. It’s just that of all culpable parties to the great international poz scheme, the New Pozzed Order, the role of “christcucks” was really not that integral. Whatever complaints Hitler lobbed at Christianity, “female emancipation” was definitely not one of them. He blamed the (((usual suspects))) for it, understandably.

                  You may as well argue that white people, and most especially Anglo-Saxons, have an inherently cucked and sentimental attitude toward women. Which is very true (and was glaringly obvious to non-Anglos, and is still glaringly obvious to all non-whites everywhere), but that’s too broad and too deep-seated a problem to pin modern cuckness on it – the more specific factors are various, and I doubt christcuckery is the issue.

                • Anonymous says:

                  As for “White Sharia” – Anglin understands, just as all non-whites everywhere understand, that the traditional white attitude towards women is rooted in cuckness.

                  He can argue unconvincingly that “Urdu is White” and “my conception has none to do with Islam”, but at the end of the day, there is found here a genuine racial flaw, *the* racial flaw of whites, because whites are perfect and superior in all things except when it comes to women and sexuality – on these issues whites are insane.

                  Like it or not, this meme contains a foreign importation, a mentality unorthodox among whites.

                • Anonymous says:

                  To quote from the same book about Bushido I quoted from above, and from the same chapter:

                  “The Teutonic races beginning their tribal life with a superstitious awe of the fair sex (though this is really wearing off in Germany!), and the Americans beginning their social life under the painful consciousness of the numerical insufficiency of women (who, now increasing, are, I am afraid, fast losing the prestige their colonial mothers enjoyed), the respect man pays to woman has in Western civilisation become the chief standard of morality.”

                  What could go wrong…

                • peppermint says:

                  Listen you stupid faggot, not every White acts like a professor, and the ones who do will soon be mercilessly mocked and brutally murdered. Time to unlearn those behaviors you were taught are high status because they define us as a race. The reason they were high status is they are difficult to learn.

                • peppermint says:

                  Behead those who countersignal White sharia.

                  Shadilay!

                • Anonymous says:

                  If this behavior and attitude was confined to professors, we wouldn’t be in this peril. Men not programmed by cuckness are the exception, not the rule.

                  I’m all for white shariah. But don’t pretend the concept is inherently white. It’s inherently non-white.

                • peppermint says:

                  Listen numbnuts, professor behavior is high status because it is unnatural.

                  Anyway, the #1 threat is not that the breeding population is cucked – milennials and post-millenials are much less cucked as you would know if you knew some – but that pretty much all of our elders are totally brainwashed. Whether or not you believe that christcuckoldry is the cause, it remains a bare fact that strengthening churches means giving power to boomers which they will use to cuck us.

                  The #2 threat is that our women are thots.

                  Both of these problems are solved by WHITE SHARIA, which also excludes filthy rat kikes instead of worshipping or tolerating them.

                  You’re just a cuckold fetishist.

                • Anonymous says:

                  White Shariah, White Halacha… old school Wotanists recoil in horror

                • peppermint says:

                  Old school W.O.T.A.N.ists should be pleased (will of the Aryan nation).

                  The alt-right is limited to politics nerds. NR is limited even further, while PUA is limited in appeal because it reeks of effort.

                  White Sharia is of interest to everyone, especially the kind of sexy young men who don’t lead but are needed. White Sharia, as two words, implies aggressive cultural appropriation that male feminists (since men are the ones who define ideas, it follows that female feminists are muppets of male feminists) will have difficulty countersignaling. As one term, of course, it means something completely different – the end of feminism, which young men and women deeply desire.

                  To normies, it’s just ironic, but still means less feminism.

                  Kek and Pepe have displaced ((Jesus))’ hold over the minds of our youth, but they’re not even going to have the kind of widespread appeal as White Sharia.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It’s kind of like hashtag “open borders for Israel” in that it puts journokikes on the defensive, as they need to explain why open borders are good for everyone but, strangely enough, bad for their own homeland. See also the “anti-racist Hitler” video, which is brilliant.

                  In the same way, “white sharia” makes journokikes and bloggerkikes squirm and sweat, because they need to explain why “white sharia” is literally the most horrible thing imaginable, and how dare white people reject muh agender agenda, while Islamic sharia is a-okay.

                  In terms of exposing kike/leftist hypocrisy, it’s terrific memefare. In terms of “appealing to normies”, normies can’t into substance, normies can only into branding, and sharia is crap branding, hence it would fail in this regard. Chad (aka Chad Buffington) ain’t gonna go around proclaiming white sharia, even if he rather likes the abstract idea of it.

                  Pepe + Kek was bottom up /pol/ memetics. White sharia is top down meme operation by Anglin, and he can pull these off only 70% of the time, mainly because he’s funny. White sharia may be correct, but funny it isn’t, hence it’s part of the 30% of his try-hard “forced memes” that don’t fly anywhere.

                  Don’t get me wrong, 70% success rate is phenomenal, average alt-righter has 0.1% success rate, but with all due respect for his faculty, he can’t plant a tree on infertile soil. Sharia for whites, whatever aim is ascribed to this meme, is exactly like a great tree planted on infertile soil. Can’t grow, presently withers. Doesn’t matter that the tree itself is great and awesome.

                  That which catches on is always from inside out, not outside in. Sharia is outside in. Moonman is inside out, and it doesn’t matter if Moonman is an avatar of Arab moon deity Allah, or perhaps avatar of Allah’s Apostle, because the essence of Moonman is familiar to the white psyche, while the essence of white sharia isn’t.

                  Ben “Ten Ton Tel Aviv Terror” Garrison was memed, because in reality, he was always nazi in libertarian garb. RWDS also appeals to whites on a visceral level, as do helicopters. You can meme helicopters because helicopters are white. Sharia isn’t white, even if it’s “white sharia”.

                  It’s like calling crusades “white jihad”. Funny for trolling journokikes, but won’t catch on, because crusades are white, jihad is non-white

    • jim says:

      Fertility fell before the depression, due to first wave feminism. Did not fall when the depression arrived.

      Fertility began to rise when government began to celebrate masculinity, because it needed men to fight wars.

      Radical economic changes had no discernible effect on fertility.

  10. Alrenous says:

    Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis system is a useful epistemic principle, a dynamic stemming from the limited nature of the human mind. Though he seems to have focused on a domain where it didn’t apply: historical prediction.

    I don’t see anything else of use in his material, though.

  11. Alrenous says:

    http://blog.jim.com/war/the-enemy-within/#comment-1580683

    Child labour went from mandatory to forbidden. At no point was it optional. I am in favour of optional child labour.

    Mandatory child labour is parental slavery. Forbidding child labour is state slavery.

    Coercion is always defection. Don’t defect on your children. If you can’t persuade them to work, then the fault lies with you, not them.

    http://blog.jim.com/war/the-enemy-within/#comment-1581084
    “I raised my kids to X” has never once been shown to be effective.

    While I find the Judith Harris ‘nuture myth’ idea to be preposterous, the idea that untrained parents can achieve their intended consequences is also preposterous.

    Hunter tribes manage fine without either striking their kids or making them work. Do try to rise above the parenting standards of some jerk wearing a scrap of animal skin.

    • jim says:

      While I find the Judith Harris ‘nuture myth’ idea to be preposterous, the idea that untrained parents can achieve their intended consequences is also preposterous.

      We have been under natural selection to be good at kids for a very long time, and nearly all of us had the opportunity to learn parenting from our parents.

      • peppermint says:

        People raised by boomers and genxers, ie the entire breeding population of the Aryan race, did not. Any parenting behavior we express is natural.

        The professors and priests must be brutally murdered in the most shocking ways possible, and the boomers should probably be sold to China for organs and meat.

  12. Nancy Pelosy says:

    Wrong side of history is the same as justimbecile jystifying WG w/ ‘it is the current year’. Retarded

    • jim says:

      Yes it is the same, and Christian descended progs often say “It is 2017 now” But they very seldom say “wrong side of history” or “on the side of history”. “Side of History” is a Marxist shibboleth, a code phrase for Marxists to signal to other Marxists that they are Marxists.

  13. Mandos says:

    “The Marxist does not think of himself as intending to murder the peasants, and the cultural Marxist does not think of himself as planning to send all hetero males to the Gulag.”

    Seemingly obvious yet key concept that most fail to grasp.

  14. peppermint says:

    In effect, we should thank the cucks for importing sand niggers, because White sharia would not have been possible without this level of exposure to the dune coons. 50 years ago the few non-cucked boomers were trying to use Christianity to argue against feminism, which is on the face of it ridiculous and could only and did lead to further cuckoldry.

    Spandrell is blackpilled because he doesn’t understand that pervasive knowledge of NRX and PUA leads to White sharia.

    White sharia is what the Nazis needed and Hitler mentioned wanting.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hitler desired white jihad, and complained about lack of white jihad – he didn’t want white sharia. This is revisionism right here, Peppe. His solution for Feminism was gassing the kikes, not importing sandnigger dunecoon socio-spiritual crap. He believed that jihadism, with its emphasis on self-sacrifice, was fit for the German Volk. Nothing whatsoever to do with Feminism and shariah.

      Spandrell has never not been blackpilled.

      • peppermint says:

        on the contrary, he mused that, had Germany fallen to sand niggers and been partially arabized like Persia, after having imported the sandnigger dunecoon socio-spiritual crap, Germans would then be able to assert themselves better than under christcuckoldry

        but now they can have White sharia

    • Anonymous says:

      He wanted obedient warriors, not manospherians (manosperglords) who’ve wised up to embrace sex realism. Mind you, I deeply appreciate the manosphere. But fact is, manosperglords in Austria were banned – see Sigurd von Hoeberth and (((Leopold Kornblüh))), whose organizations were dismantled by NSDAP.

      Hitler banned the MRA-MGTOW-PUA guys. Go ahead, call him a cuck, or even better, a christcuck. Go to page 61 of Table Talk, see why I’m baiting you here.

    • Anonymous says:

      Daily reminder that most alt-righters read Mein Kampf, if even that, but not –

      *Zweites Buch (authentic Hitler)
      *Table Talk (secondary, edited, occasionally twisted account of authentic Hitler)
      *Hitler’s Last Will and Testament (short text, authentic Hitler)
      *Hitler’s Speeches (authentic Hitler)
      *The Testament of Hitler (forgery by Francis Genoud, but it’s awesome)
      *Young Hitler (Kubizek)
      *Hitler and I (Strasser)
      *Into the Darkness (Stoddard)

      And then they go on to call themselves “Hitlerists”. I may be an autistic OCD-crippled nerd, but at least I’m serious about my stuff.

      • jim says:

        I don’t know a whole lot about Hitler. He personally was a white knight who got regularly struck down by inappropriate one-itis. He did some things to raise fertility but it was a half assed job, in the right direction, far too little to have the intended effect.

        He himself had unhealthy pedestalizing attitudes to women. Women, far worse than men, are at the mercy of their hormones. You see a man become an idiot the moment a pretty girl walks through his field of view, so you conclude that women have more self control. Not exactly, rather they are moved by alpha rather than looks, and it takes them a while to assess alpha.

        The woman problem is the big important problem. The Jew problem about which so many of my competitors obsess is insignificant. The worst Jews do is provide clever arguments for foolish ideas, but a woman can fuck one man, and then another man.

        If you have studied Hitler’s thoughts, how was he on the woman problem?

Leave a Reply