The trouble with fashism and 1488

It is really great that so many young people are turning fashi, just as it is really great that so many people are turning to Donald Trump.

But Trump and fashism are just yesterdays’s leftism – a leftism that supports the white working class, while progressives piss on the working class.

Long ago, commies and fashi competed for the working class, and it became obvious that the white working class preferred the fashi. And ever since then progressives have hated the working man with the rage of a jilted lover, and suppressed fashism using methods that cast doubt on their claim of democratic legitimacy. If Trump becomes president, it will be delightful to see the fourth estate explode in apoplectic rage.

But sorry. Lower class people are not the solution. They are the problem. Fashism is just another near far alliance, intellectuals with proles, very similar to Trump with proles. It is a white with white alliance, but near far alliance is inherently suicide and treason. It will go wrong in a way that does not involve race replacement, but still involves the destruction of white civilization. If you are fashi, you are still on the slippery slope heading ever leftwards. Recall the last days of the Roman Populares. In their last days, they allied with the Samnites. The Populares, I suppose, probably wanted a Roman Republic in which the subject states, such as the Samnites, were treated fairly. The Samnites wanted to level the walls of Rome and kill all Romans. Kind of like the alliance of progressives with Islamic State.

The trouble with “gas the kikes” is that it presupposes the expropriation of the Jews. And when you expropriate people, you are going to screw up corporate capitalism, which is the foundation of western civilization, the foundation of the scientific and industrial revolutions. People thinking out of covetousness and envy think that if they take that rich guy’s stuff and make him poor, they will be rich, but instead, their neighborhood mysteriously winds up looking as if bombed.

Similarly “Day of the Rope”. You are proposing to hang Havel’s Greengrocer, though all you have to do, rather than hang him, is announce new and different posters for his window. He will put up the new posters, and barely notice that they say the opposite of the old.

“Gas the kikes” and “Day of the rope” are proposals for redistribution and disorder, when what we need is order in place of anarcho tyranny, and an end to redistribution.

Fashism is in large part just 1930s leftism, leftism as it was before the Jews came to dominate leftism. But leftism went to hell not when the Jews got in on it, but when they emancipated women, freed the slaves, raised the age of consent, and banned liquor, all of which they did well before major Jewish involvement. Genealogically, nazism is lutheran descended, progressivism is puritan descended, and communism is judaism descended, but in the 1930s, not so very different. National Socialism was just the New Deal on steroids. Jews that become progressives are conversos, Jews that become communists are heretical Jews.

It is really great that so many young people are turning fashi, and it is really great that so many people are turning to Trump. But the problem is that fashism is insufficiently radical, is just 1930s leftism, when what we need is 1660s restoration. Fashism is a step in the right direction, but far too small a step. Fashi support the white working class, and talk in dumbed down language to them. Western civilization was founded on feudalism and then corporate capitalism, systems that distributed power organically, valorizing and justifying severe inequality, decentralized but hierarchical, orderly but unplanned, systems that glorified and valorized the superiority of the few over the mediocrity of the many.

If you really want to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, “gasing the kikes” is neither necessary nor sufficient. We need higher fertility, and we need eugenic fertility. We need smart women to get husbands and babies instead of PhDs and cats. Lots of babies, instead of lots of cats.

Hence my program “What to do in a restoration“.

What is stopping fertility is that:

* Marriage is not only an unenforceable contract, but the state applies enormous energy and effort to encourage and incentivise women to break the contract.

* That women are indoctrinated with the false life plan, where they pursue their careers while fucking Jeremy Meeks, and marriage and children just somehow spontaneously happens without them actually needing to do anything, while they really have to work hard on their careers, and hard on pleasing Jeremy Meeks.

* Coeducation means that fertile age women spend lots of unsupervised time in the company of men who have no ability to have a family, and no inclination or economic ability to settle down, and do not ordinarily get to meet men who might be able to marry them. By the time they get to work, they have already ridden far too much cock and have become jaded, their bosses are married, and their male co-workers are lower in status than they are.  And the smarter the woman, the more years she spends riding cock in higher education, so the less likely it is she will be able have a family.

* Degree inflation means that young people spend their most fertile years listening to boring propaganda, when they could be working and breeding. Used to be that a school leaving certificate signaled that you were substantially smarter and more industrious than than the average Joe. Then every good-for-nothing moron was awarded a school leaving certificate, and you needed to graduate high school to signal that you were substantially smarter and more industrious than than the average Joe. Then every good-for-nothing moron was graduated from high school, and we have now passed the point where, as the Challenger inquiry revealed, plenty of good-for-nothing morons receive postgraduate degrees from good colleges.  When I was doing job interviews I found plenty of people with degrees in computer science from good colleges, who should never have been allowed to show up for computer science 101, and had been completely wasting their time by attending the computer science course, that with their computer science degree and substantial debt they were no closer to grasping the basics than they had been on the first day.

* Degree inflation makes children impractically expensive, since you have to support them in a good school for twenty three years or so, which often enough somehow turns into thirty years or so. If most kids failed their school leaving certificate when they began puberty and promptly got kicked out of schooling (thus making the school leaving certificate an actually useful qualification and allowing teachers to require children to learn actually useful stuff for the school leaving certificate) then kids would be a profitable investment once again – particularly if the law backed the authority of the father over his male children till 21, and his female children until married or infertile.

* Anarcho tyranny makes housing impractially expensive, since you if you plan to have children you have to buy land somewhere free from dindus and vibrants – and the only allowed way to keep out dindus and vibrants is to for housing to be impractically expensive.

* The anarchy part of anarcho tyranny means you need land in a dindu free area. The tyranny part of anarcho tyranny means the business at which you work needs to be close to the regulatory revolving door, meaning you face a long commute from your expensive suburb into a big city, a far too big city.

376 Responses to “The trouble with fashism and 1488”

  1. Seamus says:

    You should add housing is expensive as women are men now compete to drive up prices. Where I am prices are double what they were 30 years ago.

    • Groupie says:

      Where I am from, all the rich white men and those who would be richer sold our entire city out to foreign Chinese investors who in turn have nepotically sold and rented to Chinese new arrivals. Now young white people cannot afford to buy or even rent anything remotely adequate for raising a child or more while the Chinese family can. White people sold us out because capitalist greed defeated white consciousness (which was certainly a thing back in the 50s – 70s over here).

      • jim says:

        There is a lot of land in Canada. Why do you need to be close to the center of that city?

        The problem is the great centralization, which is driven by the need to close to the revolving door between regulators and regulated, which in turn reflects the tyranny part of anarcho tyranny.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          Men need work. Even with lower regulation, centralization is efficiency and efficiency is the if anything the core ethos of Capitalism.

          Besides wealth has been accumulating in cities since what Sumer ?

          If there is no work than people can’t live in an area. also its stupid to expect people to spend hundred of hours of life on cars and commuting just so some fuck-all corporation can be more efficient.

          Honestly a one hour commute doesn’t cost (assuming traffic allows for an actual hour commute) just a hundred precious hours of life every year but assuming US $25 an hour wage , 20% taxes (which is low) $3 gas @ 30 MPG and a modest car payment nearly an extra week of work a month . This is stupid and a lot of people would be happier and better served with delivery, clean safe public transit (or the occasional Uber and a rental car) and a short commute.

          This means more family time, more friendship time (maybe at a neighborhood pub) and a better quality of life. Also while the global depression and oil price wars have kept prices artificially low, peak oil is still a thing. If not now than in 50 or a hundred years it will not be reasonable or sane to do “happy motoring” to make society and urban life work you’ll need cities and homogeneous neighborhoods

          Also after expelling foreigners , taking wealth from Oligarchs and foreigners is essential in order to keep many thing affordable. If banks and Chinese people here in Cali where I live didn’t own most of property and foreigners were not allowed in state colleges schools both of these things would be reasonably priced and a regular guy could easily afford a house on one salary.

          Lastly we really need to stop obsessing about fertility, I agree on the issue of divorce but if we stop feeding feral humans and control the borders and it will work itself out. More is not better and a US with a fifth of its population would have twice the population of Victorian England.

          Its plenty enough for a nice pleasant civilization.

          And yes I know expansion, grow or die. No not really. We’re already way passed carrying capacity and one little bump means a massive die back . Its better to stop repeating that folly and to become anti-fragile.

          • jim says:

            Also after expelling foreigners , taking wealth from Oligarchs and foreigners is essential in order to keep many thing affordable.

            In practice fascist redistribution, for example Argentina, produces results that strikingly resemble progressive redistribution, for example Venezuela.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            I’ll take my chances with failure.

            In the end you cannot allow wealth hoarding and foreign rentiers if you want society to prosper. People are not equal but a society where too many people including those who should proper can’t is doomed to fail

            Vomiting up shoddy housing or subsidizing college with government money is not the answer to wealth concentration.

            Its better to prevent it in the 1st place and this means regulation.
            hell at most of the times when the US was prosperous we were highly mercantilist

            • jim says:

              In the end you cannot allow wealth hoarding and foreign rentiers if you want society to prosper.

              Bullshit. Untrammeled capitalism creates prosperity everywhere it has been tried, while every form of socialism creates poverty at best and disaster at worst.

          • pdimov says:

            “In the end you cannot allow wealth hoarding…”

            Wealth hoarding is a mark and a source of prosperity. If you don’t allow it, you will not prosper. What you want to not allow is parasitism and rent seeking. The problem however is that if you fight that there is an incentive to label one’s enemies as parasites and rent seekers.

          • peppermint says:

            Vancouver has been sold to rice niggers, so, we need to make it illegal to own private property, to avoid rice niggers buying it and making it impossible for young White men to find a place to live?

            there’s a reason all the convenience stores in the US are owned by curryniggers, and it’s not because curryniggers are good at cooking hot dogs

          • ilkarnal says:

            “In practice fascist redistribution, for example Argentina, produces results that strikingly resemble progressive redistribution, for example Venezuela.”

            In fact nearly all variation is explained biologically. Lower IQ means lower living standards.

            “Untrammeled capitalism creates prosperity everywhere it has been tried”

            The fall of the USSR was the perfect experiment – it resulted in a sharp fall followed by a return to trend. Socialism doesn’t “work,” and neither does any other political system. Political systems are the paint on the car, the rest is genes and the vagaries of chance. The only route to prosperity is eugenics. All the peoples that viciously excised the stupid, violent and impulsive are doing well, all that did not develop mechanisms to do so are doing poorly. Big picture, that’s all that matters.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            pdimov, that’s a way to put it

            foreign oligarchs are the worst indirect economic threat most people face day to day and that’s why for many many prosperous years, the US did not allow foreigners to own property here.

            The local oligarchs are a more direct threat but given the need for a wealthy class, will have to be dealt with locally.

            Still if a society does expel foreigners, something must be done with their real property. They can’t keep it and the global system will punishment for self protection will be mass currency devaluation anyway if we aren’t nuked or invaded,

            In the end something will have to be done with land, cars and other non transferable assets, Might as well auction in limited numbers them to nationals. Same as any good fashist would do.

            We also might consider this with the parasite banks to keep them from say speculating on housing.

            Happily you only need to do this once and after the tax system is simplified, distribution prioritized by tax code and speculation basically forbidden , the natural market can do a lot better

            Regardless o the mass employment for regular folks industrial age is long over and isn’t coming back. Most of the current economy is largely seeking adds and other forms of unproductive make work

            This won’t change simply because we want it to. Its going to get worse as the less fettered economy means faster tech growth.

            if we don’t need labor and we don’t we have a problem and the main thing to remember is any solution assuming decently remunerative work fro average folks is a no go.

            Beyond that resources actually are getting scarce and the oil bubble is just that a bubble. Long term, we will be poorer.

            In the end, you will have less economic freedom, whether we like it or not either by “job creation” regulation, socialism, fashism whatever, The reason beyond technology is simple, the maintenance cost for a complex civilization must be paid. The nature of the economy is such that the private sector won’t and maybe can’t do it, the new state will have to if only to have legitimacy

            No opt outs, no grifting, control corruption or you fail.

            The goal is to do as little as you must but you are still going to have to do things.

            So long as we e have that in a fairly homogeneous society we can make it.

            • jim says:

              Still if a society does expel foreigners, something must be done with their real property.

              And, immmediately we see envy and covetousness, socialism, the delusion that you can get rich by Krystalnacht.

              If, by any means, for any reason, we encourage certain people to leave, they should sell their property to whom they please, because otherwise the property is not going to wind up in the hands of people able and willing to use it productively.

              If you are thinking about getting rich by Krystalnacht, your reasons for wanting people to leave are evil and foolish reasons, are envy and covetousness.

              If we expel the Jews, it will bugger our economy considerably less if we allow them to liquidate their assets in a slow and orderly fashion. Also, allowing them liquidate their assets in a slow and orderly fashion means that stupid evil people who want to get rid of Jews for stupid evil reasons lose interest.

              If you are genuinely worried about the corrosive cultural influence of the Jews, and this corrosive cultural influence is a very real problem, then the logical thing is to remove Jews from certain powerful institutions, rather than go after a Jew operating a pawnshop, let alone a Jew operating a software company that writes software for computer controlled equipment.

              But in fact the Jews in those powerful institutions are not peddling Jewish ideology. They are peddling the state ideology that became the state ideology when, in the civil war, the State Religion of the State of Massachusetts became the state religion of America. They are conversos. And if America gets a new ideology/religion they will peddle that instead, and hardly notice the change. They are, for the most part, conversos, and will cheerfully convert to whatever they are damned well told to convert to, and will claim, and will sincerely believe, that they had always believed their new beliefs.

              Yes, we should expel anyone from those institutions who fails to convert. And have an inquisition to check on the sincerity of the conversions of those in those institutions. But you will find very few religious Jews in those institutions, probably absolutely no religious Jews, and most of the non religious Jews you find in those institutions will convert with alarming swiftness and excessive holiness.

          • Sam says:

            Jim says,”…practice fascist redistribution, for example Argentina…”

            In fact the Jews stole the Argentinian’s money. The set up was the same as noted in “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. After inflation hit because of the debt Goldman Sachs opened accounts in Argentina and promised to index those to the US Dollar. They of course then promptly renigged on their deal, put in place limits on the amount currency that could be taken out of their account and inflated away the whole entire economy taking the Argentinian’s wealth with them. Of course they then bought everything, that everyone had to sell to eat, and now the Jews own it all. Same as they are doing to us in the US.

  2. Erebus says:

    Hate to nitpick, but isn’t it “fascism”?

  3. TheBigH says:

    Trump, Fashi and rapefugees is a good chance to push against the forced destroying our civilization. Poland is making moves against the media and femism. To shift the window further we need solutions to obvious problems.

    For example it’s clear that whites are not having children and the proposed solutions on the right are the same ones that failed in the 3ed riech. So let’s start telling people the problem is femism and get the right into a holier than thou trek against the femists movement and everything it stands for all the way back to the suffragettes.

  4. jay says:

    Playing Devil’s Advocate here:

    The high age of consent is the imposition of North-West European Norms on the rest of the world.

    It originates from people west of the Hajinal Line:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

    The same people that brought us the industrial revolution are the same people who proposed norms that served to limit population growth that would have proceeded from such a development that would normally ensure that any gains in wealth is eaten up by people.

    Although this imposition may be unjust it may have yielded an benefit that ensures greater wealth today than what could have been.

    • jim says:

      I don’t think so. Age of consent in England, and pretty much the entire world, was ten years old until the mid nineteenth century.

      • Mackus says:

        Well, what be be sane age of consent, and by age of consent I mean age of marriage arranged by fathers of groom and bride? 13 for bride, 17 for groom? 13 year old girl might make okay bride, by 13 year old boy lacks responsibility man ought to have, since he would be responsible for himself and his wife.

        • Jack says:

          Hence why schools, and infantilizing “child/teen culture” as reflected in mass media, have to be thoroughly abolished. Enlightenment itself has to be thoroughly abolished, and child labor restored. 13 year old boys should be able to be modest providers. Of course, they have to be de-infantilized first, hence transition from culture of infantilism to culture of maturity across all levels of society. “Games” like video games etc. are more destructive to society than alcohol, and the Ninja Turtles should be gassed in the oven. Spiderman has murdered more Whites than Stalin. Entertainment industry is inherently toxic, it hates males and glorifies childishness. This is your “estrogen in the water supply” right here. Schools and mass media are artificial, are the primary tools in the arsenal of Poz.

          This all-encompassing endeavor would require the complete rearrangement of the labor market and mass culture turning back 180 degrees, which are preliminary conditions for restoration anyway. The alt-right sternly refuses to discuss infantilization, due to being composed almost exclusively of Manchildren, whose approach to sexuality boils down to “porn is bad because it makes me feel shame, but having a first girlfriend at 22 and marrying her at 27 is just what I need”, which is wrong of course. No, you need marriage at 12 and reproduction at 15. Then you won’t even desire porn in the first place, so double win. The problem of Enlightenment perpetuates itself, with each generation vying to be the most efficient in implementing its principles. All of it should be abolished absolutely.

          • Jack says:

            To elaborate on my hardly-relevant porn thesis: being outraged by dudes jerking off to videos of dubious disposition while condoning actual non-marital sex that occurs in the actual concrete world is indicative of detachment from real life and overexposure to virtual reality. People in the alt-right ascribe higher importance to virtual occurrences (“OMG we created a meme”) and virtual sex than to actual occurrences and actual sex. So no surprising they view porn (pun acknowledged) as worse than hook-ups, even though hook-ups are more dehumanizing to all parties involved than watching porn due to consisting of actual, serious abandonment and promiscuity. And LARPing as “shitlord” (a term APPROPRIATED from tumblr SJWs) on the internet is apparently more important than reproduction IRL, hence MPC’s admin Brian Uecker’s life choices. If you care about porn more than about actual promiscuity, you live on the internet.

            Yes, actual degeneracy is worse than virtual degeneracy, in fact. Pornographication is the result of having the marriage institution effectively dead by the dawn of the 20th century. Instead of jerking off with or without porn, men at 13 of age are better off learning to Dance Nature’s Dance with their 12 year old wives. In a non-Enlightened society these would not be considered “children” by any measure.

          • Morkyz says:

            Actually, most non-retards just understand than porn is a different kind of degeneracy than extramarital sex. They also live more in reality than you apparently do, which is why they base their judgement of “what I need” on the actually existing social context.

        • jay says:

          Males mature slower and later than females. Its at age 15-16 that boys can effectively become men. And is suitable not only for provision but also military service as are historically speaking.

          Females mature quicker and reach their maturity after menarche after age 12 and mentally stay that way for some time. And given their lack of responsibility relative to males such an age would suffice.

          Having the same age of maturity for males and females simultaneously does not reflect biology and assumes the fallacy of sex equality.

          This should ensure that sexual activity is confined within marriage and promiscuity is minimized which seems to happen regardless of modern laws against such.

          • jay says:

            I also likewise exclude menarche and prior puberty before age 12-13. Given the fact that such phenomena is often accompanied by and is a symptom of reproductive dysfunction.

            Such phenomenon is not a healthy for the female involved with or without pregnancy.

            • jim says:

              I also likewise exclude menarche and prior puberty before age 12-13. Given the fact that such phenomena is often accompanied by and is a symptom of reproductive dysfunction.

              Is this so? Early breast growth without menarche is often a symptom of reproductive dysfunction, and is apt to result in funny looking girls, ugly girls, but to the best of my knowledge early breast growth followed by early menarche followed by early sexual activity is fine. Do you have any data on the question?

          • Jack says:

            That modern cases of 11 year old girls having sex are usually accompanied by dysfunction, doesn’t mean that if sex had occurred within marriage, marriage to a similarly young boy or somewhat older, it would accompany dysfunction. Young sex within the confines of monogamous marriage is utterly dissimilar to young non-marital sex with some random individual, and 11 year old wives fucking their 13 year old husbands, while biologically far from optimal due to difficulties with pregnancy, is not something one can learn about by studying and analyzing cases of 11 year old girls having sex with Randy McRandom. It’s just not the same thing at all.

          • Jack says:

            Re-reading your comment I realize you refer solely to reproductive dysfunction rather than social dysfunction (no dad, etc.), though nevertheless, if we don’t have cases of young monogamous marriage to analyze, and all we have is cases rooted in promiscuity, then we don’t have much to work with, some confounders may cause serious issues with the observation.

    • peppermint says:

      High age of marriage is 25 for women and 30 for men.

      Suicidal age of marriage is 30 for women and 35 for men.

      Absurd age of marriage is 30 for women, but, with the understanding that contraceptives are used for the next five years, and divorce likely within he decade.

      Incinerate the universities.

  5. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    There really isn’t a problem here, Jim. Implementing “gas the kikes” and “Day of the Rope” will be done over time, in an orderly fashion, so replacements can be made and disruptions avoided. These goals can also be accomplished simultaneously with a fertility and eugenics program.

    • Ansible says:

      The night of broken glass does not look very orderly to me. If you think your two progroms are going to remain orderly because they will be led by intellectuals you underestimate the madness of proles and overestimate the ability of intellectuals.

      • peppermint says:

        Germany just had a Kristallnacht, no one is reporting on it due to the strict blackout on news of Whites fighting back in order to demoralize us

        Windows were smashed and shops were burned. No one comparing it to Ferguson, because, well, the Left is at the end of its rope ideologically

    • B says:

      From what I can tell from reading your comments, if you get your dream, you’ll end up strung up by your buddies pretty quickly. Just how these things go.

  6. Greg says:

    Reminds me of that nonlinear dynamics paper your commenter Irving linked to. Your approach would work if social forces were arranged into a neat tree structure. If that was the case, you could hunt upstream until you find the root cause, flip that, and see everything downstream neatly slot back into the old configuration.

    However, I thinik we have to suspect that the Progressive revolution was one of those rarer “avalanche” events in a not-at-all tree shaped dynamic system where lots of nodes reconfigure and the whole enters a new (meta-)stable state that does not neatly flip back if you force any of the original nodes into a former state. In this case, we can easily accept the evidence before our eyes, that the Jew is currently providing crucial forces maintaining the Progressive status quo, even if he couldn’t have effected the original flip in the old system. The post-avalanche system is a different beast. Forcing patriarchy might take almost infinite energy and still not cause us to leave the Progressive orbit.

    • jim says:

      Most actually functional marriages (husband does not sleep on couch, is not exiled to the man cave, etc), are quietly, illegally, criminally, and dangerously patriarchal. Announce patriarchy from on high, every married man is suddenly relieved, as the sword of Damocles hanging over his head is suddenly removed, every man stands a bit straighter, walks in a more relaxed manner. Women complain briefly, but are relieved that their bluff has been called. They never really wanted to be emancipated. It was always a shit test all along. When men finally pass the shit test women also will feel a sudden feeling of relief, though it will be to them an inexplicable and strange feeling of relief, and suddenly they will get a whole lot hornier.

      Today I was talking to a lady and she was talking about some woman being beaten, and I said. “A lot of women need to be beaten, and some women need to be beaten a lot.” She agreed with enthusiasm, as if relieved to find a fellow Soviet Spy.

      • ron says:

        If I had said word for word what you said, I’d have been in deep shit. Because unlike you I do not have your conviction of the same. I’m referring to a flaw in my character not to the correctness or lack of in your statement.

        You don’t just say it, you believe it. That integrity of thought is also a factor in her agreeing. The weak must know the man speaking a “truth” is strong.

        Look at Procopius” third history. The slave woman who informed her master Belisarius of his wife’s infidelity

        “those who saw what was going on kept silent, except one slave, Macedonia by name. When Belisarius was in Syracuse as the conqueror of Sicily, she made her master swear solemnly never to betray her to her mistress, and then told him the whole story, presenting as witnesses two slave boys attending the bed-chamber.”

        her reward for helping this miserable fucking weakling?

        “But not long after this, by the enchantment either of philtres or of her caresses, she (he wife) persuaded her husband that the charges against her were untrue. Without more ado he sent word to Theodosius to return, and promised to turn Macedonia and the two slave boys over to his wife. She first cruelly cut out their tongues, it is said, and then cut their bodies into little bits which were put into sacks and thrown into the sea.”

        Moral: integrity is the most important character trait. Better a bastard with integrity than a saint who is a weakling.

        • CuiPertinebit says:

          Integrity is the central criterion for ascertaining sanctity in the Church (“unwavering fidelity to the duties of one’s state in life” is the key idea). I can’t imagine a saint without integrity – a “weakling” saint.

          Moreover, a lack of integrity is practically the defining character of a bastard, beginning with the disintegrated nature of his conception.

    • “Forcing patriarchy might take almost infinite energy and still not cause us to leave the Progressive orbit.”

      Patriarchy is not something one needs to “force”. It is what happens when the (expensive and utterly artificial) supports for women’s emancipation are kicked out. Patriarchy is very stable equilibrium point, which is why it developed in the first place.

      A patriarchy for anyone is merely a patriarch (one relatively unmolested by the gubmint) away.

      • Tikoloshe says:

        NBS, you make a very good point, I agree. Memeplexes, not unlike organisms, evolve/respond to environmental changes and bloom under optimal conditions. I’d argue that the glut of abundance and prosperity unleashed by the fossil fuel age—spurred by a eugenic phase—kicked “progressivism” into the high-gear of an algal bloom. Without the fossil fuel age, “progressivism” never would have become as virulent.

        • jim says:

          The left singularity at the end of the Bronze age was pretty virulent. The left singularity of the French Revolution predates fossil fuels.

          • Tikoloshe says:

            Thanks Jim. I don’t think it triggered it; I think it exacerbated the virulence on the way down. Tightening resource constraints contribute in consolidating “the right”/order.

          • Irving says:

            >The left singularity at the end of the Bronze age was pretty virulent.

            This sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?

    • Tikoloshe says:

      “Reminds me of that nonlinear dynamics paper your commenter Irving linked to.”

      ——
      Anybody have a link to said paper?

      Think of “peak order” (right end-member) occuring at the civilizational wave crest and “churning chaos” (left end-member) at the civilizational wave trough. Fighting your way from trough to crest is a long, tough slog. The ride down the other side of the crest is all about “partying like it’s 1984”, liquidating and buring all that civilazational “capital”. Not entirely unlike the spoiled kid that burns his inheritance—daddy’s hard earned wealth—on fast exotic cars, sleazy hookers, and lines of high-grade coke, snorted off a hot stripper’s ass…total decandence.

  7. ron says:

    “That women are indoctrinated with the false life plan, where they pursue their careers while fucking Jeremy Meeks, ”

    I would put it differently. I’d say the contract is unenforcible by men. Because of the emotional immaturity of women, women are more of a resource than an agent.

    Therefore the purpose of the marriage contract is like a contract to acquire land or a slave, or do business. When all the benefits of a contract are stripped away then it becomes worthless, “marriage” is effectively nothing more than a commitment to be at the mercy of the State. Imagine a cow that had the “right” to wander off. Or land that had the “right” to remain fallow if some asshole in the EPA saw a spotted owl on it.

    Yes, for self evident reasons we don’t allow people to tear apart to simply torture their animals to death, nor do sane people allow land owners to simply poison their own land for the sake of destroying it. Similarly, a sane society will step in if a woman is being brutally abused, and we will honor a woman’s request to leave a bad situation.

    (when I say “self evident” I mean, “either you get it or you don’t”. I am not interested in debating a libertarian on why I am going to prevent someone from skinning animals alive on his property, or if you want, from consuming them while they are alive)

    However, this current situation is not a sane one. It is clearly a deceptive power grab by the State to undermine the value of all contracts and any concept of property rights.

    As such, since it is the nature and deep need of woman to submit to a man, she is compelled by her blood to test the relationship to determine that she is in a state of submission. Asking her to refrain from that is like asking a horny 14 year old kid to refrain from what he is compelled.

    Therefore, she will test the marriage. If the man is of unusual socio/sexual rank, or he is among a society of men that will back him up (e.g. Mormon, etc) he will be able to meet her tests and satisfy her longings for submission to a man.

    But in the current climate the average man is going to have a seriously hard time dealing with such testing, because the State/ social sub-grouping to which owes allegiance has undermined him in this regard while at the same time deceiving him that it has not.

    As such, that leaves the men of high sexual rank, e.g, “Jeremy Meeks” (the name sounds familiar but I have thankfully no recollection of what depravity he represents), to satisfy her deep longing for a dominance by a powerful man.

    To clarify, the actual power of the man is not as relevant as are his indicators of power. Just as beauty does not necessarily correspond to higher fertility but is an indicator of the same.

    TL:DR this – ““Gas the kikes” and “Day of the rope” are proposals for redistribution and disorder, when what we need is order in place of anarcho tyranny, and an end to redistribution.”

    nails it.

  8. ron says:

    “When I was doing job interviews I found plenty of people with degrees in computer science from good colleges, who should never have been allowed to show up for computer science 101, and had been completely wasting their time by attending the computer science course, that with their computer science degree and substantial debt they were no closer to grasping the basics than they had been on the first day.”

    personal request: If it is in your interest to do so, it would be appreciated if you would do a post on what traits and knowledge you would advise a computer professional to be proficient in.

    • jim says:

      It is easy to recognize incompetence. It is hard to describe or explain excellence. So I would not be able to say what traits and knowledge a computer professional needs.

    • peppermint says:

      Computer science is not a field of academic research, but an undergraduate major that needs to be formally attached to something that looks like a field academic research.

      Smarter men than Jim have been trying for a long time to describe what CS graduates should be like. They are paid to fail, Jim gets clicks by posting why they fail.

      • Ansible says:

        Computer science ought to be a an apprenticeship system, like moldmaking. Students would learn fast, clueless would fail fast. But I suppose that would piss off the cathedral even more than CS already does.

  9. ron says:

    “Degree inflation makes children impractically expensive, since you have to support them in a good school for twenty three years or so”

    It’s theft. This is similar to a large corporation where the initial founders have moved on and the sycophants and flatterers have risen to the top (ie Apple, Xerox when Xerox criminally betrayed their engineers and allowed Jobs to see their GUI research).

    Capable of only talking bullshit, they capitalize mostly on the good name of the company. At best they can try to imitate the previous work of the genuinely creative or occasionally let a good idea through. But mostly they get bland or bad work done while relying on the name of the company to sell their bland ideas. They effectively loot the company of it’s name. In the end, the company’s name is ruined and they walk off.

  10. Kinda, but fascism is predicated on race whereas communism is predicted on class, the later which is obviously leftist. Fascism means maybe some government control over certain industries,but it’s not leftist like Marxism, which has more control over businesses, to the point of almost total confiscation of private property.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      As if there’s a difference. IQ 110+ white people are not the same race as IQ 90- white people. Look different, talk different, breed separate lineages. The Victorians realised this which is why they tried to find the physical traits in the English that most strongly correlated with criminality.

      Left is a race war ideology that always sides with losers.

      Fashism is a race war ideology that sides with in-group losers but not out-group losers. I.e. Fashism is Left with an unprincipled exception.

      The Nazis hated the Roma, who were a loser out-group, but hated the Jews more, because the Nazis were losers compared to the Jews. Naziism is misleading because it was about Germans and Germans are a high quality group, which disguises the fact that the Nazis were mostly about low quality Germans.

      Same reason Steve Sailer and Vox Day oppose free trade (or cynically pander to an audience that does): keep out the darkies because they’re losers, but keep out the chinks because I’m a loser too.

      Fashism by high quality groups is just a longer flush of the toilet, as childless Hitlers are replaced by the eight children of Pomeranian peasants. Fashism by low quality groups is indistinguishable from Left; indeed it’s precisely the third world ideology of “national liberation”.

  11. A Pint Thereof says:

    >But the problem is that fashism is insufficiently radical, is just 1930s leftism, when what we need is 1660s restoration.

    But the restoration didn’t work, and it will not work this time unless you figure out a way to stop the Jews and their other moneyed malcontents from concocting a second ironically titled “Glorious Revolution”.

    • jim says:

      The restoration worked fine, giving us the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, and the British empire. Kings had real power from 1660 to around 1820. Recall George the fourth’s argument that he was Regent by the Grace of God, and parliament had no right to determine succession. Aristocrats had real power from 1660 to the Crimean war.

      • A Pint Thereof says:

        The restoration lasted less than 30 years, and when it ended with the Jewish-backed Dutch invasion of England, all monarchical power was superseded to the 1689 Bill of Rights. The country was now ruled by the money power, not the aristocracy. The Bank of England was established in 1690 precisely because of this new reality, and it has held not just the balance, but the totality, of power to this very day….

        • jim says:

          The question that began and ended the civil war was the supremacy of King over Church. For one hundred and sixty years after the restoration everyone who hoped to get anywhere near the levers of power swore loyalty to King and the thirty nine articles, and by and large, meant it.

          The Industrial and Scientific revolutions rest on Rand’s hero scientist CEOs. These first appear immediately after the restoration, and have continued to the present day.

  12. pdimov says:

    – To impose absolute monarchy you need power equivalent to that of an absolute monarch.

    – You can’t restore something that never was. In America, you can restore sane immigration policy, and you can restore franchise restrictions.

    – Trump is “free helicopter rides”, not “gas the kikes”.

    – “Gas the kikes” is mostly ADL/SPLC shills and government informers.

    • pdimov says:

      On second thought, all I wrote above can be summarized as “the train is fine”, technically true but completely missing the point.

      “We shall preserve the white race by restoring absolute monarchy and patriarchy, not by fashism” is excellent Trumpian rhetoric.

      • peppermint says:

        Absolute monarchs have a problem with leftism because they act like Castro and such. The way an absolute monarch is absolute is by rejecting the people’s claims to private property or due process when violating their property rights.

        Private property must be respected as much as possible.

        • pdimov says:

          The state can always seize your stuff or kill you. That’s not a unique prerogative of the absolute monarch. Hitler could also do both to anyone.

          For the ordinary citizen, the absolute monarch is not who you fear will take your stuff, but to whom you complain when an aristocrat takes your stuff.

  13. hosswire says:

    I understand your concerns. I’m just not sure that I see a troubling near-far alliance forming yet. And rhetoric aside, I don’t see much threat of a day of orgiastic redistribution, accomplished by either ropes or gas.

    With the exception of the ever-opportunistic Donald, there not a lot of elites joining the newly stirring fashy movement yet. The elites are well-served by both the progressive & cuckservative establishment & sitting tight now. At the Trump rallies, to me it looks more along the lines of the Middle American Radicals Sam Francis wrote about. Online, I get the sense that the main writers are the really smart sons of middle class goys, mostly.

    I suppose that as a critical mass grows, ambitious elites will migrate to the movement to capitalize on it. But as the base of the movement is besieged, white, middle class, bourgeois strivers, that would make the movement a fairly stable middle-high alliance. One that would be more predisposed to impose security & order (a wall, realistic approach to diversity) than cater to the prole class’s desire for redistributive chaos.

    • jim says:

      And rhetoric aside, I don’t see much threat of a day of orgiastic redistribution, accomplished by either ropes or gas.

      That which cannot continue, will stop. The system is heading into crisis. The outcome of the crisis is impossible to predict. Probably not guaranteed win for the good guys.

  14. Thrasymachus says:

    I find your dismissal of working class white people amusing. Did you flip a light switch in your house this morning? Working class white people. Flush your toilet? Working class white people. Drive your car, catch a flight, feel safe? Working class white people.

    Civilization is not an abstract concept. It is not a thing. You have reified many things, but these things all presuppose the existence of white people. Science, engineering, technology, medicine- proceed from white people. Scientists can think of things, engineers can design things, but someone needs to build and maintain them, and that’s working class white people.

    https://deconstructingleftism.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/reification-and-neo-reaction-or-conservatism/

    The defeat of Hitler is taken by all sophisticates as the defeat of fascism. Franco wasn’t defeated. Pinochet wasn’t defeated. Videla wasn’t defeated- not by the communists anyway.

    • jim says:

      I find your dismissal of working class white people amusing. Did you flip a light switch in your house this morning? Working class white people. Flush your toilet? Working class white people. Drive your car, catch a flight, feel safe? Working class white people

      You are invoking a rather well paid minority of working class white people.

      And, supposing white working class people to be the salt of the earth, we still do not want them to have the vote, because politicians will always go to buy up the cheapest possible voter, which necessarily ends with them importing an alien underclass to live on crime and welfare.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Hey dude without the Mexicans your lawn will be rotting in the fields, so what right do you have to complain about them?

      Did you know that Victorian England didn’t even have Mexicans? What to guess what their lawns looked like?

  15. peppermint says:

    Okay, Trump nominates Elon Musk as archbishop of the Church of Civilization. Tenets include the family is the basis of civilization, marriage and private property are indispensable, etc. etc.

    Now that we’re done larping, what actually can happen is Trump can weaken the snivel rights, thus unleashing the same chain reaction as in the French Revolootion when the aristocrats renounced their titles. But the aristocrats and their titles were essential to the maintenance of French civilization and a government without nobility is a terrible thing. The snivel rights are not essential and people will cheer when the HR catladies are thrown out into the streets to freeze or seek marriage from the employees they used to terrify. When the snivel rights are abolished, the Jewniversity system will collapse, and as Jack points out, the age of marriage will be restored to where it belongs, 25-30 for men and 20-25 for women.

  16. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim”, what you’re noticing with the 1488 and fascism crowd is their papist sympathising which lends itself to humanism…British Union of Fascists and P.M. Mussolini in Italy were both friends with Cllr Hitler in Germany and we all know that Hitler was an Austrian caveman coming down out of the mountains to go nuts on top of the poor, formerly Prussian citizens. Austria = Roman Catholic. Former Prussia = Protestant Christian.

    Don’t go with the papist sympathisers, “Jim”. It’s a bad crowd to run with.

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  17. […] Neo-reactionaries do this by reminding us, not infrequently, that they are against fascism because fascism is just another form of socialism. “Jim Donald” does this, and goes a little farther, with his attack on the Trumpening.  […]

  18. peppermint says:

    While we’re on the topic, The Lion King 1488 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6llAxjjz6fU

    o/

  19. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you, man.

    My first inkling in the direction of degree-inflation, especially for women, was when I realized that of all the professional women I know, who do a good job and are well-appreciated for it…

    …essentially ALL of them could have started working in their fields at age 14 or so. Few and far between are the well-performing working women who actually needed any education AT ALL to get to where they are today. Just act nice, do what you’re told, ask for help, learn what you can, care about people’s feelings, and notice problems that need solving.

    JudgyBitch (.com) has confessed this as well, about how essentially all working women are just doing housework anyway, just for a legal-fiction-corporate-entity instead of a family who actually knows and cares about them.

    And as you point out, it would have been far better for them if they HAD started working at age 14 too, because then they’d have met some men who had decent jobs already.

    Point and match, biggie-buddy. I have no idea what I’d do without you.

    • A.B Prosper says:

      Technology reduces the demand for human labor and until its gets too expensive in 50-100 years or when society gets too stupid and 3rd world , the effects are going to have to be dealt with.

      It isn’t going to pack up and go away simply because once debugged machines are basically better in nearly every way than people.

      I can’t see any reason to every hire someone I am not related too or friends with if I have a choice.

      The only reason anyone would if machines were better is the psychological rush of exploitation and status whoring

      Also there really is no way to just “get people to have more children” no society ever has sustained such a thing because the default number is low, not high. Most people want at most 2 surviving offspring except for the highly religious and some dirt farmers

      In modernity, the average number is 1.5, my guess is that its actually 2 with economic and social trends suppressing higher numbers

      Lower IQ Higher time preference people of course have more but with a few exceptions, most people who can sustain society only want 2 or so do to opportunity costs.

      Even societies that went full atrocity like Romania under Ceausescu ended up after a decade or two of 1.5 like everyone else

      There are tons of reasons behind it but its not a technologically solvable problem, Japan got there without any birth control other than condoms.

      The US hit its “lower fertility after about 3 decades, a little longer than most but its not a society that can return. We are as a percentage of GDP much less wealthy (by half in the last 40 years) Anyway the baby boom was a bubble.

      And if tech collapse billions will die and while you’ll have more children, you won’t have growth since infant mortality will be high

      You also aren’t going to get a serious religious revival for a few centuries and its possible that the “new faith” might have sustainability as a commandant and you won’t have a huge population than

      My thought is to build a society that takes modernity into account and is built around understanding that people mostly don’t want large families.

      Its hard to get there though , the elite have a stunning entitlement complex whether its afluenza or the idea that they are entitled to cheap labor or the workers from someones womb without paying.

      Don’t want to pay the cost of civilization, enjoy the unstoppable gas leak in your upper class neighborhood

      Fact is when it comes to families, we have plenty of capitalism good and hard and as wages go down, quality birth do too. Instead of familial socialism you have the market writ large

      Quid Pro Quo Clairce Quid Pro Quo

      • jim says:

        It isn’t going to pack up and go away simply because once debugged machines are basically better in nearly every way than people.

        Robots cannot fold sweaters, except a human lays out the sweater and neatly orients it for the robot. They cannot fold clothes and towels that are jumbled together in a laundry basket. Similarly, cannot pick fruit.

        So far, robots are not only uncompetitive with people, they are uncompetitive with spiders. The much promised self driving cars are still not self driving.

        • B says:

          Absolutely right.

          It’s amazing how supposedly intelligent people can’t grasp the fact that better technology makes people as a whole more productive, not redundant. They go outside without being beset by legions of unemployed cartmakers and chimneysweeps, but it doesn’t register.

          >My thought is to build a society that takes modernity into account and is built around understanding that people mostly don’t want large families.

          The people who “don’t want large families” don’t really want small ones, either. Not enough to have them in conditions of mild adversity.

          If you have 2 kids because you like your kids, you will want as many more kids as possible. If you want to have 2 kids because you like yourself, see those kids as nice presents you make to yourself, and feel that having more kids will impair your ability to get nice things for yourself, you probably won’t end up having those 2 kids. And any kids you do have, who will inherit your solipsism, will end up having less than 2 kids. So you will go extinct.

          • Dave says:

            Charles Galton Darwin explained it best: We have a sexual instinct and a parental instinct (the desire to care for children who already exist), but modern contraception allows the first to be satisfied without triggering the second. Natural selection will fix this problem in a few generations, breeding people who yearn for children and reject dolls, pets, and all contraceptives. Probably not in time to save our civilization, but the rules that empowered our forebears to conquer the world are all written down in case anyone else wants to give it a go.

          • B says:

            Quine more or less disposed of the idea that natural selection works in humans as it does with pine trees or cod.

            Every person has a choice to believe in G-d or not. Disbelief leads to extinction. I do not believe in a genetic propensity to belief.

          • Anon says:

            B says:

            “Quine more or less disposed of the idea that natural selection works in humans as it does with pine trees or cod.

            Every person has a choice to believe in G-d or not. Disbelief leads to extinction. I do not believe in a genetic propensity to belief.”

            And Wittgenstein said “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” You should take his advice.

          • jim says:

            They have been on the horizon all my life.

          • jim says:

            “To use the laundry-folding robot, you first have to individually load the garment in the slot.”

            In other words, the human has to do the hard part on each individual garment one by one. You cannot just chuck a laundry basket at the robot.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          In the short run? Absolutely correct. Longer term?

          Don’t count on it. There are right now several clothes folding robots for sale. They will get better. Well unless the Orcs win

          And yes still need a person to feed it. The productivity increase means you need one when you needed three, Combined with out everyday washing robot (aka a Washing Machine and a Drier and you progressively need less people.

          its not that there are no jobs but that there are less jobs and they are often either menial and low paying or only for highly connected people with Hi IQ’s

          An arch example is Craigslist

          This company employs about 30 people at a decent wage. that’s great. It also wiped out thousands of jobs that created a comparable standard of living (ad sales, pressmen etc) and nothing replaced them. This happens in nearly every industry and that loss of income results in a bigger state.

          Lose ones job to Expedia ? Well hey Uncle Sam will provide welfare or a government job or regulatory relief

          If that stops, modernity which is expensive will not work since it won’t generate enough surplus in the established conditions to pay for itself . If I am driving and he’s not driving and we aren’t buying much because we have no money, there won’t be roads since they can’t be paid for. heck we won’t need them

          An economy where the bulk of the jobs are low pay is a 3rd world country no matter of the average IQ is 75,85 or 105 (in a theoretical White only ethnostate)

          Its not fixed by magic but by incentives and that requires state,

          What you seem to think is that its OK to have a few people own everything and everyone serve them. No its a poor idea and its s simply dysgenic since the mid-wits (to use a Vox Day ism) won’t have children being they are too smart to want to be some the slave/servant

          All that talent is going to be wasted on political games and its basically transferring state make work to the private sector which isn’t any smarter,

          In your system everyone is far better off with the Cathedral in charge or better with Cathedral reform

          Its cool to be the rich person in Dowtown Abbey but no one wants to be the serf.

          Also one big reason we have so much bullshit work is productivity. The number of human workers we’ve needed has been declining since the 1930. we kicked kids out, reduced senior work, mandated 40 hours , and when women insisted on working, this didn’t create more wealth or jobs, we divided pay

          Everybody got wages cut in half

          And yes the US is corrupt and overspends but in part why we can’t get things fixed is the social fabric doesn’t allow it. Oligarchies like we have are doomed to fail at complexity in modernity

          Also you seem to assume that you can create a situation where people want to have kids like rolling back software.

          In no way shape or form is that possible without become Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan . Modern urban life means less children. Deal with it

          Hell Saudi Arabia might just end up destroyed by a religious state (Iran) with a TFR of 1.5 go figure.,

          with global lower wages and you get exactly what we have now, even less children among people with an IQ in the three digit range. even many American Mexicans (IQ average 97) are getting in the act

          In the end, you want a fertile modern society have to pay for it somehow.

          Yes a social assumption that women should marry and have kids is a good start though I’m not sure you can do it top down, divorce reform all that. Mostly good.

          if the private sector can do it. Great all the better. If it can’t. an actual fashist wouldn’t hesitate to have the state step in in some Mussolini-eque “fusion of government and state” or just tell people what to do and how to do it. This means laws against hiring foreigners and women not more economic freedom. Much less.

          You actually have to make people have less freedom to get what you want and it means the upper class even more so, you force loyalty down their throats till its instinct.

          Otherwise you are trying to LARP a Right Wing junta ala the Latin America which is fine but Pinochet didn’t come out much better than Allende.

          • jim says:

            Don’t count on it. There are right now several clothes folding robots for sale. They will get better.

            No they will not get better. We have been hearing this for thirty years. The clothes folding machine still needs a low IQ person to feed it separated and correctly oriented clothes. It improves the productivity of that low IQ person. It does not replace him.

            Higher productivity makes it easier to support two wives at home and eighteen children. What makes it harder is the high cost of housing and the high cost of education, both of which can easily be fixed.

          • Alrenous says:

            >It improves the productivity of that low IQ person. It does not replace him.

            Even if it did replace him, he’d be needed to run the machines that make the folding robots, and to mine the ore the machines are made of.

          • No, you need much more capable people to build robots and mine ore.

            Unclogging or cleaning toilets is unlikely to be mechanized any time soon, even though that would be highly desirable due to the difficulty and need for hygiene standards in that task, or even cleaning floors, somebody needs to put down those wet floor signs and put personal items in theIR pockets before sweeping and pushing the zamboni through.

          • peppermint says:

            forgot to change my nickname back, sorry

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “There are tons of reasons behind it but its not a technologically solvable problem, Japan got there without any birth control other than condoms.”

        Condoms and also lots of abortions, don’t forget. But it’s still a good point made.

        Female employment is NOT all “make-work”. Modernity does require oodles and oodles of “corporate housework”. It’s true. So much paperwork, so many complex bureaucracies to negotiate, etc. All chick-work, like it or not, and lots of it.

        And “Software is Eating the World” as well, or rather “Software is Pre-Chewing the World for Women” . Every job/function that you can organize into a step-by-step workflow is another job that women (and diversities) can now do, and that men won’t WANT to do, because that’s a chick-and-diversity job, man.

        • pdimov says:

          “So much paperwork, so many complex bureaucracies to negotiate, etc. All chick-work, like it or not, and lots of it.”

          All make-work.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            I challenge. Until business/government IT/AI is perfect, there will be ever-more oodles of glue-logic to perform. Informational housework ad infinitum.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Not so. Complexity requires management and lost of it.

            You certainly could with excellent management and much effort lay off 30% of the workforce,

            Unless either prices brick which requires autarky or wages go up, family formation is not going to pick up. At all. Its dropped during the great depressions (30’s and late noughties) to all time lows for a reason. The numbers are up do to immigration and demographic momentum and lat birth but the TFR is European level . Its even getting there among Mexicans and Latin Americans who average 1/2 std below Whites IQ wise and typically have a higher time preference

            I don’t have kids in part because I can’t afford them and I know many people including LDS in the same boat, Telling me “well you should give up all your comforts for the greater good of you race/nation/whatever.” is going to get a hearty fuck you from me. Capitalism bitches, you want more kids, pay better.

            Virtually the only people having lots of kids are those who prioritize religion over all else or who are feral.

          • B says:

            >I don’t have kids in part because I can’t afford them

            Is this true?

            >Telling me “well you should give up all your comforts”

            Ah, right.

            I don’t have a brand new motorcycle in part because I can’t afford one. By which I mean, there is other stuff I’d rather have.

            You and yours don’t have kids because you don’t want them.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            B. Yes true. My income right now is well no ones business other than required by law what it is but I wouldn’t raise a child on it. I’m picky sure but its not just trade offs here.

            To my way of thinking raising a smart child especially in a stupid system liek So-Cal requires a lot of money. You need to buy connections, education and a be able to afford to avoid the minos and lefties

            Its not cheap. I can’t make the numbers work even with handouts which BTW I don’t have too much issue using. I’m not a purist.

            However to one of Jim’s points, if the US was fairly mino and leftist free the birth rate should go up some. My suspicion is that people in my boat would have more children. If the Cathedral “tax” was gone, divorce reformed and there were jobs, the birth rate would rise.

            Housing would cheaper too. Even if we don’t seize deportees property x-D

            Given the TFR is about 1.5 for Whites, including super natal LDS and Quiver Full types , it could/should reach 2. and change. My guess is that the modernity and Cathedral “tax” is about 1/2 to 1 TFR on most folks , it would be higher if not for single mothers and late fertility neither of which are good

            In any case don’t expect a long term boom though . We are already past social carrying capacity

            Now as for choices. If you want a market, you have choices. Its the strength of the market in operation and many people would rather use time and money in a different manner than child rearing .Many people like kids well enough but most secular folks don’t want huge families. Even Italy which is pretty religious and there was until very recently a lot of social pressure for big families has a super low TFR

            me personally? I’d 3 to 4 but my income isn’t yet high enough and finding a loyal, healthy, decently smart (I’m high IQ and do not wish to my kids to regress to the mean) fertile wife is challenging. Also I admit my motivation is low. Yes I’m Christian but I’m bad at it and I don’t actually believe any of it.

            However is dealing with family formation. its not just money but time and enjoyment of life that can take a hit

            As such if people have options, motorcycle, marathon Skyrim , Netflix whatever. they do have to choose and balance money, time and activities.

            Its what economic freedom brings you and as such many people are going to have smaller families,

            Its natural and healthy so long as the system actually supports healthy families which it does not it will be fine.

          • B says:

            “If the government incentivized me to have kids, I would have kids.”

            Congratulations-you are now a piece of livestock, by choice.

            If you rely on the government, the system, the man, etc. for your reproductive choices, you are already done.

            “But I can’t have kids and all my nice stuff and provide the same amount of nice stuff for my kids!”

            Well, again, that’s a question of priorities. Further, the more nice stuff you have, the more nice stuff it turns out you lack, and at any point if you have kids, that’s less nice stuff for you.

      • Samson says:

        ****You also aren’t going to get a serious religious revival for a few centuries ****

        I see no reason to suppose that this is true. It could be true, as there were, for example, a few centuries between Christ and Constantine. But observe what folks have been saying here about Trump: “I never thought the Overton window could be dragged back to the right, until… Trump did it. And it didn’t even look that hard.”

        Contrary to (seemingly) prevailing opinion, I don’t think it would be all that difficult to re-Christianize society – as long as one properly understands what is meant by a “re-Christianized” society. One will never have a society in which the *majority* of people are fervent believers. One will never have a society in which vice and immorality are absent, or even uncommon. None of that matters; we’re not looking for heaven on earth, or shouldn’t be. As long as elites are seen publicly to proclaim their support for the faith, and as long as the man on the street has a general respect and affinity for religion and *says* he believes in it, that is sufficient. Achieving this state of affairs wouldn’t even require hangings, just gentle incentives (and removal of disincentives!).

        Observe an advantage that religion has even today, right now, in our society, which is this: persons who were raised in Christian homes, but then leave the faith, are still more likely to believe and/or understand, in a deep, instinctual way, that Christian positions are legitimate and have a place in the public square.* Then extrapolate that to society. A culture that gently promotes religion is going to produce more folks who are at least *open* to a rightward shift of the Overton window. Combine this with differential fertility, and sprinkle in a minority of fervent believers (who, unlike today, are no longer suppressed by the state), and I think it becomes apparent that shifting the religious tenor of society back to the right could be done fairly easily. If you disagree, then just witness what Trump has managed. Then imagine a Christian Trump.

        As for Trump, I continue to be surprised at some of the discussion surrounding him. Of course he won’t be the be-all-end-all solution. Of course he can’t be. That doesn’t matter. He’s a forerunner, valuable mostly for symbolic and/or experimental reasons. If the historical pattern holds, I expect a strong-man sometime in the 2020s or 30s, likely a veteran of Middle Eastern wars.

        *Thus, an unbeliever raised in a Christian home is more likely to say, “I’m pro-choice, but I understand being against abortion,” than to see pro-lifers as evil.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          Interesting.

          I’m not sure if this is correct or of the union will last that long but its possible. The US is subject to periodic religious revivals

          I’m not as sure about Europe though.

        • peppermint says:

          Christcucks were a major silent majority force in the ’80s and ’90s, the managed to cockblock many pedophiles at daycare and preschool and k12.

          But then they blew their wad circlejerking about whether the Bible requires a young Earth as well as not noticing parallels between human behavior and animal behavior and subspecies differences in human behavior or whether the more important biology should be denied and the less important geology should be accepted, as well as trying to prevent babies whose parents don’t care about them from dying, and cucking for Israel.

          gg no re, christcucks.

          Newt Gingrich, the grinch who stole the conservative mid ’90s, decided that his cucktholicism wouldn’t allow him to end affirmative action as he promised to. But, he did say off the record that abortion is okay if it’s a White girl with a Black baby. Ending abortion would have been possible if some law could be written that permits abortions where the baby’s father says he isn’t going to marry the mother or the woman’s parents file a claim that they don’t believe the baby’s father is going to marry the woman. But no such law was ever proposed, because every soul is sacred to Yeshua bar Yahweh, especially souls no one wants which feeding them creates a moral hazard.

    • Ron says:

      Your comment is one of the most profoundly valuable observations. So much becomes clear. That’s exactly what’s happening. This is the realization of the Platonic trick to instill a slave mentality into a mass of men and women

      Instead of working for the benefit of a mans home, the philosopher king emasculates all the men, by convincing the women to do their same housewife duties in the office surrounded by other men. As such no man has true ownership of his woman. And this no woman is satisfied. All are restless in subservience to the machine whose levers are pulled by the “philosopher kings”

    • peppermint says:

      By the way, this fact, when it becomes widely known, will be salt on the burned universities.

      It’s hard to explain why the physical science professoriate, who have real legitimacy and are actually engaged in holy work, should be executed with the pretender professoriate, simply because they lent their legitimacy to the pretenders. They had to, it can be argued, they did what they had to to do their holy work, without which we wouldn’t be here on this internet discussing DNA.

      But everyone in the physical sciences knows in the back of their minds that the women are there because they are women, and the nubile girls are around to be hit on as in A Beautiful Mind.

      Men can understand that on a more visceral level than truly holy men lending legitimacy to pretenders, resent the access to nubile women much more than political games which only matter to the extent that they end with one group having access to nubile women, and can execute even the most accomplished of scientists for participating in this scheme.

  20. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Charles Stuart died because he believed more in the reality of his divine right to rule than he did in the executioner’s axe. Charles Stuart was a Christian before anything else and Christianity is Left. Charles Stuart was a dotty adherent to 1640’s equivalent of Fashism.

    Charles Stuart was decayed radicalism, not pure reaction. Of course decayed radicalism is better than.pure radicalism. But “pure reaction” never existed, would be something new, something radical, just in a different direction. Even the Romans couldnt stomach literal property right in humans indefinitely, and it didn’t start with Christianity.

    The label “reaction” is sply Moldbug’s marketing trick and an impediment to clear thought on the matter.

    Nor is establishing literal property rights in humans sufficient or necessarily even an improvement: if modern Anglo left is too little property right in humans, Communism was too.much, or at least exercised by the wrong people.

    Some people are naturally free, others naturally slaves. Most are partially both. Prosperity comes when those who should be free are free in proportion that they should be free, and those who should be unfree are unfree in proportion that they should be unfree.

    Problem.is establishing a system that calculates this correctly. So probably not a central state system. Something to consider: why did Rothbard go to such lengths to “prove” that one could not contract oneself into slavery in an anarcho capitalism? What did he think such a society would look pike, otherwise?

    • peppermint says:

      “Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge.”
      —John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861

      If you’re not for private property, you’re a leftist.

      Charles Stuart believed in private property, but his predecessors had given Parliament the power of the purse, which meant that Parliament, not Charles, had actual final authority. As Hitler said, the function of a council is not to rule but to give counsel to the Führer.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Private property is just a fact of life, I believe in it as I believe in gravity not as I believe in natalism. Questions are private property concern distribution not existence. The position of Charles Stuart and parliament on private property was the same: all of it should belong to me.

        England prospered because both of them failed and the very good common law system – supported as foundation of government by no one – prevailed by default.

        We are now witnessing the end of that happy period, the end of the end. The attempt to clarify and rationally advocate what made common law good was called libertarianism and is now called neoreaction.

  21. Robert says:

    I am trying to solve some of the issues listed here with my daughter. She just turned 18 and I have raised her to be a traditional woman. The hardest part is finding a suitable husband. If you are a traditional white Christian American looking for a wife e-mail me at robert_engr@yahoo.com. I am dead serious.

    • peppermint says:

      Stop posting and secure the existence of your race by creating White children! Lonely nubile traditionalist women need your seed! Don’t delay, the DNA in your testes degrades over time regardless of whether you’re a degenerate masturbator! Social security number required in order to make a credit check.

      • Robert says:

        Finding a spouse for our children is a serious matter. Parents should take an active role in searching. Maybe you think I’m not for real or maybe your’re just a jerk, but most of what you said, although it was said as a joke, is true.

        • peppermint says:

          Iss cool I’se jes butthurt about not havin a solid nuff career to make marriage proposals, nomesayin? So I’m stuck wit dis degenerate simulacrum of the reproductive act wit dis fiiiine girlfriend bish.

          Don’t worry man ur bish has another six years to get hitched, so she can wait for Trump’s Morning in America dawg. All dem craggas gon have dem careers, nomesayin, dey get dem apartments, den dey finna get hitched.

  22. Menschsplainer says:

    Don’t let Perfect be the enemy of good. The 1660s are out of reach. I’ll take a shot at 1930 any day. That’s why I prefer the (perhaps less factually correct) TRS version of Alt-Right politics. (I’m assuming you’re reading them now from your use of fashy and 1488. Do you post there? What handle?) Maybe they over-simplify the JQ and are unreasonably optimistic about socialism working out in a homogeneous whitopia, but at least they’re working towards something we might possibly have a shot at. I’ll take that over precisely correct everyday.

    • Mark Yuray says:

      They are not “working” towards anything. You’re trapped in the frame of demotist politics, and thus fully captured by the Cathedral whether you know it or not. Step back from the vortex for a second: what precisely are the fashists doing? Shitposting and making edgy memes? How does this fit into an overall strategy? What will lots of shitposting lead to? More shitposting? How does this help? I wouldn’t comment if I thought the fashists had an inkling of the socio-political structures necessary to build an actual center of power able to counteract the Cathedral, but they don’t. Shitposting is great when it creates the substrate for trust, Mannerbund and eventually greater things. The fashists don’t seem to have any idea of the latter, only the former — shitposting for shitposting’s sake.

      They can do it all they like, I enjoy it too, but don’t convince yourself 1660 is perfect and 1930 is good.

      • pdimov says:

        “what precisely are the fashists doing?”

        Challenging the Cathedral’s control of the narrative.

        • jim says:

          “what precisely are the fashists doing?”

          Challenging the Cathedral’s control of the narrative.

          That is great. I am really pleased by this. But after you challenge the Cathedral’s control of the narrative, what then?

          Supposing we proceed with gassing the kikes and the day of the rope, after gassing the kikes and hanging the collaborators, what then? There is an implicit supposition that after we kill them and take their stuff, then we will be rich. Does not actually work like that. To have a wealthy society we need a social order that allows you to productive things with stuff, and gets stuff into the hands of people competent to do those things, which killing people and taking their stuff tends to undermine.

          Challenging the Cathedral’s control of the narrative is an important and necessary step. But a step to where?

          • pdimov says:

            When I read Moldbug, I was convinced by his thesis that Cthulhu only swims left. History seemed to back him up. You go left gradually, right in sudden lurches. So if you’re going to go right, you better go for the Moon. 1660, say.

            After seeing Trump, I’m not so sure. He singlehandedly made Cthulhu swim right, before our very eyes. So maybe, just maybe, nibbling patiently at Cathedral’s feet of clay can take us as much to the right as we’d like.

            If gradual movement to the right is possible, and we know that it is, there is no reason for it to be limited to $current_year-N, no mechanism by which it would be stopped at some specific point. You just need to keep moving instead of stopping in 1964. That’s basically how the left does it, by the simple trick of not stopping.

            • jim says:

              In one sense, shutting down illegal immigration is “moving right”. In the other sense, we will be still be moving to a majority vibrant society, at a slightly slower pace.

              If Trump wins, it will be like Tony Abbot winning. The government, academy, and the media set to work undermining him, eventually they succeed, then they slowly start opening up illegal immigration once more.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Mr Dimov, Mr Trump has not really made any changes in the direction of Right. I’ve heard him say that he _wants_ to make changes to the Estate Tax, but that would hardly be a substantial step away from the problem of Demotism coming from the Cathedral’s egalitarian and monotonising Republicanism. Sure, addressing the Estate Tax might be a bolder move than addressing voter I.D. laws which the Republican Party sometimes does to the typical howls of “rayciss” from the Left.

            But the changes have not been made, and culture at large has still not been affected. It’s really a lot of navel-gazing to say that any change to the Right has been implemented. Society is still moving down its slippery slope, and while a boost of morale that the Trump campaign may bring is there, it will inevitably be temporary at best, and at worst it could be Fool’s Gold, or in other words a distraction.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • pdimov says:

            “In one sense, shutting down illegal immigration is “moving right”. In the other sense, we will be still be moving to a majority vibrant society, at a slightly slower pace.”

            Shutting down illegal immigration will enable further movement right by making it obvious that immigrants are no longer sacred. If you can shut down illegal immigration, you can shut down legal immigration, can start deporting illegal migrants, can start deporting legal but criminal migrants, and so on.

            Similarly, if you scale back even slightly women’s rights, this would enable scaling them back even further. If you can take one small step, you can take two small steps. No longer a third rail.

            “The government, academy, and the media set to work undermining him, eventually they succeed”

            Possibly. But they’ve already taken their best shots and he’s came on top. Mostly because he’s Trump, but also because of Twitter.

            “My twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth.”

            https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/258584864163500033

            “Mr Dimov, Mr Trump has not really made any changes in the direction of Right.”

            He has moved the Overton window substantially to the right against the will of the Republican establishment (to say nothing about the (rest of the) Cathedral) by talking about issues that were considered unspeakable if one wants to be “electable”, demonstrating that these issues do not at all undermine electability, and forcing the whole Republican candidate field to start discussing those issues as well.

            He singlehandedly dragged the Republicans to the right.

            (I didn’t think that possible, but now realize that its impossibility was just a mind trick. If you think something impossible, you do not attempt it, so its impossibility becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

            He also did all that in a very Trumpian “Art of the Deal” way, well explained by Scott Adams on his blog: by using an outrageous initial demand.

            It was this analysis of Trump’s methods that made me realize that “we shall preserve the white race by restoring monarchy and patriarchy, not by fascism” is excellent rhetoric even though dialectically one could nitpick a lot.

            – assumes position of power – we have the strength to do these things, and people like strength
            – thinking past the sale – preserving the white race is already an implied goal (a sale), we’re past that, discussing means
            – outrageous demand – monarchy and patriarchy, we expect to scale this back in negotiations a bit
            – disassociate preserving the white race from fascism – this association plays into our enemies’ hands and we’re explicitly rejecting fascism

            To a dialectical mind, the first three look like defects, but they aren’t.

            • jim says:

              Shutting down illegal immigration will enable further movement right

              Tony Abbot shut down illegal immigration into Australia. Eventually, the Cathedral destroyed him, and now they are furtively and slowly working on bringing illegal immigration back. Meanwhile, large scale legal nonwhite immigration into Australia continues, and continues to increase.

              Note that Tony Abbot, like Trump, sent the Cathedral flacks into madness.

              It was great, and I totally loved it, but ultimately, amounted to nothing much.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Yes, I do accept that changes in the range of acceptable discussion, ie. the Overton Window, are indeed important. However, the substantial changes are made when that range has been moved for a long period of time and _the_legal_changes_are_subsequently_made_.

            You’re missing the point which is the degree of legal changes that people at this blog are insisting on, insisting on them due to the evidence that those changes would be able to stop the backsliding into degeneracy that they’ve been historically known to prevent. Mr Dimov, you have been focusing too much on the rhetoric part of the equation and too much of that is sophistry.

          • pdimov says:

            I agree that a small shift in the Overton window by itself means nothing. It is indicative of Trump’s potential and a proof that rightward movement is possible, but there’s no guarantee that Trump will continue pushing rightwards 9 more years.

            But regardless of what Trump does, one thing of interest to us that he and the 1488/TRS trolls have demonstrated is how weak the Cathedral actually is. Trump took on the whole establishment, including the media, and won. The TRS/1488 trolls have attacked the most sacred topic, and basically have won. They didn’t shift the window of acceptable discourse on the JQ, they’ve shattered it. Another thing I never thought possible.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Mr Dimov, I see you are still focusing on the rhetorical tactics that have been used to some success already, therefore I will try and challenge you a bit. You may have learned through my comments here that I do a fair bit of “trolling” against the anti-whites, and so I do. When I do that, it is a critique against the religion of Political Correctness, the spiritual foundations of Anti-Whitism and White Genocide.

            What happens after the spiritual foundations of their destructive programme have been pushed away? What replaces it, and what will the new and better foundations lead to?

            Perhaps the low class will stay on that foundation level, but I don’t think it’s good for the minds of the middle class and upper class to be there indefinitely…That’s what a lot of NRx bloggers are trying to envision. “Free Northerner” is another good one, if you are looking for more of the same.

            One more thing to add, is that if the upper class don’t figure it out and implement what is being demanded in the form of patriarchy, then it would be the job of the middle class to get the job done with or without the upper class which might have had an easier time of it.

            A.J.P.

          • A.B Prosper says:

            Now that mon ami is the 15.m question isn’t it?

            Whatever it is you had best take reality into account and understand that any society that has TV, Internet or cities won’t be super fertile.

            You could do all awful stuff and than nuke feminism but if you technology means high male unemployment you won’t have strong family formation

            even with lower tech its not a new problem and its strongly tied to men’s ability to sustain a family

            Note that the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century

            This isn’t far off from modern numbers and women there had a smaller fertility window by 5+ years

            Wikipedia

            So yeah 500 years ago people were having and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time

            And yes its economic, witness Ireland heavily Catholic

            Similarly, Ireland’s age of marriage in 1830 was 23.8 for women and 27.47 for men where they had once been 21 and 25, respectively, and only about 10% of adults remained unmarried;[21] in 1840, they had respectively risen to 24.4 and 27.7;[22][23] in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage

            My guess is that humans have an innate social carrying capacity, the way we relate to others means that we can only sustain certain numbers.

            My guess is that a functional Pro-Fa society will need to take human nature into account and be fine with a modest population of well educated citizens with enough social comity to allow for a balanced wealth distribution

            • jim says:

              Whatever it is you had best take reality into account and understand that any society that has TV, Internet or cities won’t be super fertile.

              You could do all awful stuff and than nuke feminism but if you technology means high male unemployment you won’t have strong family formation

              High technology should lead to higher standards of living, at least for people smart enough to manage the technology. Higher standards of living should mean more ability to afford children and stay at home wives.

              We have declining ability to support children because of degree inflation and the artificially high cost of safe neighborhoods – which problems can be easily fixed.

            • jim says:

              any society that has TV, Internet or cities won’t be super fertile.

              We have not tried TV, internet without female emancipation.

              Where we have cities without female emancipation, fertility pretty good, as for example the Japanese before General McArthur ordered female emancipation. Similarly Taiwan.

          • B says:

            >any society that has TV, Internet or cities won’t be super fertile.

            We have internet, cities and five kids per family.

            The Europeans are dying because they abandoned G-d. Attempting to rectify that problem through attacking us won’t make it better. It will make it worse. First, because their Jews will leave to Israel, leaving them with a dumber management class to maintain their crumbling society. Second, because once they open the can of worms (obviously, they won’t gas anyone, even if they come to power, because we will drop a nuke on them, but I believe they might start hanging people,) there is no turning back. You now have an apparatus that can hang people for political reasons. The next step is cannibalism. The revolution always eats its young.

            Feiglin more or less pegs the issue: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/206339

          • pdimov says:

            “What happens after the spiritual foundations of their destructive programme have been pushed away? What replaces it, and what will the new and better foundations lead to?”

            In other words, what do we do when the Cathedral loses power.

            NRx says “be worthy. assume power. rule.”

            I however prefer to first achieve clarity on the necessary previous step, which is “how does the Cathedral lose power”.

            The question here is whether adherence to the Cathedral’s narrative is high status because the Cathedral is powerful, or the other way around, the power source of the Cathedral is that adherence to its narrative is high status.

            If the latter, we should attack the narrative and the status of its adherents. If the former, such attacks are futile and we should attack the real power source, wherever it is.

            • jim says:

              I however prefer to first achieve clarity on the necessary previous step, which is “how does the Cathedral lose power”.

              A competent functional state cannot be overthrown. The Cathedral has to destroy itself.

              The internal dynamics of the Cathedral cause it to go ever lefter, ever faster, and ever more detached from reality. Bound to crash sooner or late.

              If it stops moving ever leftwards, ever faster, will suffer loss of faith, as in the Brezhnevian stagnation or the Thermidorian Reaction.

              However there is no guarantee that any of that will happen before whites are eradicated.

          • Irving says:

            >The Europeans are dying because they abandoned G-d.

            Right

            >Attempting to rectify that problem through attacking us won’t make it better. It will make it worse. First, because their Jews will leave to Israel, leaving them with a dumber management class to maintain their crumbling society.

            About half of Europe’s Jews are relatively low-IQ Mizrahi Jews. Europe can get rid of these Jews with little harm to itself. The other half is a mixed bag. Some of those Jews may be smart, they are also hostile. Here are a few comments posted on the article you just posted, all written by people with Jewish names:

            “Payback for WW2 , Crusades, Ghettoes , inquisition , expulsions”

            “Haters and enemies of Israel – Y R Finished!”

            “It couldn’t happen to more deserving people! What goes around…”

            “My sympathies for the women but Germany deserved it for anti-semiticism!”

            It is well-known that sentiments like these are widespread among Jews, including those Jews that you say are so indispensable to Europe’s management class. Under these circumstances, it would make perfect sense for Europeans to, at the very least, expel their Jews to Israel.

            >because we will drop a nuke on them

            Lol, no you won’t. The most that Israel would be able to do is to try and facilitate the evacuation of European Jewry.

            >Second, because once they open the can of worms (obviously, they won’t gas anyone, even if they come to power, because we will drop a nuke on them, but I believe they might start hanging people,) there is no turning back. You now have an apparatus that can hang people for political reasons. The next step is cannibalism. The revolution always eats its young.

            Agreed

          • William Newman says:

            “You now have an apparatus that can hang people for political reasons. The next step is cannibalism. The revolution always eats its young.”

            Except the times when it doesn’t, which have been disproportionately important in the history of the world.

            The English Civil War was certainly not an unqualified success but Cromwell doesn’t seem to me to have approached cannibalism much more closely than some of the less-revolutionary rulers that preceded him. The Glorious semiRevolution went medieval on some of the farthest within its grasp that pissed it off (in Scotland and Ireland) but seems to have not only avoided cannibalism by a mile, but struck a rather usable balance of strictness and tolerance and favoritism vs. law in its productive and powerful near constituencies, both its original powerbase and rival factions who had been less well pleased by the regime change. And maybe that coup-or-revolution-or-invasion-or-whatever shouldn’t count as a revolution, but before that, the Swiss and Dutch managed to wobble out of their revolutionary periods into usable institutions and traditions on unusually productive stable paths with a tolerably realistic balance of badass bloodymindedness and practical avarice. (And their example likely contributed to the practical success after the Glorious c.-or-r.-or-i.) And after all of those, the American Revolution developed institutions which damped down high-low alliance gotchas and other gotchas well enough that they didn’t prevent it from flourishing for enough generations (and indeed dominating the world for enough generations) that Ibn Khaldun would have been seriously impressed.

            Lumping together revolutions with “cannibalism […] alway eat[ing] their young” without accounting for those historically very important exceptions (and the maybe-less-historically-important but still noteworthy Switzerland) seems like a category error, as misleading as thinking of “the Enlightenment” as one lump without making distinctions like Scottish flavor vs. French flavor.

            “Feiglin more or less pegs the issue”

            In Feiglin…

            “Mein Kampf, too, is making a huge comeback” Easy to believe: nationalistic nostalgia can be an easy sell no matter how insane it is (see: Stalin), and it being fruit harshly forbidden by exactly those authorities who have been frantically beclowning themselves and betraying and humiliating their subjects might make it particularly appealing.

            “converting to Islam in droves” I very much doubt that is true in any useful sense, except possibly among people whose grandparents were Islamic, or in the trivial sense of German women competing to identify themselves with their current badboy lover. (That last might actually be a significant number, and might turn out to matter for practical purposes, but is not IMHO usefully thought of as a religious conversion, any more than women running revolutionary or espionage errands for their current revolutionary or spy lovers should be thought of primarily as revolutionaries or spies. In some ways they are, in some ways they aren’t, and particularly the connotation of permanence doesn’t fit.)

            Possibly there is room for some sort of Islam-influenced sect (the way Mormons are a Christian-influenced sect) to get traction among Germans in general tomorrow. But without extreme help (like full-blown conversion by the sword or like WW3 blasting Europe back to some Mad Max scenario) I don’t see a desert primitivist ideology catching on with ethnic Germans, and I certainly don’t see Islam itself doing it without some hard work filing off the serial numbers and hybridizing with something that Germans like more (Green radicalism? dunno). Germans are not exactly short of (sometimes forbidden but) more tempting bloodthirsty alternatives: pagan, generic SCA-level-of-authenticity Christian, Crusader/Teutonicknight Christian, Reformation new-broom-sweeping-clean Christian, Nazi, vaguely merchantprince/freecity pragmatic cosmopolitanism with dozens or hundreds of hangings after something like Cologne, recreating the late 19th century as closely as they can manage, and probably a hybrid runner-up or three. And the Islamic world is short of regimes that would inspire Germans, and oversupplied with examples optimized to repel them for various of the following reasons: poor, militarily embarrassingly weak and inept, dirty, tacky, unstable, and/or ignorant.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            To be frank, Mr Dimov, your view of NRx seems too simplistic, even so the rest of your comment does seem to be a logical conclusion based on what little you did know. Because I don’t have so much time right now, I’ll keep my own comment short and refer you to one of the canonical Neo-Reaction writings based on its essence, the Trichotomy.

            http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-trichotomy-explained.html?m=1

            Mr Land has something on his view of the Trichotomy and that’s here:
            http://www.xenosystems.net/neoreaction-for-dummies/
            (Don’t mind the title, it’s meant only humourously)

            The others in the NRx canon could be linked later, though I don’t want to “muddy the waters” with those extras…

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • pdimov says:

            “Brezhnevian stagnation”

            What stagnated under Brezhnev?

            • jim says:

              The economy, and the belief system. To avoid being outflanked on the left, Stalin had to announce that utopia had arrived, and anyone to the left of him would be just as dead as anyone to the right of him.

              This unavoidably led to people slowly realizing that utopia was not very utopian, resulting in widespread apathy, cynicism, and despair under Brezhnev.

          • pdimov says:

            “The economy, and the belief system.”

            I would say that what stagnated was “progress”, and that “stagnation” is a progressive term.

            “… resulting in widespread apathy, cynicism, and despair…”

            Those things were, in my opinion, caused not by “stagnation” but by people realizing that Pravda wasn’t telling the truth but was telling lies.

            Which, translated to present days, would imply that the Cathedral may eventually fall when people realize that its media tentacles are telling lies.

            This is a more optimistic scenario than the white race going extinct or the economy collapsing to Mad Max levels.

            • jim says:

              Which, translated to present days, would imply that the Cathedral may eventually fall when people realize that its media tentacles are telling lies.

              The Cathedral’s lie is unfalsifiable: That underperformance by women and vibrants is caused by evil spells cast by white males. Similarly crime and self destructive activities of gays and dindus. If, like Brezhnev, they had to claim that utopia had already arrived, the lie more readily exposed. So long as all failures are grounds for ever more extreme measures, the lie hard to falsify. Eventually they have to murder all white males, or declare utopia has arrived, and all further social justice measures suppressed, eventually they have to murder all white males, or declare those to the left of them to be enemies.

          • Jack says:

            If it is acceptable for Moldbug (or someone who writes like him) to advocate the erasure of all “foreign” cultural components from France, which is a fancy manner to say “remove kebab”, then the removal of Jewish cultural components from non-Jewish society is ever more apposite considering the latter’s overrepresentation in culture and the poisoning thereof. Jews don’t march around beheading people on the streets, but they do metaphorically behead people on the metaphorical streets by spreading ideologies inimical to White racial consciousness. A nigger thug murders a few Whites with gory barbarism, but the Jew murders hundreds of millions of Whites with evil ideas such as Communism and Gender Studies.

            If Jewish ideas are presented as foreign rather than indigenous, then any nationalist movement would seek to remove them, legitimately, along with their propagators. So naturally, Judeo-Reaction insists that all those Jewish ideas are really White fundamentally, therefore nationalist movements need not concern themselves with Jewish conduct. Just replace “Jewish” with “Islamic” and see how absurd this position is. Besides, isn’t Islam a Christian derived heresy according to some? Ergo, Whites are the real problem yet again. None of it is consistent, Judeo-Reaction blames everyone first, Jews last, because by its own arbitrary definitions, Jews cannot be at fault. The Goyim made them do Marxism by seducing them into liberalism, you see. [Insert a contradictory explanation why Jews being seduced into leftism by evil Goyim is totally dissimilar to Jews brainwashing said Goyim with their own, Jewish-derived brand of evil]

            • jim says:

              A nigger thug murders a few Whites with gory barbarism, but the Jew murders hundreds of millions of Whites with evil ideas such as Communism and Gender Studies.

              These ideas were toxic and victorious before Jews got involved. You want to know where race HBD denialism comes from?

              “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, …”

              Before there was gender studies there was opposition to the divorce of Queen Caroline.

              They are just converting to the winning side. If a different side was winning, they would all change overnight, and all believe that they had always believed in the latest doctrine, and propagate the new orthodoxy as enthusiastically and effectively as they propagate the old.

              If Jewish ideas are presented as foreign rather than indigenous,

              But what you are calling “Jewish ideas” are indigenous: Civil War, Reconstruction, female emancipation, and so forth.

              If we want to send women back to the kitchen and make good for nothing dindus who are disinclined to work pick cotton, getting rid of the Jews is not going to get us there.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Jim says:
            “However there is no guarantee that any of that will happen before whites are eradicated.”

            Eradicating Whites would require WWIII with Russia. I doubt the punchable faces that rule the Cathedral will have the same stomach as the Russian Siloviki class.

            The Cathedral is a cancer… Radiation is the cure…

          • pdimov says:

            “If, like Brezhnev, they had to claim that utopia had already arrived, the lie more readily exposed.”

            I don’t think that Brezhnev ever claimed that. The official line has always been that we’re living under socialism and building communism. Stagnation was merely stability.

            People didn’t develop cynicism because utopia has been reached or because of the unfalsifiable claim that historical inevitability will eventually bring about communism, they developed cynicism because of the falsifiable lies and obvious omissions in Pravda.

            Current German and Swedish newspapers in their lack of reporting on enrichment are, by the way, remarkably similar to the press of that time as I remember it. I couldn’t believe it at first.

          • pdimov says:

            “WWIII with Russia”

            That’s my plan for implementing Jim’s patriarchy with the stroke of a pen:

            1. Convince Putin to pronounce himself Lord and Emperor of Russia and Protector of Christianity

            2. Declare war to him

            3. Surrender unconditionally

            4. Give him a pen

            The timing of (3) may be a bit hard to get right, but it’s doable.

          • Dave says:

            “If we want to send women back to the kitchen and make good for nothing dindus who are disinclined to work pick cotton, getting rid of the Jews is not going to get us there.”

            Progressives remind us fifty times a day that anyone who opposes Progressivism is a Nazi, so we naturally assume that we ought to act like Nazis. They not only create millions of enemies with their asinine policies, they give those enemies a flag and an ideology to rally around!

          • Morkyz says:

            Lmao R7_Rocket. When the US and western Europe lie in ruins I’ll take a great joy in knowing there are people sharing my skin color in Russia. God knows that’s what really matters.

          • B says:

            >Cromwell doesn’t seem to me to have approached cannibalism much more closely than some of the less-revolutionary rulers that preceded him…before that, the Swiss and Dutch managed to wobble out of their revolutionary periods into usable institutions and traditions on unusually productive stable paths with a tolerably realistic balance of badass bloodymindedness and practical avarice…And after all of those, the American Revolution

            First, every revolution causes a loss of human capital. If the loss is not too great, pragmatic people end up bringing the revolution to a halt and reversing it. But we have a lot less human capital than Cromwell, the Swiss, Dutch and Americans (who were able to export their revolutionarily inclined aristocrats to Europe and revolutionarily inclined proles westwards-why do you think the Whiskey Rebellion didn’t go further?)

            >I very much doubt that is true in any useful sense, except possibly among people whose grandparents were Islamic

            Women tend to prefer being concubines or wives to being walking unowned cattle to be preyed upon. Young men tend to prefer to be barbarians than helots.

            >About half of Europe’s Jews are relatively low-IQ Mizrahi Jews. Europe can get rid of these Jews with little harm to itself.

            I doubt it. I know Mizrahi Jews-I work, live and pray with them. They are not only more productive than the Muslims who have been replacing them in Europe, but more productive than the typical white European.

            >It is well-known that sentiments like these are widespread among Jews, including those Jews that you say are so indispensable to Europe’s management class.

            Sentiments are one thing, actions are another. I can dislike the typical Arab (e.g.) while doing business with Arabs which benefits us all.

            >Lol, no you won’t.

            LOL yes we will. You have no idea, dude. We did not build our own country to stand by and watch as Jews get gassed anywhere in the world.

          • Jack says:

            The difference between a Muslim Moroccan/Tunisian and a Jewish Moroccan/Tunisian is, at best, 5 IQ points. Europeans get things done, North Africans do not get things done, or get things done with considerably less professionalism.

            “Mizrahi” is not a good definition to begin with. Sepharadim, Jews from Spain, are closer in character to Ashkenazim than to non-European Jews, or perhaps occupy a middle ground. No reason to define them as Mizrahim other than some moot liturgical triviality which is irrelevant. There aren’t many Sepharadim out there, anyway. Then you have Persian Jews, who’ve been in Persia for 2,500 years, so are not much distinguishable from ordinary Iranians. Jews from the Caucasus and Central Asia are not even Semitic. Lumping them together with Arab, Berber, and African Jews under a single category is “very lol”. Even examining the so-called Ashkenazim, there are some who look basically Aryan (and behave accordingly) while others have definite, discernable Semitic origins. What I’m getting at here with this lecture on Jewish Bio-Diversity is that plenty of Jews, most Jews, probably all Jews, resemble their countries of origin more than they resemble some fictitious Jewish collective concocted by Zionist ideologues based on Rabbinic traditions.

            This applies to Mud Jews even moreso than to Ashkenazim, due to different environmental pressures throughout history and also different origins: Ashkenazim have European mitochondrial DNA and have went through an intense selection pressure for specific traits ever since their arrival, African and Arab Jews, on the other hand, are basically converts to Judaism who haven’t been through any selection processes until well into the Islamic period, and in their case there is no reason to hypothesize that IQ (or any other positive quality) has been selected for, nor is it observed empirically that their IQ is somehow exceptional compared to their historical neighbors. The differences, temperament-wise, are meager.

            As for Israel nuking the future gas chambers, this is just more evidence that this country should not be supported by any Whites. Jews are addicted to intervening in the Goyim’s affairs. The more power they have, the more ability and motivation they have to stick their hook-noses in everyone’s business. International Jewry never disavowed its internationalism, nope, can’t help it.

          • B says:

            You should probably stick to discourses on the benefits of porn.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Morkyz says:
            “Lmao R7_Rocket. When the US and western Europe lie in ruins I’ll take a great joy in knowing there are people sharing my skin color in Russia. God knows that’s what really matters.”

            You should convince the punchable faces of The Cathedral (see: Dylan Matthews, Matthew Yglesias, Andrew Zuckerberg) that their stupid anti-White crusade will only end in radiation therapy from Russia.

            And besides… I don’t share your skin color. I’m not White.

          • Morkyz says:

            R7_Rocket, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your posting makes sense if I imagine it coming from a particularly cretinous white person, but if you’re not white I’m at a loss.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Morkyz said:
            “R7_Rocket, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your posting makes sense if I imagine it coming from a particularly cretinous white person, but if you’re not white I’m at a loss.”

            Being a cretinous brute is much better than having a punchable face.

          • peppermint says:

            there’s nothing really sinister about B’s threat to nuke the gas chambers, Israel needs to be credibly insane enough to launch the missiles knowing that their strip of the eastern mediterranean is glass as soon as it happens and is credibly that insane.

            The purpose of that insanity is to add a cost to the calculations of goyim who would want to gas the kikes, so that overseas Israelis can be repatriated with their personal belongings instead.

            Naturally, the level of gas the kikes rhetoric coming from nazis like me helps Israel to maintain that credible insanity, which they would use to protect their ethnics if any actual Nazi government were actually to intend to gas the kikes.

          • Anon says:

            “LOL yes we will. You have no idea, dude. We did not build our own country to stand by and watch as Jews get gassed anywhere in the world.”

            YOU did not build anything. Your current nation was given to you by the West after WWII and it can (and will) be taken away just as easily.

            • jim says:

              Not so. Just like most other nations, they stole it fair and square. Took courage and blood, and extensive counter stereotypical behavior.

    • jim says:

      By that reasoning, we should vote republican.

    • jim says:

      The 1660s are out of reach. I’ll take a shot at 1930 any day.

      Trump can probably build a wall and deport the anchor babies. But he cannot fire big bird, so cannot make that stick. After Trump the wall will be manned, or rather womaned, by people too nice to stop the poor asylum seekers. To make it stick, have to smash the left power centers, such as Big Bird, PBS, and Harvard. This is going to require something like a military dictatorship. If a military dictatorship, let us find someone who is arguably the rightful heir of the Stuarts, pronounce him King, and have him give hereditary aristocratic titles to the leading officers.

      • pdimov says:

        PBS is only powerful because listening to PBS is high status. If the fashy goys succeed in making it low status, its power vanishes. And that may not be as hard as it looks, as long as there is a medium (e.g. Twitter) through which one can reach the PBS listeners and subject them to a relentless torrent of mockery involving anthropomorphic frogs.

        Harvard… is not so easy.

        • pdimov says:

          Sorry, confused PBS with NPR. 🙂

        • A.B Prosper says:

          Any real fahist dictatorship could easily handle Harvard in one of two ways.

          Either seize and destroy the building after shooting the political criminals or by simply passing laws that make teaching any Leftism for money a capital crime and using the tech to enforce them.

          After a few hundred Leftist professors are hung or sent to SuperMax you won’t have much more Leftist thinkibg

          • peppermint says:

            why do people need college educations? Because Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

            Rescind the civil rights, watch the colleges collapse.

            But the college bubble can’t grow any further, leading graduates in faggotry and anti-Whiteism with nowhere to ply their trades, causing them to go insane trying to get those academic jobs.

  23. Dave says:

    My plan, pre-Trump, was to vote for Bernie Sanders so that he might print and spend trillions of dollars by executive order, ending with all the bureaucrats in DC/MD/VA roasting rats and pigeons over burning piles of $100 bills. All the corruption you enumerate will end very suddenly when there’s no money to pay for it. If you then want to buy a 10-year-old virgin from a starving single mother so she can be your wife instead of becoming a child prostitute, no one’s going to stop you.

    I worry that machines are getting smarter much faster than people are getting smarter. A sub-90 IQ makes you unemployable, a 90-110 IQ qualifies you only for boring make-work government jobs, and those numbers are always increasing. If the only real job left is “robot programmer”, and mean regression leaves your children only a 10% chance of being smart enough for such work, why bother having them?

    • B says:

      >A sub-90 IQ makes you unemployable, a 90-110 IQ qualifies you only for boring make-work government jobs, and those numbers are always increasing.

      Ever build a house or work on a farm? Did your fellow workers strike you as having an average IQ of over 100? What about the guys driving and repairing the trucks bringing your building supplies, or taking away the produce? How about a factory, ever work in one of those? I assure you that the dudes running laser cutters and CNCs are of average intelligence.

      I keep hearing this idiotic idea that the robots will take our djerbs, instead of making us more productive. Usually, the guys expressing the idea have never worked a real djerb.

      • the goyim know says:

        robots/AI are making “us” more productive, just like diversity makes “us” stronger, immigration makes “us” richer, etc, etc

        • jim says:

          There is no AI. Let me know when self driving cars commute people to work, robots can fold towels from a laundry basket of tumbled towels, and robots can pick fruit.

          And yes, robots – very stupid robots – are indeed making us more productive.

          • peppermint says:

            Self-driving cars are not a long way off. Driving by obeying the rules of the road is actually not that difficult. Other drivers have trouble determining the intentions of self-driving cars, but, they’ll get used to them. Then the only thing humans will be needed for is fueling the cars up. Which Tesla is also working on. Currently, self-parking is slated for high-end cars soon. Self-driving to follow within the decade.

            As to picking blueberries, the ripe ones are a different color and come off when you pull on them. Select the ones that are the right color. Build a gripper that surrounds the blueberry and exerts enough pressure to pull with a certain amount of force. If it doesn’t come off, it isn’t ready. Shouldn’t be difficult to mechanize. Might be more expensive than a human, for now.

            To fold a towel from a laundry basket, the robot needs to determine the location of a corner, pick it up slowly, and do a bunch of steps. It’s much, much slower than a human. And doesn’t do a good job, but neither do the $7.75/hr humans. And isn’t going to take the towels out of the dryer, or put them in the dryer. So instead of having two people folding the gym towels, you need one person to shove the laundry through the machines, then dump in in a hopper for the battery of robots to fold.

            So of the three, I expect that drivers and fruit pickers will end up folding towels

          • pdimov says:

            “Might be more expensive than a human, for now.”

            Machines are more expensive than humans for many things and will always be, if you compare energy consumption.

            The only two things that make them competitive are (1) free energy from fossil fuels, (2) regulations that artificially increase the price of labor.

          • peppermint says:

            haha no. Electricity would be less expensive and fossil fuels much less interesting if the greens hadn’t killed nuclear power for signaling purposes.

            You’re writing this on a machine and using many expensive machines to transmit it. We could be having this discussion by circular mail employing nigger tranny veterans to circulate it.

          • pdimov says:

            “Electricity would be less expensive and fossil fuels much less interesting if the greens hadn’t killed nuclear power for signaling purposes.”

            Anti-nuclear movements were organized and financed by Moscow. But this aside, there is an interesting argument that nuclear power isn’t actually that cheap. Its primary purpose is not to produce electricity, but to produce plutonium for bombs.

            Either way, it doesn’t matter. My point was that for many economic activities, a machine consumes more energy than a human. Self-driving cars are economically useless. It’s more efficient to just employ a white-gloved driver. But we can’t have that, can we? All human beings are equal, so servants are a no-no.

          • peppermint says:

            » Self-driving cars are economically useless. It’s more efficient to just employ a white-gloved driver.

            what the hell? If the computer to drive the car costs $10K and software subscription costs $5k/year, well, a nigger in the old South would cost about as much as this super ultra nigger 9000 http://i.imgur.com/sXBfMPy.png

          • pdimov says:

            The nigger is free, you’re paying for his welfare anyway.

        • B says:

          One measure of our increased productivity is that we can support unproductive individuals such as yourself without much strain.

      • A Pint Thereof says:

        High- and medium-skilled factory jobs that once went to the average IQ working-class man are now held by entry-level PhD graduates. And because of technological advances, fewer total workers are required, increasing competition for those jobs and driving down wages. It’s a fallacy to say those jobs are still operated by the type of person who operated them in 1970s. Everything’s changed now.

        • B says:

          >High- and medium-skilled factory jobs that once went to the average IQ working-class man are now held by entry-level PhD graduates.

          What factory have you been working in?

          PhD graduates running CNCs, laser cutters, plasma, water jets, benders, welding equipment etc.?

          Maybe on Mars. Here on earth, the guys who operate them are white dudes aged 20-65, some who went through a trade school/community college course, half who learned on the job.

          Next you’ll tell me diesel mechanics have to have at least a bachelor’s in mechanical engineering to get their foot in the door.

          Don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            All the factories that require low-skilled workers have been relocated to the third world. In the advanced west, where factories are equipped with the latest technology, maintenance jobs require knowledge and skills. Very few people are needed to carry out menial tasks anymore – they are the exception here, not the rule.

          • B says:

            Have you ever worked in a factory?

            There are plenty of manufacturing operations in the Midwest. I’ve been in them, talked to the owners and the workers.

            I’ve also worked in factories in Israel. A welder or machinist is not low skilled.

  24. the goyim know says:

    “Lower class people are not the solution. They are the problem.”

    Jim, what exactly are your qualifications for considering yourself an “upper class person”?

    Do you have 8 zeroes off the end of your bank account?

    Direct relative of a noble house in europe?

    “People thinking out of covetousness and envy think that if they take that rich guy’s stuff and make him poor, they will be rich, but instead, their neighborhood mysteriously winds up looking as if bombed.”

    What the fuck is this John Galt crap? Huge numbers of wealthy people got that way solely from pushing money around, exploiting politics to loot the country or literally stealing money from workers by paying poverty wages either here or overseas. If the Clintons and the Gores were given a free helicopter ride by some ambitious young Colonel, and their combined over half a billion was redistributed to the readership of TRS, we’re going to be incapable of operating a decent society without them? White community is suddenly going to collapse without George Soros and Chris Hughes holding up the world on their shoulders? Give me a break…

  25. vxxc2014 says:

    We we need is to fight.

    Anything that gets us fighting is good. Anything that checks us ++bad, in fact autogenocidal.

    So don’t bitch about particulars – it works.

    We [50] don’t have rights to lecture these kids about fine tuning their politics, we failed as did the group before us. Our mistake in 89 was forgiving the Reds within our lands – we let treason go.

    As far as group punishment I’ll say names not groups is work enough for a lifetime – but we’re far from when it’s safe to stay the blows of others. Let em get working then we fine tune.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      What the devil is “autogenocide”? Calling it genocide isn’t mere rhetoric, V.X.X.C., it is a_criminal_charge_.

      A.J.P.

      • jim says:

        The most famous autogenocide was the autogenocide of Cambodia. However mass murders motivated by self hatred are pretty common on the left.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Anyone that looks like me gets it” like you say, “Jim”, biting mad.

          Auto-genocide seems to be large scale purges, yes, pretty creepy in its own right.

          A.J.P.

  26. A.B Prosper says:

    B, Catholicism and Christianity is free social capital you aren’t getting anymore. Its not coming back to Europe probably ever. White Christendom is probably going to die back in the US Find another way without the imported Jewish sect

    Also the Irish population crashed in 1830, never recovered and they never abandoned Christianity.

    Medieval Christendom had late marriage and no rights for women, no TV, low literacy and low automation.

    It doesn’t help and some idea to get rid of tech mean poverty. So yes you might get birth rates up, you’ve just impoverished your nation . It won’t work

    To what Jim said, yes price inflation has hurt the economy as has degree inflation. I agree. However it doesn’t matter, we simply don’t need workers to speak off and the IQ bar from essential to useless is growing higher by the day Its partially why we no longer allow 14 year old’s to work and want more people in college. Beyond the brainwashing its also baby sitting which we need.

    In the end, if it gets too high even the people we want to have kids (120+ IQ, healthy, white. low time preference) will be locked into welfare by the politicians and boot lickers.

    They won’t reproduce and society will fall apart and reboot anyway

    Also a last point, I’m not sure for most men, religious outliers excepted , being a patriarch is even wanted, I think that “feminism beta” was accepted so readily because yes it does actually start to liberate men to slack Same as technology does both genders.,

    They don’t need to be chained to a grindstone to support a wife and a mass of kids they may not want and can in fact have some small say in how large the family gets or of they marry at all

    They may simply want 2 kids and all the Cathedral and the rank economy is doing is reducing family size by 25%

    Also trade offs have changed a lot.

    The older system made sense when a clean house and 3 meals a day was a full time gig. These days its not, I eat basically 20 meals a week at home (eat out once a week) keep my own place clean enough in a few hours a week. I don’t need a woman to do that stuff other than cook and be a parent if I had children.

    Tech makes women less useful and raises the cost for them. Support her or enjoy my life?

    Its a poor trade off even with patriarchy on a declining good (sexual interest) and functionally you are just selling trickle down boots on necks, the upper class boots the middle, the middle the working, the working the poor and men boot women. A tiny trickle of power in exchange for propping up society. Thanks no.

    • B says:

      If the Beautiful Ones in Rat Heaven could speak, I suspect they would say exactly what you are saying.

      Nietzsche’s Last Man.

      • jim says:

        B, though you frequently piss me off greatly with your stubborn immunity to evidence and sources, you often have a great and compelling insights. This is is one of them.

        • B says:

          I’m surprised you didn’t start explaining that Nietzsche does not mean what he says, does not say what he means, and that I did not read the Rat Heaven Experiments properly.

          Anyway, I’ve been saying all this for a while. And I really don’t see you as fundamentally too different if revealed preference is anything to judge by.

    • jim says:

      A man used to have an obedient virgin wife who he could be sure would not wander off with the children and all his assets. Now it is very difficult to get that. Pretty sure men would behave very differently if they could have what they used to have.

      Hell. We know it. We don’t need to rely on theory. Observe Japan. General MacArthur emancipates women overnight. Overnight a nation of very masculine men stop being masculine, stop marrying, and stop having children.

    • peppermint says:

      yeah, see, if you could trust a woman to live at your house and take care of your kids, you’d prefer it to jerking off and fantasizing about having a woman to live at your house and take care of your kids

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Going after people’s religion is what the Commies in Russia did, A.B.P…. Are you sure you’re not a Commie?

    • Morkyz says:

      This thing I always see about people below a certain IQ threshold being unemployable is funny because I’d expect the reverse to happen. New technologies make it easier for less specialized workers to do jobs that were monopolized by a guild (or equivalent) in the past, so the value of human capital (relative to the $$$ kind) goes down.

      New techs will also create more skilled positions, of course, but I don’t have any idea how many.

      • pdimov says:

        “This thing I always see about people below a certain IQ threshold being unemployable…”

        Everyone is employable as, f.ex. an elevator operator. A smart dog can do it. These kinds of jobs have vanished for societal reasons. Employment, by itself, has never been the problem.

  27. Morkyz says:

    Why is everyone so sure that the demographic transformation of the US will end in white genocide/social collapse instead of just Brazil?

    • jim says:

      It might well end in Brazil. But trouble is that there is an ideology that whites are evil and cause harm, which logically implies that whites need to be exterminated.

      • Morkyz says:

        You’ve got to weigh the two possibilities against eachother, though. I’ve not seen anyone in NRx/altright even try to figure out what will happen, or at least not with any real evidence.

        • jim says:

          I don’t particularly want the formerly white nations to come to resemble Brazil either.

          • Morkyz says:

            Neither do I, don’t get me wrong.

            I have to suspect that a lot of people are actually being overly optimistic when they say whites are going to be genocided; on some level the idea of a race war/brutal oppression/FEMA camps is (aesthetically at least) more bearable than the Brazil thing. Better a bang than a whimper and all.

            • jim says:

              Some truth in that. Expecting direct genocide of whites in concentration camps, in fire and steel, is an optimistic wish. If I am to have no descendents, better we go out with a bang. But there is reason for this optimism. In Brazil, noticing racial differences between the people at the top and the people at the bottom will cause you to fall down several flights of stairs in a one story police station. Brazil only enacted affirmative action in 2013. America has had affirmative action since 1961, and it has been becoming steadily more extreme.

              In America, the theory that white males emit evil thoughts that cause women and diversities to underperform is universally accepted, in that anyone who doubts it will get in trouble. The logical implication of this theory is that white males need to be eliminated.

          • Morkyz says:

            That is a good point.

    • pdimov says:

      I suspect that the current Brazil benefits substantially from America’s positive externalities (as does of course most of the world), and that therefore a new Brazil in America’s place would be worse than that.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      The continued and and deliberate destruction of the white GENOtype by “assimilation” ie. racial intermarriage in the United States _is_ White GENOcide. It doesn’t have to be violent. See the quote from Australia’s former prime minister:

      “Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out.” – Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-83)

      “Demographic transformation” is a code word for White Genocide.

      A.J.P.

      • Morkyz says:

        Was AJP always like this, or has he been huffing paint recently?

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Morkyz”,

          You are justifying genocide.

          • Morkyz says:

            Are you a bot?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Are you an anti-white bot?

            Less important is the “bot” part in the end though, “Morkyz”, more important the “anti-white” part…

            It would take an anti-white to be able to close his eyes and ignore the genocide caused by forcible blending of the white genotype into hundreds of millions of third-worlders being brought into EVERY white country…

            A.J.P.

          • Morkyz says:

            I laughed, so if you’re trolling or trying to be funny carry on bro.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Morkyz”,

            Anti-whites seldom have anything to say about the charge of genocide being leveled against them. Political Correctness IS a religion, after all.

            Let’s have free speech for pro-whites and anti-whites. Guess whose views are permitted out in public, though?

          • Morkyz says:

            But America is a nation of immigrants.

          • Morkyz says:

            By the way, please don’t call me “anti white.” My Jewish heritage is more than made up for by my devout Roman Catholicism.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            All nations are nations of immigrants, “Morkyz”, but so called anti-racists don’t go to EVERY Asian country to tell them their countries are “nations of immigrants” so they must take in hundreds millions of non-Asians, then blend them together until the Asian genotype is destroyed.

            Neither do these “anti-racists” go to ALL of the 50+ black countries to tell them that they’re a “nation of immigrants” so the only thing they can do in good consience is to bring in hundreds of millions of non-blacks, then have “assimilation” and become a brown race where they once were blacks.

            So called anti-racists only say that white countries are “nations of immigrants” so their motive becomes clear. They’re not anti-black or anti-Asian so they don’t say that in the black or Asian countries…No, no. That would be racist.

            In practice, these so-called anti-racists are actually anti-white.

            Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            You’re posting here anonymously, “Morkyz”, thus the easy way to avoid being called anti-white would be to stop justifying White Genocide…

          • Morkyz says:

            If it isn’t ok for people to immigrate to the US now, why was it OK when the pilgrims “immigrated” to America? Why don’t you apply the same standards to “whites” as you do to everyone else?

            • jim says:

              The Indians could not stop us, because we were superior and they were inferior, but they sure did their best to stop us.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            All nations existing today, invaded someone else to get the country they are living in. But no one is using that as an excuse to justify their genocide, unless they are White.

            You’re a morally bankrupt anti-white and now you’re exposed.

            Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

            A.J.P.

          • Morkyz says:

            The US today, like all the other “white countries” is a vibrant multicultural society with a place for people of all races and mixed race people. Are you saying it’s OK for those countries to stay multicultural and multiracial while Asia stays Asian, Africa to stay African, and most importantly Israel stays Jewish? I agree.

          • B says:

            >The Indians could not stop us, because we were superior and they were inferior, but they sure did their best to stop us.

            The Indians did not try to stop the colonies except sporadically, because the colonies were profitable (they paid the Indians protection money and slave recovery fees.) By the time the Indians ran into big issues due to the colonies’ growing populations moving Westwards en masse, it was too late.

            Every agricultural society which wiped out its neighboring nomads and herders has done so because it was superior in one sense only: the ability to support a larger number of malnourished slaves per square kilometer.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            You’re digging your hole deeper by implying no white countries with your quotation marks around the words.

            Would you deny the existence of Asian countries to Asians? The black countries to blacks?

            Of course not, you only do it to white people and that makes you anti-white. To anti-whites, the white race is the only one that matters and the rest of them don’t matter.

            Vicious, vicious anti-whites. Ironically, the object of your fascination is the one you are systematically destroying, but nobody said that anti-whites were the smart ones.

  28. Jack says:

    “But leftism went to hell not when the Jews got in on it,”

    Generally this is correct, but if we agree that Jews made leftism worse by radicalizing it, it then follows, logically, that allowing the Jews inside one’s base, and furthermore, allowing them power within one’s base, is a bad idea. At the very least, if you commit the double error of allowing Jews in and granting them power, at least make sure to de-Judaize them. That would require an official ban on Judaism. It would seem quite hypocritical for a “fanatical” right-wing blog to cherish the illegalization of Islam while advocating no restrictions on Judaism.

    Had Occidental peoples banned Judaism altogether in their countries centuries ago, there probably would not be a Jewish problem today. People here detest secular Jews, and rightly so, but these were born of religious Jews, who are the “core” of Jewry, and continue to be so for demographic reasons. It’s not that Europe was too harsh on the Jews, but rather, wasn’t harsh enough. True, Hitler was quite harsh since he did those lampshades, but he would not have done those lampshades had Jewry been defeated by, say, the Church hundreds of years before his arrival.

    It may not be feasible to convert the kikes into soap using gassing methods, I’d presume it’s very unlikely chemically as well as politically, but I can see a plausible scenario in which all foreign religions are permanently banned from Christian countries, Judaism being as foreign as Confucianism and Islam. So kikes are not converted to soap, but are converted to Christianity, or Paganism if it somehow goes mainstream, and those who refuse to convert find themselves, with haste, in Ben Gurion airport.

    Jews may be a symptom, but people routinely die of symptoms. Treating symptoms is often more urgent than treating the underlying disease, and by analogy, solving the Jewish problem may be more urgent than solving the faults of Puritanism. At the moment, Jews went “full White Genocide”, siding with Islamic terrorists and promoting the absolute restriction of guns everywhere, so only terrorists may have access to guns. They use media, academia, and bureaucracy – the Cathedral – to promote the destruction of Western civilization. If that’s not an urgent problem, nothing is. Trump and fascism won’t save the day, but that’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not Judaism must be banned completely (it must). Hopefully there will eventually be an anti-Cathedral to disseminate hatefacts and persuade those in power to end Judaism forever.

  29. Morkyz says:

    blog.jim.com/war/the-trouble-with-fashism-and-1488/#comment-1189191

    >>>The Europeans are dying because they abandoned G-d.

    Does this mean goyim have access to the Divine through Christianity and, I assume, Islam?

    • B says:

      After a fashion. It is obviously better to worship G-d in a distorted and wrong fashion than not to worship G-d at all. But one leads to the other.

  30. Morkyz says:

    I used to think I was a White Nationalist, but that was before I realized they actually believe in the things I used to think were liberal strawmen.

    Obviously ethnic identity in the US is a bit fucked up, which I think is why people go for WN instead of just normal nationalism.

    Having “white” be at the center of your identity doesn’t make sense. We should just take the implicit whiteness in our national and regional identities explicit and then do nationalism the normal way, IMO.

    • pdimov says:

      Well, a white nationalist is simply someone who wants to live in a white nation. How does that not make sense for America? It makes no sense for Europe, but that’s another story.

      • Morkyz says:

        I’d say it makes more sense in American than Europe, but not very much more.

        Troll Response: If a white nationalist is someone who wants to live in a white nation, does that mean syrian migrants are WNs?

        • pdimov says:

          Yeah, you know what I mean.

          The white identity is obviously a reaction to the dominant anti-white culture and ideology. “They” view you as white, so you better view yourself as white, too. Once you give “them” the free helicopter ride which they justly deserve, this artificial white identity will vanish.

          Not that it vanishing will be a good thing. The synthetic American identity makes even less sense and you’ll be back to square one.

          • Morkyz says:

            I’d say all forms of ethnic identity need some conflict to stay around. The US has it worse than other “nations,” but I’d say it’s a matter of degree, not kind.

      • B says:

        It makes no sense for America because America is not a white nation (in the sense of a nation run for and by its white population as such) and has never been.

        America started off as a bunch of charter colonies operated by corporations which were subsidiaries of the government, where the white colonial landowners (best thought of as subcontractors) continually worked a bunch of white slaves to death (the distinction between slavery and indentured servitude being a fiction made up after the fact). These colonies contracted with Indians for protection as well as the recovery of fugitive white slaves who ran away rather than be worked to death.

        After Bacon’s Rebellion (which by the way was suppressed in part by armed black slaves,) the colonial governments and leadership moved to replace the unreliable white slaves with reliable black slaves (who not only were more docile but whom you could profitably breed.)

        I’m not going to give a similar summary of the rest of America’s history, but will repeat that it was never a white nation per se.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Nobody is trying to prove anything to anti-whites. The right for survival is basic to tiny Amazonian tribes, and it’s also basic to the white race.

          A.J.P.

          • B says:

            You really are a bot, aren’t you?

            There is no “right to survival,” anymore than there is a right to pizza. G-d raises nations up and brings them down as He pleases.

            As for your nation, it has never been any more “for whites” than a sheep farm is “for sheep.” With the exception of the Puritans, Quakers and Southern Cavaliers, most white Americans come from Europeans who were imported as human stock. At different points, the stock was brought in for plantation labor, freerange breeding or industrial production, but it is certain that the whites running the country never saw the white stock as their own kind. For all the brotherhood rhetoric, a 17th century Quaker did not see his white slaves, kidnapped from Aberdeen and sold to him to be worked to death, as any sort of brothers. Nor did an 18th or 19th century Quaker see Scots-Irish white trash as his brothers. Nor did Quakers in the 20th century see Polish, Irish or Italian whites working in factories as their brothers. Just as the 17th century Quaker paid Indians to fight for him and to drag back those of his slaves who escaped before being worked to death, so did the 20th century Quaker sponsor blacks to move into Polish and Italian neighborhoods to break them up. And the same goes for the rest of the elites and white trash.

            So if you were to propose to the Roosevelts or Rockefellers or the Vanderbilts that you had some sort of white unity, and that their country was actually yours, they would look at you as you would look at one of your sheep that got up on its hind legs and proposed that you include it in the farm’s stock ledger and invite it to the next board meeting.

            Bitter pill, but it’s the truth.

            • jim says:

              So if you were to propose to the Roosevelts or Rockefellers or the Vanderbilts that you had some sort of white unity, and that their country was actually yours, they would look at you as you would look at one of your sheep that got up on its hind legs and proposed that you include it in the farm’s stock ledger and invite it to the next board meeting.

              I could tell the same thing to a Mizrahi Jew in Israel, and it would be even more true.

              Jews in Israel are not naturally one people, but are being made one people by being surrounded by outsiders determined to kill them.

              Fashi are figuring on a similar unification experience for “whites”.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Anti-whites yell “rayyyciiiiisss” year after year, since the 1960s in order to achieve their goal of White Genocide, but it’s the pro-whites who are the repetitive “bots”…

            Please, anti-whites, who do you think you are kidding??

            Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            I never said I was antiracist, or accused you of being racist.

            Tell me, how many lines of code do you think it would take to write a decent AJP emulator? I bet I could do it with about 50 lines of PHP, and I’m not a developer.

            Have you ever taken a Turing test? I know, I know…”tests are anti-white.”

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Anti-whites gotta go!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1u71oyD9ew

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            [DELETED FOR WILLFUL IDIOCY]

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            B.,

            Is the moon made of green cheese? What’s next, Sir Isaac Newton?

            This is a magical ride, indeed!

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            >I could tell the same thing to a Mizrahi Jew in Israel, and it would be even more true.

            It would not.

            You could go back as far as you’d like and look at primary sources, accounts of Sepharadi Jews travelling in Ashkenaz and vice versa, or Ashkenazi Jews travelling to Yemen, or correspondence between them, and they all say the exact same thing. The visitors and the visited all recognize themselves as belonging to the same people, with minor surface differences.

          • Eli says:

            This is as hopeless as it is hilarious! Thank you, B.

            More seriously: It’s hard to explain things to imbeciles, especially those of them who refuse to engage, but I’m impressed with your patience and good nature.

          • Jack says:

            >accounts of Sepharadi Jews travelling in Ashkenaz and vice versa, or Ashkenazi Jews travelling to Yemen, or correspondence between them

            Oh, I think I finally get it: since there were Europeans travelling around Africa spreading Christianity, and due to the correspondence (never forget the correspondence) between Christians living in different continents who belong to different races, there emerges conclusive evidence that White Christians and Black Christians are the same “people”, just as blonde Jews and sandnigger Jews are the same “people”.

            >The visitors and the visited all recognize themselves as belonging to the same people, with minor surface differences.

            Right, Ashkenazi Jews may visit Ethiopia and find, to everyone’s surprise, that their “people” live there and, besides some minor theological disagreements and somewhat different traditions, are basically identical to themselves, to the point of indistinguishability. This makes perfect sense to everyone, obviously.

            Good to know that practicing a similar religion, writing some letters, and travelling hither and tither make the 110 average IQ, pale-skinned, grey-eyed Rosenthals the exact same “people” as the 75 average IQ, Bedouin-looking Yemenis who claim roots to Solomon’s Monarchy. A truly impeccable logic has stuck us, with no indication of a thinking characterized by wishfulness whatsoever.

            And if tomorrow some 30 million Han Chinese convert to Judaism, promising to immigrate to Israel and vote for Shas Party for eternity, also learn Hebrew and enlist in the Israeli military, that would turn them all, every single one of them, into Jews just as legitimate as B. It logically follows from the correspondence and the travelling.

            I humbly suggest we convert all of Africa to Judaism, perhaps using correspondence and travelling, so as to expand the ranks of God’s Chosen. It’s the least the world could do to atone for the Holocaust and the lampshades committed amidst it.

          • Jack says:

            Guys, please meet Mark Zuckerberg:

            http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/images/zuckerberg.jpg

            Mark Zuckerberg, acquaint yourself with your brothers, members of your nation, according to Orthodox Judaism the infallible creed:

            http://jewsdownunder.com/wp-content/uploads/Arab-Jews.jpg

            http://www.tlvfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/j-18.jpg

            http://www.tlvfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/j-21.jpg

            http://9502-presscdn-0-95.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/yemeniJews2.jpg

            It is so, because of the correspondences and those travels that occurred maybe.

            • jim says:

              Guys, please meet Mark Zuckerberg:

              http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/images/zuckerberg.jpg

              Oh, so punchable. Just looking at that face men want to punch it, and women’s pussies dry rightup. Obviously high IQ, but there is nonetheless something horribly wrong and rotten. If you punch him in the face, he is not going to punch you back, but if you don’t punch him in the face, he is going to stab you in the back.

              http://jewsdownunder.com/wp-content/uploads/Arab-Jews.jpg

              Not too bright. If you punch them in the face, will stab you in the front. If you don’t punch them in the face, but turn your back, will stab you in the back. If you do them a favor and turn your back, will stab you in the back.

              http://www.tlvfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/j-21.jpg

              Seriously subhuman. Are apt to stab you in the front regardless of what you do or refrain from doing, and regardless of whether you are carrying a gun at the time.

              These are not one people. That they are surrounded by enemies who think that they are one people and plan to murder them all is making them one people, but this is a really bad outcome. It would be much better if Ashkenazi Jews maintained their racial separation, but instead, if remain in the US, assimilating to whites, if go to Israel, assimilating to mud.

          • B says:

            >Not too bright. If you punch them in the face, will stab you in the front. If you don’t punch them in the face, but turn your back, will stab you in the back. If you do them a favor and turn your back, will stab you in the back.

            What a physiognomist you are!

            I happen to have lived in a place that was 1/3 Yemenite for 2 years. Nobody punched me or stabbed me (or anyone else) in the face or back. They went out of their way to help me out (and vice versa.)

            I also currently have Yemenite neighbors, whom I also have no problems with.

            >Seriously subhuman. Are apt to stab you in the front regardless of what you do or refrain from doing, and regardless of whether you are carrying a gun at the time.

            I have not lived with Ethiopian Jews. Everyone I know who has served in the army with them or lived with them likes them. I don’t know of anyone who’s had an issue with them. But, I’m not a physiognomist.

            >Good to know that practicing a similar religion, writing some letters, and travelling hither and tither make the 110 average IQ, pale-skinned, grey-eyed Rosenthals the exact same “people” as the 75 average IQ, Bedouin-looking Yemenis who claim roots to Solomon’s Monarchy.

            A Jew is someone whose mother is a Jew, or who converted to Judaism. Travelling hither and thither did not make the Yemenite Jews Jewish. Them being Jewish is a fact which the travellers noticed.

            The average IQ of Yemen is supposedly 85. When the Yemenites exiled their Jews (the Mawza Exile,) the Yemenite economy ceased to exist, so after a year, they asked the Jews to return. From which you conclude that…the Yemenite Jews have an average IQ of 75. Brilliant. To demonstrate their lack of Judaism, you find a picture of some weatherbeaten Yemenite farmers wearing Arabian dress, and juxtapose it with a picture of Zuckerberg, who’s never been out in the sun, in a t-shirt. This is very similar to what Alfred Rosenberg did-he picked the ugliest Russian POWs out of the millions on hand, and used their photos as a demonstration of the subhuman nature of the Russian people.

            As for the rest of it-the Jews have never thought of racial purity like you Nazis. Of the 12 tribes, 2 were half-Egyptian and 1 was half-Canaanite. Moses’ wife was a Cushite. We operate by different principles, and it’s worked out better for us so far than for those who think like you. So I expect we will stick with it when your greadgrandkids are rapping in ebonics.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -racial purity-

            Come on B., get some new material already. Even “Jim” figured out how to call white people Pure-itans in order to paint them as holier-than-thou and gutless paper-tigers simply waiting to be pushed over by the up-and-coming thing!

            The Purity meme has been going for centuries now…I chided you for bringing memes from the 1960s, but you’ve really exceeded yourself here!

            tl;dr Yawn, boring.

          • B says:

            And by the way, it is neither a waste of reader bandwidth nor stupidity to point out that the logic by which AJP concludes he is a Jew is exactly the same as the logic used by the Black Hebrew Israelites. And the result is the same-since they really know their logic is BS, they develop enormous hatred for the actual Jews.

            • jim says:

              And by the way, it is neither a waste of reader bandwidth nor stupidity to point out that the logic by which AJP concludes he is a Jew is exactly the same as the logic used by the Black Hebrew Israelites.

              I don’t think he does use that exact same logic, having a more blood and tribal concept of Judaism, and if he does use that exact same logic, the problem with your comment and the reason I deleted your comment was that your use of sarcasm and feigned stupidity made it unclear that you were pointing it out, or indeed pointing anything out.

          • B says:

            >Jack appears to be some sort of a racist, B realizes.

            Jack appears to be an idiot, B realizes. Being a racist makes sense when you dislike a racial group for their behavior. But the Ethiopian Jews, no matter what their behavior, can’t do right by you. Similarly, the rest of the Jews (which is a pretty good argument for us being the same people)

            >If Ashkenazim had a distinct country of their own, where the state religion is neither Progressivism nor Orthodox Judaism, that would be a significant improvement.

            Is there anything else we should do to please you? Should we build a giant statue of you and sacrifice to it? Would that be enough to spare us the ovens?

            Secular Zionism has been tried, and it has failed. It did not fail because it included Yemenite, Sepharadi and Ethiopian Jews. It failed because without the Torah, the Jewish people has no reason to exist, and no Jew has a reason to stay Jewish, as opposed to assimilating, or to make Jewish children.

            >In other words, if Jews would choose to become human, that would be fantastic

            Do you have any pets? If you were to die alone in your apartment, would anyone find you before the pets ate your face?

            >Of course, other than some second-hand anecdotes from your friends, you have no sources to back up your incredible remarks.

            What incredible remarks?

            That I (or any other Jew) can walk through any Ethiopian Jewish neighborhood in Israel at any time of day and have no issues?

            The way I know black neighborhoods in the states are violent and dangerous places (aside from having been there) is that everyone in the states knows. Not because I read statistical studies. And this is the same way I know that Ethiopian neighborhoods in Israel are safe places.

            >in that irrelevant trivia such as farting on Saturdays is “the actual Torah”, but living in your own Jewish country is not even necessary

            It is obvious that living in a Jewish country is necessary. But in order to have a Jewish country, you need to have a Jewish people. The only reason that we need a Jewish country is that there is a Jewish people which wants one and prays for one 3 times a day. The reason that there is a Jewish people, despite millennia of people like you attempting to destroy or assimilate us, is not our intelligence, or personal hygiene, or anything else. It is that we have cloven to the Torah. Which includes commandments like Shabbat observance. I am not sure where you get farting on Shabbat from-perhaps your stream of Judaism is different from ours.

            >Of course, the tautologic proposition (“Jew if mother is Jewish”) has failed miserably

            If it were tautologic, it could not fail. With the Ethiopians, we had strong reasons to believe they were originally Jewish, but some reasonable doubts, so did a giyur l’chumra, which is exactly what it’s for.

            Please don’t think I haven’t noticed you moving the goalposts, first claiming that the Sepharadi and Yemeni Jews are not Jewish, then switching to the Ethiopians. I assume you’ve given up on your original point?

            As for Shoher-he is a secular Kahanist. I am a religious Kahanist. Secular Kahanism is a very unstable platform, because it contradicts itself.

          • Jack says:

            >Being a racist makes sense when you dislike a racial group for their behavior. But the Ethiopian Jews, no matter what their behavior, can’t do right by you.

            What does “do right” even mean in this context? They are not the same people as Ashkenazim and never will be, don’t belong in Ashkenazi communities, and like all Niggers, belong in Africa, specifically in Ethiopia. Similarly, all Niggers belong in Africa and not among non-Niggers. Nothing to do with “doing right”. I don’t criticise your Ethiopian “brothers” for being Nig-Nogs (I do, however, point out that they are, in actual fact, Nig-Nogs), I criticise you for insanely believing that they are your brothers and bringing them to Palestine to live with you as equals. I made myself very clear and your stern refusal do understand my basic point indicates you’re being disingenuous.

            >Similarly, the rest of the Jews

            You equate “can’t do right” with “don’t do right”. You can do right, but choose not to. I notice the insanity of your wrong decision, but like all lunatics, you find myriads of excuses and justifications for your lunacy, and get upset when confronted for your lunacy.

            >(which is a pretty good argument for us being the same people)

            You also fail at logic completely, it seems.

            >Is there anything else we should do to please you? Should we build a giant statue of you and sacrifice to it? Would that be enough to spare us the ovens?

            LOL you’re mighty butthurt. Jews can’t stand any criticism ever, no matter how justified and well-established. Those delicious Jew tears though.

            >Secular Zionism has been tried, and it has failed.

            Israel is not yet a spectacular failure, merely a dysgenic melting pot. Being a dysgenic melting pot, is bound to crumble eventually, and become a spectacular failure, like all dysgenic melting pots ever. Breeding with Africans is bad for your health. You insist that there’s nothing wrong with breeding with Africans, since “we are the same people”, so you dig your own grave. So it’s not that you can’t do right, you just choose not to do right.

            >without the Torah, the Jewish people has no reason to exist, and no Jew has a reason to stay Jewish, as opposed to assimilating, or to make Jewish children.

            Ethno-nationalism is good for Jews just as much as for Gentiles, though unfortunately for the Ashkenazim, religious Ashkenazi Jews like yourself delude themselves that Niggers are part of their ethnic group. Which is why Orthodox Judaism is a scourge for everyone. You performed a Giyur on those poor Ethiopians thinking they will magically stop being Niggers and become compatible with your ostensibly high civilization; how is this not insane? They are not like you and won’t be, ever.

            >Do you have any pets? If you were to die alone in your apartment, would anyone find you before the pets ate your face?

            Insulting people over the internet is tricky, because if you miss your target, you end up making a fool of yourself. Similarly, attempting to determine someone’s exact genetic lineage based on a short exchange of internet-words is unwise. So of course you did both.

            >And this is the same way I know that Ethiopian neighborhoods in Israel are safe places.

            Claiming that “everyone knows X” is all you have? All I need is a single testimony to the contrary to disprove your contention. Are you willing to take this risky gamble? Weak argument even by your strands.

            >If it were tautologic, it could not fail.

            Right… circular reasoning is infallible. Which is why it had to be disregarded, and lo, it was.

            >Please don’t think I haven’t noticed you moving the goalposts, first claiming that the Sepharadi and Yemeni Jews are not Jewish, then switching to the Ethiopians. I assume you’ve given up on your original point?

            Retard. Never claimed any of those groups is “not Jewish”. I claimed that Africans and Arabs, whether or not they follow Judaism, are not the same people as Ashkenazim. (Sepharadim are neither here nor there, but are somewhat close to Ashkenazim) You can call Ethiopians, Berbers, Yemenites, and Arabs “Jewish” all day and all night, it won’t make them the same people as Mark Zuckerberg. How can you fail so hard understanding such a basic point?

            • jim says:

              You can call Ethiopians, Berbers, Yemenites, and Arabs “Jewish” all day and all night, it won’t make them the same people as Mark Zuckerberg.

              Exactly so. Because this is glaringly obvious, B proceeds to use every trick of dishonest argumentation,

              Including, indeed especially, tactics that fail in blog comments. A commenter lacks the status to bluff, so sarcasm and snark falls flat on its face, and when he lies about what you said, what you said is directly above his reply. A blogger can lie about what another blogger said, if he does the obviously furtive and guilty trick of failing to link, but it is very stupid for a commenter to lie about the comment to which he replies.

          • Morkyz says:

            Has anyone ever managed to get B and n/a from racehist into the same comment section?

          • Jack says:

            Btw, if and when you reply, you should really tone down the (((sophistry))), meaning, you should actually address my ridiculously simple argument with a solid counter-argument, instead of going round and round creating one logical fallacy after another in a desperate attempt to save your (and your kind’s) declining reputation here.

          • Jack says:

            If anyone still has any doubts, here’s a relevant article. Found it in 3 seconds, pretty sure there are plenty more like it.

            http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ethiopian-Israeli-rapper-featured-in-documentary-killed-by-car-bomb-in-Rehovot-389659#article=6020NDMzRDk5NTZGMTg4RTNEMDM5MjcxRjNEQUEwNkIyOUU=

            Niggers gonna Nig, etc.

          • B says:

            > They are not the same people as Ashkenazim and never will be, don’t belong in Ashkenazi communities, and like all Niggers, belong in Africa, specifically in Ethiopia.

            They are not the same people as Ashkenazim if you use the Stalinist definition of a people. Which Jews do not and never have.

            >You can do right, but choose not to.

            By the Nazi definition of right, where right is picking the most “Aryan” Jews, declaring them a separate people and a separate state, etc. But we have no interest in this sort of thing.

            >Israel is not yet a spectacular failure, merely a dysgenic melting pot.

            Israel’s secular Zionist elite failed. Its children became traitorous leftists and homosexuals, or completely unprincipled opportunists. Its grandchildren are now leaving and intermarrying with goyim at an even higher rate than secular exile Jews: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/206543

            >Ethno-nationalism is good for Jews just as much as for Gentiles

            It doesn’t work for gentiles, and almost never has. The Europeans have lost their will to live, for instance.

            >Which is why Orthodox Judaism is a scourge for everyone.

            It’s a scourge for you? Why? You live in the US, where Orthodox Jews are a tiny minority not much involved in politics. Do they kidnap you and force-feed you cholent and gefilte fish every Friday, or something?

            >They are not like you and won’t be, ever.

            In the important aspects, they are like us. Meaning, keeping the commandments. I could care less if they never produce a physicist.

            >Similarly, attempting to determine someone’s exact genetic lineage based on a short exchange of internet-words is unwise.

            The level of vitriol for the Jewish people combined with obsession with Israeli politics which you demonstrate is something I’ve only encountered in self-hating Jews and non-Jews with Jewish fathers bitter at being left out. I mean, typical Nazi complaints include all sorts of stuff, but never accusations of our cuisine being horrible.

            >Claiming that “everyone knows X” is all you have?

            This is the standard way you figure out which neighborhood is good or bad. I don’t need anything more.

            >Never claimed any of those groups is “not Jewish”. I claimed that Africans and Arabs, whether or not they follow Judaism, are not the same people as Ashkenazim. (Sepharadim are neither here nor there, but are somewhat close to Ashkenazim) You can call Ethiopians, Berbers, Yemenites, and Arabs “Jewish” all day and all night, it won’t make them the same people as Mark Zuckerberg.

            I do not particularly care about them being the “same people as Mark Zuckerberg”. I find Zuckerberg and everything he represents despicable, and would not trade 100 of him for one observant Jew, regardless of whether he is Teimani, Moroccan or Ethiopian. I have the same opinion of you, by the way.

            In fact, I am certain that Zuckerberg’s daughter is going to have a much higher IQ than the average Israeli Jew, and that this is the case for the daughters of Amy Chua, etc. I don’t care-they are not Jewish.

          • Jack says:

            >They are not the same people as Ashkenazim if you use the Stalinist definition of a people.

            My definition is accepted de facto by the whole non-Progressive world, which couldn’t care less about Stalin’s conception of the Narod or whatever you had in mind. You insist on a definition that is obviously detrimental to your national health, and consequently, will have your national health compromised. You nonsensically claim that feral violent mildly retarded Ethiopians are the same people as Ashkenazim, and become upset when called out on your nonsense.

            >By the Nazi definition of right, where right is picking the most “Aryan” Jews, declaring them a separate people and a separate state, etc. But we have no interest in this sort of thing

            You show no interest in separating 80 IQ Jews from breeding with 110 IQ Jews, which, combined with the high reproduction of 80 IQ Jews compared to 110 IQ Jews, inevitably results in a dysgenic melting pot. The dysgenic melting pot of Israel becomes exponentially more dysgenic as the smartest Jews are gradually reduced to average and below, while the dumbest Jews do not rise to average or above. You seem not to mind being a dysgenic melting pot, even though that will seal your civilization’s doom, and accelerate your civilization’s doom, as happened to all dysgenic melting pots before you.

            Jews need literal glasses to treat their literal myopia and metaphorical glasses to treat their metaphorical myopia.

            >It doesn’t work for gentiles, and almost never has. The Europeans have lost their will to live, for instance.

            This is horrendously disingenuous. You attribute the effect to the exact opposite cause. It’s not ethno-nationalism that made the Europeans lose their will to live; it’s the lack of ethno-nationalism (combined with other factors) that made the Europeans lose their will to live.

            >I could care less if they never produce a physicist.

            And, eventually, given enough time, none of you could produce a physicist, due to interbreeding with apes and semi-apes.

        • pdimov says:

          “It makes no sense for America because America is not a white nation (in the sense of a nation run for and by its white population as such) and has never been.”

          This may be true in principle, but it doesn’t matter.

          When one grows up in an environment openly hostile to whites as a group, the argument that one should not adopt a white identity because Indians something something is not going to take hold.

          • B says:

            If your white identity is based purely on the fact that blacks and hispanics used to attack you for being white (for the same reason and the same white masters who used to use Indians for the same exact role,) it’s a non-starter.

            Did the Spartiates and Helots have a common Spartan Identity?

            I feel like I’m wasting my breath here.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -I feel like I’m wasting my breath here.-

            Feel free to leave at any time, though you do appear to be addicted to Anti-Whitism.

          • pdimov says:

            “If your white identity is based purely on the fact that blacks and hispanics used to attack you for being white, it’s a non-starter.”

            You don’t get it.

            When you grow up as white, you remain white all your life.

            It doesn’t matter why blacks and Hispanics attacked you. It doesn’t matter that 50 years ago whites didn’t grow up as white but as something else and are now unable to comprehend why you adopt white as an identity.

            Your identity, once fixed, remains. Adults don’t change.

          • B says:

            >When you grow up as white, you remain white all your life.

            I grew up as white. So what?

          • pdimov says:

            “I grew up as white. So what?”

            So this: identity needs no justification and is impervious to reason.

            If you try to reason people out of their whiteness because it’s not justified, you would indeed be wasting your breath.

            As a general rule, of course.

            In one experiment, people were given, completely at random, blue and red shirts and they immediately sorted themselves out, on their own, into red and blue teams.

          • Eli says:

            If I knew that people here could comprehend this (save maybe several), I’d point to the work of Martin Nowak, and similar being noted by Greg Cochran (https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/your-countrys-not-your-blood/ and https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/brotherhood-of-warmblood/).

            Thing is, if you want to have a green beard effect, whiteness is a silly proxy marker, especially, given the trash that inhabits America.

            Humans have something much more fundamental: culture/religion. But both Americas WN’s and progressives think it’s silly.

            • jim says:

              Progressives, like every state religion, cash in on the green beard effect. To get in on the gravy, have to be progressive.

              White nationalists think that if they are allowed to do Krystalnacht, they will be in on the gravy, that they can get the gravy by simple smash and grab. They can’t and they won’t.

          • Eli says:

            Absolutely correct. That’s why green beard effect alone is not enough. You need the right framework (“right kind of beard”), to make it viable.

            Just as there is competition between individuals, there is competition between cultures. The right one(s) win out.

            Just because people naturally want to be part of a group, doesn’t mean that any such grouping is done for good reason. Observe the desperate degeneratti rooting for their sports teams.

          • pdimov says:

            “Thing is, if you want to have a green beard effect, whiteness is a silly proxy marker, especially, given the trash that inhabits America.”

            It’s not a matter of “want”. “Want” has nothing to do with it. When the other team has already identified “white” as the enemy and is pointing at you, what you want is irrelevant.

            “Humans have something much more fundamental: culture/religion.”

            Fine, let’s go with culture, see where it takes us. The other team’s ideology and culture are explicitly and viciously anti-white. To counter that, we need an ideology and culture that are explicitly pro-white, or we’ll lose.

            Trouble is, because whiteness has indeed historically not been a good basis for ideology and culture, there’s not many explicitly pro-white ideologies and cultures out there. Which one would you suggest?

            Don’t look at me, you suggested that we ought to use culture as an organizing principle instead of that silly identity.

            • jim says:

              When the other team has already identified “white” as the enemy and is pointing at you, what you want is irrelevant.

              That is the strategy the Jews, in particular and especially the Jews of Israel, are going with. And as I tell B, it is a bad strategy – because the end effect was that the state religion of Israel is not Judaism, but progressivism. And progressivism, applied consistently, means the Jews of Israel must die. Their continued survival is an unprincipled exception, and we know what happens to unprincipled exceptions.

          • Jack says:

            After all those years of self-imposed exile, the Jews have lost any organic perception of peoplehood, defining “Am Yisrael’ according to such well-established, internationally-recognized criteria as sporadic correspondence and occasional travelling of small communities, rather than actual geographic proximity, having the same ancestry, speaking the same language outside the Synagogue, similar cultural practices (not merely religious ones), cuisine, music, art (actually, it is common for all Jews to lack art completely, so there), to say nothing of Jews worldwide obviously belonging to completely different races and having an IQ disparity of at least two standard deviations and dissimilar behavioral patterns between, say, Mr. Rothstein and the folks inhabiting Africa.

            What is supremely ironic is that B would vehemently deny that White Americans can form a nation, but claims that simian-looking Ethiopians and atheist Slavic Mischlings who made aliyah from Ukraine yesterday are the same people because both serve the same military or whatever. You see Goyim, you may look the same, share a culture, live together interminglingly for centuries and speak the same language, but do you have documented correspondence and accounts of some travels 700 years ago? Check-mate, Amalekites.

          • B says:

            >That is the strategy the Jews, in particular and especially the Jews of Israel, are going with.

            This is not the strategy we are going with. We are going with what we have always gone with. A Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish, or someone who has converted to Judaism. Someone whose maternal grandmother was Russian, though everyone else was Jewish, though the non-Jews persecuted him as a Jew, this person is not Jewish. This is Judaism, and this has always been the approach of Judaism.

            >And as I tell B, it is a bad strategy – because the end effect was that the state religion of Israel is not Judaism, but progressivism.

            This is not an end effect. This is a passing phase.

          • B says:

            >rather than actual geographic proximity, having the same ancestry, speaking the same language outside the Synagogue, similar cultural practices (not merely religious ones), cuisine, music, art

            These are oddly enough the same criteria Comrade Stalin applied during his tenure as Commissar for the Nationalities.

            We do not live by Comrade Stalin’s criteria, but by our own, which were the same 2000 years before he existed and will be the same when he is long forgotten.

            And here in Israel we notice that we do in fact live in geographic proximity, intermarry, speak the same language, listen to the same music, eat the same cuisine, enjoy the same art. So Comrade Stalin’s criteria may be branches, but they are not the roots.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            All five comments in the Recent Comment side-bar show as B.’s…

            But, B., you’re not addicted to being anti-white…No, of course you aren’t… That would be silly. Who could suggest such a thing? 😉

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            Achmed: By Mohamed’s child bride, we are unable to defeat the crusaders

            Abdul: by Mohamed’s beloved aunt, Allah is testing us

            Achmed: how are they able to maintain cohesion so far from home on such a scale, Allah forbid, when our youth flee from battle leaving their mothers and sisters behind?

            Abdul: it must be their yellow beards, enabling them to recognize each other as relatives

          • Stop using commie as a slur. My dad was a commie and I have nothing to be ashamed of. Ever notice how countries needed to stop being commie before there could be White genocide? Commie is just a Trentian slur for Whites. Anti-commie is code for anti-White.

            Not that I expect you Talmudists and Talmudically inspired Trentians to understand a simple slogan.

          • You don’t get it. Identity is either immutable, what you grew up with, or simply how you feel. You filthy rat kikes don’t uunderstand identity and I’m a six year old girl.

          • Eli says:

            @pdimov:
            Your enemies are not so much the baboons and the gorillas as your fellow progressive-bearded (figuratively; but literally, some of those with yellow beards).

            Your enemy is ideology and its bearers, who often look very much like you.

            Again, right culture is the only answer.

            If the state’s madness is the religion of progressivism, your answer ought to be finding the right community, with proper values and practices.

            Also: stop watching the inciters on TV.

            • jim says:

              Your enemies are not so much the baboons and the gorillas as your fellow progressive-bearded (figuratively; but literally, some of those with yellow beards).

              Whites have always been at war with whites – no one else has the capability. By and large, any time it is whites versus none whites, non whites get hammered into the ground. (Except, of course, when the Cathedral makes sure that they don’t)

              Also recall the great delicacy and gentleness with which whites have made war on non whites, as one would discipline a misbehaving kitten, compared to the absolutely savage ferocity of interwhite wars.

              Fashi imagine a white unity that has never existed, and never will exist. They blame evil Jewish mind control rays for the absence of this unity.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            http://blog.jim.com/war/the-trouble-with-fashism-and-1488/#comment-1190649

            “Peppermint Papist” is using the word Trentian that I’ve provided…

            In a way, this is progress.

            Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent

          • pdimov says:

            “Again, right culture is the only answer.”

            Identity trumps left/right. See B, who is displaying a readiness to drop a nuke to save his brethren, many of whom are violently leftist to the point of being anti-Israel.

            You’re ignoring my point that an explicitly anti-white ideology can only be countered by an explicitly pro-white one. Doesn’t have to be a leftist pro-white one. Needs to be pro-white. Unless one plays to lose.

            You’re also ignoring the descriptive part of what I wrote and treating it as all-prescriptive. White identity is observably on the rise. Waving hands around and explaining why reality makes no sense in your quite informed opinion gets you nowhere.

            And no, “many of your enemies are white” is not an argument against either. Yes, they are. So?

            • jim says:

              Identity trumps left/right. See B, who is displaying a readiness to drop a nuke to save his brethren, many of whom are violently leftist to the point of being anti-Israel.

              B is being manipulated to his disadvantage. He is loyal to a government that is not loyal to him. If fashi start gassing Jews, yes, Israel might nuke them. If progressives start gassing Jews …

              Correct behavior for him would be to be loyal not to all Jews, but to all Jews for whom their Jewish identity trumps their other identities. Which does not include the current government of Israel.

              If the Fashi start gassing all Jews, as some of them, many of them, loudly proclaim they intend, he should get upset. Were they to restrict themselves to gassing Jews only in certain institutions, institutions filtered for loyalty to progressivism, he probably should not get upset, but would.

          • peppermint says:

            Israel’s entire existence is predicated on preventing anuda shoah, and Israel’s credible insanity that makes their nuclear policy credible, besides the recently acquired nuclear missile submarines.. Besides, any place where there’s a shoah going on probably needs international intervention. And by needs international intervention, I mean Israel needs a causus belli to join in the intervening.

            By the way, one difference in identity between Jews and Whites is that Jews are told to be proud to pass as White, while for example the Irish are told that they used to not be recognized as White, but are told to never feel pride in being White.

            In reality, the Irish used to not be recognized as American.

            Jews can shit on Whites as much as they want to, because they have that second identity to fall back on. Whites will always be Whites, and White Americans will never be anything else, so we must get used to it. And I think we secretly do, in whatever way we figure out.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Mr Dimov,

            No reason to look to the Talmudic Jew as an object of patriotic idealism. In fact, the Mantra avoids it by referencing a negro man.

            “What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

            How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

            And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

            Now, I can guess you may have some resistance to that and that you may be an Anti-Mantra Pro-White. But, I am not.

            Save the reference to Jewry by comically mentioning the way that their “6 million” is brought up to silence whites speaking out against White Genocide.

            “But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Eli says:

            @pdimov: do the Amish rely on their “white identity?”

            Mormons? Seventh Day Adventists?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Nobody goes to the Asian religions to say “do you rely on your yellow, Asian identity”?

            Nobody goes to black African religions to ask “do you rely on your black identity?”

            This is only happening in white people and white religions in an attempt to scream down whites (hence “anti-white screamer”). It’s a targeted effort to demoralise and wipe out those white populations.

            Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

            A.J.P.

          • Eli says:

            Asians is not the right category.

            Han Chinese are very different from Cambodians. Same for Mongols.

            The Han were bred for authoritarian-controlled, centralized, sedentary civilization for thousands of years. “Culturally Han” + strong ruling elite mostly works for them. Even then, their TFR is struggling, which probably will necessitate policy intervention (tax penalties for not having enough offspring or possibly more draconian measures).

            What works for a North Chinese peasant does not work for an Irish one. But truth be told, I hate being concerned with the latter, unless he’s living next to me (which, alas is the situation).

            For the more restless non-Asians (especially, Africans), a great deal of magical thinking is required. Normative behavior has to be dressed in more supernatural justifications. This requires pro-civilization religion and derived institutions.

          • B says:

            >Nobody goes to the Asian religions to say “do you rely on your yellow, Asian identity”?

            >Nobody goes to black African religions to ask “do you rely on your black identity?”

            That’s because neither Asians nor Africans think of themselves primarily as Asian or African. Until you get them into the US, where mau-mauing the flak catchers is big business.

            White nationalism is an idiotic attempt for whites to get in on mau-mauing the flak catchers too.

          • B says:

            >Correct behavior for him would be to be loyal not to all Jews, but to all Jews for whom their Jewish identity trumps their other identities.

            Correct behavior is to be loyal to one’s family members, within very broad boundaries.

            E.g., if your uncle is an asshole, you don’t have to like him, or publicly defend him. But if someone tries to kill him, you should do your best to keep this from happening.

            If your uncle is a thief, you should not help him steal, or hide him from the cops. But if a crowd of people shows up at his house and tries to rob him and kill his wife and kids (using his thievery as a pretext), you should do your best to defend them.

            • jim says:

              If your uncle is a thief, you should not help him steal, or hide him from the cops. But if a crowd of people shows up at his house and tries to rob him and kill his wife and kids (using his thievery as a pretext), you should do your best to defend them.

              Are progressive Jews your uncle?

          • peppermint says:

            quit shouting slogans you post-klansman.

            but it’s interesting to bring up Asians because the yellow identity was the ostensible purpose of the Greater Ost Osia Ko-prosperity Sphere, which was to challenge White supremacy, though it could also be seen as a return to the old days when China dominated Vietnam, Korea, and Japan, except instead with Japan dominating Korea, China, and Vietnam.

            The reason this conversation is difficult is that there are multiple components to an identity:

            Belief. Ask any White if they are White, they will tell you. Jews are not White because they are Jews. I’ve never talked to an Amish, but Mormons know that they’re White.

            Relatedness. Whites have DNAs in common

            Behavior. Whites are high-trust due to a history of monogamy. Being high-trust enabled Whites to take over the world once.

            But this is hard enough to get right without some pro-White screamer looking for code words

          • pdimov says:

            “@pdimov: do the Amish rely on their “white identity?””

            I got your point the first time. Yes, one can run away from the battle, outbreed, outlive. That’s not what we’ve been discussing. What if one doesn’t run away? What if one decides to stand one’s ground? Counterattack, even? What would one’s strategy be then?

            What do you predict the future of white America is going to be like? Amish? White identitarian? Extinct? Not what it OUGHT to be if you were to decide; what it actually IS going to be?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            [Deleted for lack of content – mere insult, not a reply]

          • B says:

            >Are progressive Jews your uncle?

            Yes. They are our annoying, obnoxious, idiot uncle.

            >The yellow identity was the ostensible purpose of the Greater Ost Osia Ko-prosperity Sphere,

            Yep, first thing that came to mind. Failed for the reason that (except for Stockholm Syndrome Koreans) nobody bought into it. And it took 40 years of occupation to get the Koreans to this point. The USSR had better luck establishing a common Soviet identity between Uzbeks, Georgians and Udmurts than the Japanese did between themselves, Chinese, Viets and Manchurians.

            • jim says:

              >Are progressive Jews your uncle?

              Yes. They are our annoying, obnoxious, idiot uncle.

              And that, of course, is where you are wrong, just as wrong as the fashi who thinks that all whites are kin (and therefore blames the Jews for elite disloyalty)

              Your actual kin are kin. Co religionists are fictive kin to the extent that you can expect that your loyalty and good conduct will be reciprocated. But progressive Jews don’t feel loyalty and are unlikely to engage in good conduct to orthodox Jews. Black Jews don’t feel loyalty and are unlikely to engage in good conduct to anyone except actual kin regardless of religion or skin color.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Nothing to add, anti-whites pressing forward after a certain point need to know that the show is over. A real reply would be the wrong thing to do.

            Rhetoric, learn it. I mean, it’s not bad as long as you’re fighting clean and not covetously, right “Jim”? -Jim doesn’t respond-

            Well, as you’re entertaining these anti-whites, the “fashy” or whatever you call them are well-training themselves in the comment sections of YouTube or wherever they can cross rhetorical swords with Jewish, yes Talmudic Jewish sympathisers. Not that I actually agree with their approach, but non-partisan pro-whites need places to train up skills.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Eli says:

            >What do you predict the future of white America is going to be like? Amish? White identitarian? Extinct? Not what it OUGHT to be if you were to decide; what it actually IS going to be?

            Yes, I too understood you. As someone who grew up secular, I share your lack of enthusiasm regarding the religious option.

            Nonetheless, as some others on this forum, I am skeptical on alternatives. Unlike China — where civilization grew (in density and extent) from around the Yellow River from earlier than 4000 BC, where the Han people who formed the kernel of the population never truly faced the threat of extermination (except once, through the Mongols) have been the majority, ingesting and assimilating other peoples — the case of Europe and, especially, the US is very different.

            Any Western Eurasian culture does not seem to have survived in an uninterrupted fashion for longer than several centuries.

            American civilization is a unique experiment. But it, too, is not a stable phenomenon.

            Anyway, to cut to the chase: it does not seem likely that luck will extend beyond a couple generations or so. The Amish may survive, because they learned to live without electric appliances. May come in handy, especially, if they ally (or be forced to do so) with military minded groups.

            In fact, I think the best alternative to religion is joining the military — preferably, in engineer-type capacity.

          • B says:

            >Your actual kin are kin.

            The Torah tells us exactly who our kin are.

            >But progressive Jews don’t feel loyalty and are unlikely to engage in good conduct to orthodox Jews.

            That is true, but nonetheless they are our kin. Furthermore, they can always repent, and many of them (and their children) do repent.

            >Black Jews don’t feel loyalty and are unlikely to engage in good conduct to anyone except actual kin regardless of religion or skin color.

            That is untrue. Where are you getting these insights? Everyone I know who has served or lived with Ethiopians has had good things to say about them. They went through a lot of suffering to come here, spent a very long time in a hostile environment resisting efforts to convert them, and appreciate what it means to be Jewish (despite attempts at grievance mongering by the Left.)

            • jim says:

              >Black Jews don’t feel loyalty and are unlikely to engage in good conduct to anyone except actual kin regardless of religion or skin color.

              That is untrue. Where are you getting these insights?

              Low IQ people find it difficult to cooperate with each other, and considerably harder to cooperate with high IQ people, so tend to wind up with a defect first strategy – which strategy progressives, who always wind up being on the side of entropy, are selling them. But even if progressives were not selling them that strategy, they would wind up with it spontaneously.

              Blacks need simpler and harsher rules and laws than whites, which is one important reason why Christian churches are segregated, but Ashkenazim are pushing a one size fits all Judaism on everyone in Israel.

              Progressives wind up on the side of entropy, because the Cathedral is driven by thermodynyamic forces, rather than being a conscious conspiracy. (I am using thermodynamics as a metaphor and analogy, rather than literal thermodynamics)

              For a black church to promote cooperation and fellowship among its congregation, has to play it differently to a white church. Jewish legalism makes this difficult, as does the imperial Ashkenazi policy of assimilating all the different versions of Judaism to Ashkenazi variants. Black Jews would find it easier to behave well under black Judaism.

          • B says:

            This is spherical horse in a vacuum stuff. It does not describe Ethiopian Jews as observed in reality.

            • jim says:

              As usual, your personal experience fails to correspond to sources – just as your sources fail to correspond to sources.

              http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/israel-ethiopian-jews-rally-police-brutality-150503155817247.html

              That is the progs telling them that whitey – in this case the Jews – are oppressing them.

              Wikipedia tells us:

              Low educational attainment, modest standards of living, and the occasionally isolated habitat may explain the development of delinquency among the Beta Israel youth: in 2005 its rate was three times higher than the rate of the other Israeli youth.[20]

              Three times is pretty good compared to regular blacks – but still a problem.

              A study published in 2012 found that members of the Beta Israel community earn 30%-40% less than Arab citizens of Israel, who are themselves considered as an underprivileged group.

          • B says:

            >as does the imperial Ashkenazi policy of assimilating all the different versions of Judaism to Ashkenazi variants

            Could you please explain to me the essential differences between Sepharadi, Yemeni and Ashkenazi Judaism? (aside from polygamy, which was pretty rare to begin with.)

            Also, could you please tell me which brand of Ashkenazi Judaism have the Sepharadim and Yemenites been assimilated into? Is it Lithuanian Judaism? Or Hasidism? Which Hasidut? What are the essential changes?

            This should be good.

          • B says:

            Oh, Al Jazeera enlightens us on the problems of Israeli society. Great.

            Interestingly, Al Jazeera doesn’t say anything like your statement:” Black Jews don’t feel loyalty and are unlikely to engage in good conduct to anyone except actual kin regardless of religion or skin color.” It says they don’t earn a lot and have high delinquency rates. OK. So what? They also serve in the army at the highest rate of any population in Israel, and are overrepresented in combat units. My friends who served with them in the infantry said they are quite tough and do not complain.

            As I said, I have no personal experience with Ethiopians (except for getting picked up by them while hitchhiking and vice versa,) but if I have to decide between trusting you and Al Jazeera, or my friends (who are familiar with American blacks and Arabs and not susceptible to political correctness,) well…

          • Jack says:

            >I happen to have lived in a place that was 1/3 Yemenite for 2 years. Nobody punched me or stabbed me (or anyone else) in the face or back.

            I was never stabbed by Niggers, thus I conclude that no one was ever stabbed by them, not even other Niggers. It’s a perfectly logical argumentum ad anecdotum.

            >A Jew is someone whose mother is a Jew, or who converted to Judaism.

            The first part contains a tautology, the second part allows millions of Arabs and Africans to be considered your brothers.

            >Travelling hither and thither did not make the Yemenite Jews Jewish. Them being Jewish is a fact which the travellers noticed.

            Ashkenazi travelers noticed that Yemenite Jews practice a religion very similar to theirs; ergo, “same people”. No need for further clarification, I guess. Then some (secularized, socialist) Zionists discovered that some Ethiopians practice a form of Judaism; ergo, “same people”. Jews are definitely superior in the sense of humor department.

            >To demonstrate their lack of Judaism, you find a picture of some weatherbeaten Yemenite farmers wearing Arabian dress, and juxtapose it with a picture of Zuckerberg, who’s never been out in the sun, in a t-shirt.

            Do I need to google pics of Yemenite Jews in Israel dressed in modern clothing to “demonstrate” that these folks are far from identical to Ashkenazim? Your argument just went “literally absurd”.

            http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2012/06/2012-06-27-19.02.43-e1427805088644.jpg

            >So I expect we will stick with it when your greadgrandkids are rapping in ebonics.

            Yes, you should adhere zealously to these detrimental practices even as your daughter marries a Jewish Berber who will, undoubtedly, introduce her to a wide variety of cultural traditions your ancestors would have found unfathomable. Your refusal to entertain “Nazi” racist notions is awe-inspiring and I won’t disabuse you of it. “Believe it, for it is absurd!” goes the saying.

            >They went through a lot of suffering to come here, spent a very long time in a hostile environment resisting efforts to convert them, and appreciate what it means to be Jewish

            First-generation Niggers are well-behaved compared to third-generation ones, generally, though obviously not well-behaved by non-Nigger standards. Give it some time till the Bixing and Nooding commences in all its glory rather than tentatively and hesitantly. The kushi may rob you and attempt to rape your wife, but he’s really no different than an alcoholic uncle, you see Goyim.

            >Also, could you please tell me which brand of Ashkenazi Judaism have the Sepharadim and Yemenites been assimilated into?

            The Jewish joke says: “how do we know Avraham wore a shtreimel? Answer: what, you’re saying he didn’t?” But I’m sure that Yemen, notorious for being the most frozen and most snowy country on the globe with no deserts anywhere (Yemen is where the ice-age never stops), allowed Yemenite Jews to dress like 17th century Poles for 2,500 years. The same is true for Moroccans, Ethiopians, etc: in Africa, everyone dresses like it’s Siberia, because it is. It’s definitely not something they picked up upon arrival in Ashkenazi-dominated Israel from Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox. Trust me on this one, Goyim.

            >As I said, I have no personal experience with Ethiopians

            Oh. The anecdotes glimmer from a safe distance, but are reliable nevertheless, because it’s not like you’re emotionally invested in defending the indefensible against all odds and contrary to basic reason.

          • pdimov says:

            “Oh, Al Jazeera enlightens us on the problems of Israeli society.”

            There are many articles on that same incident. Which one do you prefer? BBC? Haaretz? Times of Israel? I won’t post all the links because moderation.

          • B says:

            Jack, I’d like to digress briefly.

            I’m guessing your father is Jewish, but your mother isn’t.

            Am I correct?

          • pdimov says:

            In a democracy with a black minority, absent divine intervention, the way to bet is that a political party will find a way to manufacture black identity and capture 90% of the black vote.

          • B says:

            Pdimov-

            See Ibn Khaldun’s story about the boy who was raised in a dungeon, and could only conceive of animals as different kinds of rats-a camel is a big rat with humps, a giraffe is a spotted giant rat with a long neck, etc.

          • pdimov says:

            Such is the story in heterogeneous democracies everywhere in the world. It’s not just the American dungeon that displays this characteristic.

          • Jack says:

            >I’m guessing your father is Jewish, but your mother isn’t.

            Initially I was a self-hating Jew, then I metamorphosed to a skinhead Nazi, now those two opposing aspects of my personality have reconciled and amalgamated into a Mischling who’s insecure about his identity.

            To sum up the debate thus far: White Nationalism > Orthodox Judaism, because the former would accept it if their daughter married a follower of another religion as long as he’s White, wouldn’t accept her marrying someone who follows the same religion but is non-White; the latter, just the opposite, would accept a husband from a completely foreign race as long as Judaic in religion, would shun a racially Jewish convert to another religion despite belonging to the exact same race.

            One of these position makes more sense and is more viable than the other.

            • jim says:

              Religions are synthetic tribes and are intended to unite people and peoples that are not too different.. What do you do when they attempt to unite members of actual tribes that are too different?

              Christians in America have developed a neat solution to this – segregated churches. For every sect X, there is a black X and a white X, and black X is nominally the same religion as the white X, but in fact, not the same religion. Also, often enough, a mestizo X, which however is not a good idea because the old gods might creep back.

              Israel probably would have wound up with the same solution, and to some extent has, were it not for the external threat uniting them.

          • B says:

            Is that a “yes”?

          • Jack says:

            *eyeroll*

            B is not even lying when he claims that Jews are unlike everyone else: only among Jews will you find Ethiopians with no Semitic blood wearing black enormous furry hats, thick black furry coats, long socks, basically everything a dweller of Poland in the 17-19th centuries would wear, except in the middle of Israeli summer, speaking a language modeled on ancient Hebrew but invented in European diaspora, and see nothing bizarre or out-of-place in this entire affair. (And claim that it was always so) A nation of priests indeed, Jim.

            Poor Ashkenazim, having to endure melanoma in Palestine because they aren’t biologically adapted to live in the middle-east. This whole “nation” is just so stupid, so many comical layers engulf it.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jack”,

            Don’t roll your eyes at him like some coy little damsel.

            Try something like:

            “B.,

            All the Christians here are Jews as well, being that Christianity began as a Jewish sect, and if you’re looking for more Jews to sniff out. Now as far as the pro-Talmudic Pharisees go…”

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            *proto-Talmudic

          • B says:

            I’m confused.

            The Ethiopian Jews are bad because they act like niggers or because they wear 17th century Polish clothing? Are the ones who wear knit kippot and western clothing better or worse than the ones with the Polish kit?

            [Deleted for stupidity. I suppose you intended to be ironic or sarcastic or something, but if so, missed your target. It is tricky to do sarcasm over the internet.]

            • jim says:

              The Ethiopian Jews are bad because they act like niggers or because they wear 17th century Polish clothing?

              Act like n****rs.

              That they are imitating seventeenth century poles is a problem with Judaism in general, and in particular Askhenazi imperialism, the Ashkenazi tactic of assimilating all other varieties of Judaism, not Ethiopians in particular. Ethiopian Jews in Ethiopia did not imitate seventeenth century Poles. A negro imitating a seventeenth century pole reveals the idiocy of the Ashkenazi solution to the problem of “Who is a Jew” – that Ashkenazi have persuaded Ethiopians to dress like seventeenth century Poles makes Ashkenazi look stupid, not Ethiopians.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -I’m confused.-

            You can say that again.

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            >Act like n****rs.

            What are you, a housewife on facebook? Just write “the n-word”.

            I’m still waiting for you to explain the differences between Sepharadi, Ashkenazi and Yemenite Judaism to me. It’s not the clothes-no particular set of clothing is halakhically mandated (by any one of these streams.)

            And then please explain which exact Ashkenazi Judaism has been forced upon Ethiopian Jews.

            PS When you delete my posts, it doesn’t make me look stupid. It makes you look stupid.

            • jim says:

              And then please explain which exact Ashkenazi Judaism has been forced upon Ethiopian Jews.

              You emancipated their women, and in some cases dressed them in silly clothes as a symbol of emancipating their women. (“Hey, Polish Jewish women were emancipated first, therefore we are totally not bowing to progressivism”)

            • jim says:

              PS When you delete my posts, it doesn’t make me look stupid. It makes you look stupid.

              I am not trying to make you look stupid. I am trying to conserve the readers bandwidth, which you are inclined to waste.

              Hence, I delete repetitious comments, and comments that are full of mere posturing without information content. Don’t try sarcasm in lieu of argument. When you pretended to not understand Jack’s perfectly clear and straightforward point, you were using pretended stupidity in place of argument. Don’t do that. I know you are smart enough to understand what he said. You are just wasting the readers time by pretending Jack had not made the telling points that he had made, when you should have either conceded, or attempted to rebut those points.

          • Jack says:

            >The Ethiopian Jews are bad because they act like niggers or because they wear 17th century Polish clothing?

            Ethiopians are bad because Niggers, Ashkenazim are insane because you pretend that if Ethiopians dress like 17th century Poles (or the secular equivalent of muh military service, or both), they cease being Niggers.

            >Are the ones who wear knit kippot and western clothing better or worse than the ones with the Polish kit?

            Carried away by your own rhetoric. Was there even a point here?

            >I’m still waiting for you to explain the differences between Sepharadi, Ashkenazi and Yemenite Judaism to me.

            When it comes to trifles and superstitions ala whether or not farting on Saturdays is acceptable in God’s eyes, no major difference. When it comes to actually important stuff, to “serious business”, pertinent to the material world, like Israel’s establishment, you have radical theological disagreements, see: Zionists and anti-Zionists from among the ultra-Orthodox, the latter almost exclusively Ashkenazim. It’s a theological dispute with racial undertones, since diaspora is overwhelmingly Ashkenazi and Israel is majority Mud.

            >It’s not the clothes-no particular set of clothing is halakhically mandated (by any one of these streams.)

            “Furthermore, Goyim, there is nothing weird about teaching Ethiopians to communicate in Yiddish. Replacement Theology is a no-no, but pretending that a bunch of Africans belong in a community that LARPs as 17th century Poles is not just divinely mandated but also the moral thing to do. For reference, see the correspondence and the travels, such as those of Sepharadi Jew Benjamin of Tuleda, who claimed to have found the Lost Tribes of Israel literally everywhere he went, perhaps even under his own bed, which is, according to our tautological definitions, sufficient proof regarding the matter. Case closed and shabbat shalom.”

            >And then please explain which exact Ashkenazi Judaism has been forced upon Ethiopian Jews.

            And now for an actual quote from Wikipedia:

            “Ethiopian Jews—also known as Beta Israel (Ge’ez: ቤተ እስራኤል—Bēta ‘Isrā’ēl)—possess a canon of scripture that is distinct from Rabbinic Judaism. Mäṣḥafä Kedus (Holy Scriptures) is the name for the religious literature of these Jews, which is written primarily in Ge’ez. Their holiest book, the Orit, consists of the Pentateuch, as well as Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. The rest of the Ethiopian Jewish canon is considered to be of secondary importance. It consists of the remainder of the Hebrew canon—with the possible exception of the Book of Lamentations—and various deuterocanonical books. These include Sirach, Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 4 Baruch, the three books of Meqabyan, Jubilees, Enoch, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Isaac, and the Testament of Jacob. The latter three patriarchal testaments are distinct to this scriptural tradition.[16]

            A third tier of religious writings that are important to Ethiopian Jews, but are not considered to be part of the canon, include the following: Nagara Muse (The Conversation of Moses), Mota Aaron (Death of Aharon), Mota Muse (Death of Moses), Te’ezaza Sanbat (Precepts of Sabbath), Arde’et (Students), the Apocalypse of Gorgorios, Mäṣḥafä Sa’atat (Book of Hours), Abba Elias (Father Elija), Mäṣḥafä Mäla’əkt (Book of Angels), Mäṣḥafä Kahan (Book of Priests), Dərsanä Abrəham Wäsara Bägabs (Homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt), Gadla Sosna (The Acts of Susanna), and Baqadāmi Gabra Egzi’abḥēr (In the Beginning God Created).

            In addition to these, Zëna Ayhud (the Ethiopic version of Josippon) and the sayings of various fālasfā (philosophers) are sources that are not necessarily considered holy, but nonetheless have great influence.”

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

            [Oyyyyyyy veyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

            Is this religion identical to yours? *eyeroll intensifies*

          • Eli says:

            @Jack:
            Having nigger genes does not mean that, given the right incentives, upbringing and work (even if make-work), one cannot behave like a human. And for the truly long term (tens of generations) culture selects and takes care of the rest.

            For today, much better an Ethiopian Jew than a non-Jewish Bedouin.

          • Eli says:

            Also, from my observations, there is non-trivial difference in both appearance and aggressive/impulsive tendencies between descendants of West African slaves the Western Hemisphere and Ethiopians. I lack objective statistics, however.

          • B says:

            >You emancipated their women, and in some cases dressed them in silly clothes as a symbol of emancipating their women.

            Untrue. The legal rights and responsibilities of women do not differ between Sepharadim and Ashkenazim. And never have. Or do you have a halachik source that says different?

            Further, nobody dressed anyone in silly clothes. A minority of Ethiopian Jews decided that they wanted to join Haredi communities. Grown men in Haredi communities wear black suits with white shirts. A different group of Ethiopians decided to join the religious Zionist community. Religious Zionists dress is basically modest Western dress, with a kippa and tzitzit. I have never seen an Ethiopian in Hasidic traditional dress (a shtreimel, kaftan, etc.) If I did, I would not think that it is inherently crazier than wearing a suit and tie.

            >Hence, I delete repetitious comments, and comments that are full of mere posturing without information content.

            Do I have to spell everything out for you people? Fine.

            Jack would be unhappy with the Ethiopian Jews if they kept their traditional African dress, and he is unhappy with the ones who put on Lithuanian Haredi dress (dark business suit, dark dress shoes, white shirt,) and he is unhappy with the ones who wear jeans, a t-shirt and a kippa and tzitzit. Similarly, Jack is unhappy with the assimilated Jews because they are Progressive, and he is unhappy with the religious Jews because they follow silly Torah commandments. There is no pleasing him, because he is upset that while his father is Jewish, he is not, while an Ethiopian convert is. Similar to Maureen Dowd who is upset that men find her unattractive and demands that they change their standards, Jack demands that Jews redefine themselves to fit his desires.

            Further, the idea that Ethiopians, Yemenites or Moroccans wearing European clothing is somehow wrong is just stupid. The primary function of a clothing style is to demonstrate a certain set of values and allegiances, and where the clothing style originated is completely irrelevant. When you put on a tie, you are not saying that you are a Croatian mercenary from the 17th century. When you put on a suit, it is not to demonstrate that you share the values of Charles II. You can’t simultaneously declare that the Ethiopian Jews who come to Israel are a bunch of unassimilable, untrustworthy niggers and mock them for joining religious communities which wear conservative European clothing.

            NRx, to the extent that it is worth half a shit, was started by Moldbug. So let’s have a bit of Moldbug, apropos:

            “Just as there could not possibly be any respect between the Hitler Youth thug and the Swing Kid, there cannot possibly be any respect between the Tweed Rider and the granola-munching hippie with whitey dreads. Culturally, this is war.

            Of course, tweed is a harmless fashion statement. But you know: if a nigga has spent his entire Saturday trying to look like Sir Henry Maine, dress like Sir Henry Maine, talk like Sir Henry Maine, and act like Sir Henry Maine, how hard can it be to get him to read Sir Henry Maine?”

            http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2009/11/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

            >Ethiopians are bad because Niggers, Ashkenazim are insane because you pretend that if Ethiopians dress like 17th century Poles (or the secular equivalent of muh military service, or both), they cease being Niggers.

            A man’s behavior is a function of his values. His clothing is a reflection of those values. The key characteristic of a nigger is not the color of his skin but his behavior, which is reflected in his clothing (pants on the ground, etc.) I guarantee you that you can walk through any Ethiopian neighborhood where the men are dressed in Haredi/Da’ati Leumi style, at all hours of the night, and nothing will happen to you. You can leave your car unlocked. Etc.

            >When it comes to actually important stuff, to “serious business”, pertinent to the material world, like Israel’s establishment, you have radical theological disagreements, see: Zionists and anti-Zionists from among the ultra-Orthodox, the latter almost exclusively Ashkenazim.

            Is this your way of saying that when it comes to the commandments, the actual Torah, there is no difference between Ashkenazim, Teimanim and Sepharadim? As for Zionism vs. anti-Zionism, the vast, vast majority of Ashkenazi religious Jews are Zionist, in that they have no religious objection to living in Israel, working, paying taxes, serving in the military, etc.

            >Furthermore, Goyim, there is nothing weird about teaching Ethiopians to communicate in Yiddish.

            I do not know of any Ethiopians who speak Yiddish. The vast majority of Ashkenazim, including most of the Haredim, do not speak Yiddish. If I saw an Ethiopian speaking Yiddish, I would find it charming but not any more objectionable than if he spoke English or Japanese.

            >Ethiopian Jews—also known as Beta Israel (Ge’ez: ቤተ እስራኤል—Bēta ‘Isrā’ēl)—possess a canon of scripture that is distinct from Rabbinic Judaism.

            Thanks, you’ve discovered America. This is why they undergo a conversion (a giyur l’chumra.) But my question was not about the differences between Ethiopian Judaism and that of the rest of the Jews. My question was about the differences between Sepharadi, Ashkenazi and Teimani Judaism.

            • jim says:

              >Hence, I delete repetitious comments, and comments that are full of mere posturing without information content.

              Do I have to spell everything out for you people? Fine.

              Sarcasm assumes that your point is well known, obvious, and uncontroversial. It is analogous to the antismoking sign “Nobody smokes here”. But, of course, your point is rarely well known well known, obvious, and uncontroversial, or else you would not be trying to persuade people that it is. If you are the entertaininer on a stage, or a film director, or a headmaster giving a speech, if you are in a position of power, sarcasm works – but it still an illegitimate method of argument, that fools and pressures people into agreeing with your, rather than presenting them with rational grounds for agreeing with you. When you are just another commenter on a blog, sarcasm just falls stone flat, comes across as sheer stupidity and ignorance. People don’t know what you are trying to get at, because you don’t have the necessary power to motivate them to look at your words from the point of view of the speaker, rather than listener. You are unable to pressure them to think irrationally, you lack the power, so they just don’t, they continue to think logically, and thus your words just make no sense.

              With sarcasm, one speaks as if position X was well known, obvious, and uncontroversial. If you are in a position of power, this will persuade people that position X is well known, obvious, and uncontroversial even though you present absolutely no evidence for this. If you are not in a position of power, people will continue thinking that X is obscure, unobvious, and highly controversial, and also start thinking that you are stupid.

          • B says:

            >Sarcasm assumes that your point is well known, obvious, and uncontroversial.

            Sarcasm assumes that your point is at least obvious (if it was uncontroversial, there would be no need for sarcasm.)

            If someone makes sweeping statements about Judaism, they are representing themselves as having at least a grasp of the basics.

            Is it too much to assume that the guy mocking Ethiopian and Yemenite Jews for wearing European clothes knows where ties come from?

            • jim says:

              >Sarcasm assumes that your point is well known, obvious, and uncontroversial.

              Sarcasm assumes that your point is at least obvious.

              Which your point was not, and is not. I see no reason to suppose that AJP is unaware of where ties come from. Sufficient for his argument that they do not come from Ethiopia.

          • Jack says:

            >I have never seen an Ethiopian in Hasidic traditional dress (a shtreimel, kaftan, etc.) If I did, I would not think that it is inherently crazier than wearing a suit and tie.

            Unhinged insanity right here. You people have lost it completely.

            >Jack would be unhappy with the Ethiopian Jews

            Jack appears to be some sort of a racist, B realizes.

            >Similarly, Jack is unhappy with the assimilated Jews because they are Progressive, and he is unhappy with the religious Jews because they follow silly Torah commandments.

            That’s correct, though my issue with the latter is less about you being utterly silly (which you are) and more about your religion being fundamentally incompatible with civilization (which it is).

            >There is no pleasing him

            If Ashkenazim had a distinct country of their own, where the state religion is neither Progressivism nor Orthodox Judaism, that would be a significant improvement. In other words, if Jews would choose to become human, that would be fantastic.

            >because he is upset that while his father is Jewish, he is not

            You made up a false theory and built ad hominems around it. How Talmudic.

            >Jack demands that Jews redefine themselves to fit his desires.

            My desire regarding Jews is for Jews to finally become human, but this proves impossible. Ovens it is, then.

            >You can’t simultaneously declare that the Ethiopian Jews who come to Israel are a bunch of unassimilable, untrustworthy niggers and mock them for joining religious communities which wear conservative European clothing.

            You can, because they don’t belong in Israel, however they dress. I mock you for bringing them to your country in the first place.

            >I guarantee you that you can walk through any Ethiopian neighborhood where the men are dressed in Haredi/Da’ati Leumi style, at all hours of the night, and nothing will happen to you. You can leave your car unlocked. Etc.

            This after explicitly admitting you have no personal experience with them, and you only know about them from some anecdotes your friends told you about their mutual military service. Of course, other than some second-hand anecdotes from your friends, you have no sources to back up your incredible remarks. This is getting tiring.

            >Is this your way of saying that when it comes to the commandments, the actual Torah,

            See, this is what both Jim and blogger Obadiah Shoher were getting at when writing about how Orthodox Judaism has become detached from reality altogether, in that irrelevant trivia such as farting on Saturdays is “the actual Torah”, but living in your own Jewish country is not even necessary: “exile mentality” as it were. You have become a superstitious exile religion, probably irrevocably. Jews are truly irredeemable.

            >This is why they undergo a conversion (a giyur l’chumra.)

            Of course, the tautologic proposition (“Jew if mother is Jewish”) has failed miserably, so you officially converted the Africans to Judaism. You know, “just to be sure.” Everything about this is moronic. Benjamin of Tudela would be proud.

          • Jack says:

            Perhaps I have Benjamin of Tudela confused with Eldad Ha-Dani, but my point is that when B brings up “travels” as his standard of proof for Jewishness (also correspondence), he shoots his own foot. Many travellers, Jewish travellers at that, told fantastic stories about some very, very dubious Jewish communities they discovered. Can’t take this seriously.

          • Jack says:

            Sources:

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldad_ha-Dani

            Or

            http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eldad-ben-Mahli-ha-Dani

            Are these accounts reliable? How many Sudanese and Pashtuns are actually Jewish, if travels are to be believed? Are they, too, “same people” as Mark Zuckerberg?

  31. Art says:

    Pdimov:
    “People didn’t develop cynicism because utopia has been reached or because of the unfalsifiable claim that historical inevitability will eventually bring about communism, they developed cynicism because of the falsifiable lies and obvious omissions in Pravda.”

    Are you saying that under Brezhnev Pravda became less truthful than before?
    I don’t think so.

    • pdimov says:

      No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that people eventually stopped trusting it.

      • Art says:

        Yes, they did. The interesting question is – why.
        One possibility is that skepticism became less dangerous.
        What do you think?

        • pdimov says:

          I’m not sure. It could be that. Although I think it was more of a generational thing, each subsequent generation (even within the Party itself) believing less and less.

  32. vakerr says:

    “when you expropriate people, you are going to screw up corporate capitalism, which is the foundation of western civilization”

    Contemporary capitalism is already highly distorted by various rent-seeking arrangements. Shaking it up would fracture some of these arrangements and likely make the market more free than it is today. So at this point avoiding a shakeup is not something to strive for.

    • jim says:

      Rent seeking arrangements such as?

      • vakerr says:

        Do you seriously need me to bring you examples of market positions maintained more by lobbying than superior service? I find it unlikely that you don’t know about privileged access to the Fed for example, asymmetric information situations due to government connections, and other distortions. Today’s stock market’s problem is that it was artificially supported for years and was not allowed to engage in price discovery. In fact, long term the entire economy would be better off with a period of price discovery unshackled from existing ties. I doubt you’re unaware of all this, so I’m wondering why did you chose to respond with that question.

        • B says:

          Ibn Khaldun points out that the biggest market is always the government.

          This idea of “distortions” is itself stupid. There is no free market economy, and there never has been anywhere except among desert nomads. So of what are they distortions?

          Actually, the idea of a free market of humans as rational agents exercising unlimited free will over their own assets is very similar to the ideal of the Noble Savage ported over into economics.

          Which is not to deny private property or economic freedom as having very high value. Just that the theory is retarded.

          • vakerr says:

            Regardless how exactly the economy works, protecting it from changes, protecting the status quo makes it fragile (see Taleb), therefore it should not be a key concern.

          • B says:

            Sure, I agree with this statement. But the “changes” you are defending are expropriations from a market minority. It’s like saying the US economy could be improved by nuking NYC.

  33. Steve says:

    Straw Poll – who won the Republican Presidential Debate?

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2016/01/straw-poll-who-won-republican.html

  34. Morkyz says:

    “Humans have something much more fundamental: culture/religion. But both Americas WN’s and progressives think it’s silly.”

    Yeah. I suspect that a positive attachment to WN comes when all other sources of identity are denied somehow.

    Two problems with nationalism in a US context is no shared church, and not much in the way of shared struggle/history.

    I don’t think these problems are unfixable, but with the state not wanting them to be fixed it won’t happen.

    SOBL has some reasonably good ideas, I think.

    http://28sherman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/secession-would-allow-for-renewed-group.html

    • peppermint says:

      no shared church? So the official religion is officially agnostic and hostile towards forms of Christianity it views as insufficiently progressive.

      no shared struggle / history? The last 50 years are what?

      The definition of White for people 30 and under is that Whites were told never to feel anything but shame for being White.

      Some Jews are legitimately confused, believing themselves White, but, Jews are told to feel proud that their ancestors managed to confuse Whites into accepting them as White. Occasionally the claim is put forth that Whiteness does not exist and the Irish used to not be White, but that doesn’t mean that Irish Whites are allowed to feel pride in being accepted as White.

      More importantly, Jews have the other identity as Jews if Whiteness doesn’t work out for them.

      Whites do not. Whites had better get used to Whiteness, because that’s all we will ever have, either in the way hipsters are told to as a parent of a faggot gets used to their child’s faggotry, or in the way hipsters are ending up as accepting Adolf Hitler as their personal lord and savior.

      • Morkyz says:

        It isn’t true that Whiteness is all we will ever have.

        You’re right about the last 50 years thing, but the US is a big and powerful country, so collective struggle still hasn’t really been a thing since the cold war.

  35. […] Hyperborean NRx. Limits of fascism, and nationalism. In defense of deontology. Journalism today. The weekly […]

  36. […] Hyperborean NRx. Limits of fascism, and nationalism. In defense of deontology. Journalism today. The weekly […]

  37. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim”,

    You write -while progressives piss on the working class.-

    The progressives are in fact _replacing_ the working class. The situation has gotten worse and worse in irreversible ways. It’s a genocide, and genocide is forever.

    Remember that having a rainbow coloured society only lasts for so long, and the lighter coloured upper half grows darker each generation.

    A.J.P.

  38. Alan J. Perrick says:

    One thing to keep in mind, “Jim”, you liked the word “cuckservatives” yet it’s mostly those that you would describe as fashy or white nationalist and therefore holding ideological flaws that are using it…Maybe wearing Pro-Whitism on one’s sleeve renders up a proclivity for keeping those dank memes going.

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      Whites will never be at peace with whites. It is not in our nature. Whites are not all one family and are not going to become all one family.

      That said, the immediate threat is indeed a soft genocide – they don’t want white civilization to continue, they don’t want white males to have sex, they want white women to be raped by nonwhites, they don’t want whites to have white children. They want our cities to be burned and ruined as Detroit was burned and ruined, our art and our science to be forgotten, our achievements to be erased.

      Further, although what they now intend is a soft genocide, what they originally intended was mere cultural suppression, the removal of western civilization from university campuses. Ever leftwards movement makes it likely that soft genocide will become hard genocide once white males are sufficiently outvoted. (Single women will of course vote for the winners, vote for rape, rather than for their own race, and marriage has been made a profoundly bad deal, especially for white males, so an ever larger proportion of women will be single, and single women will vote for rape and autogenocide)

      • B says:

        >That said, the immediate threat is indeed a soft genocide

        I doubt it. I share James LaFond’s assessment, that what we’re seeing is not intended as a genocide but as an optimization of livestock management, the final phase of a transition from free range to penned.

        http://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=3682

        White people in America do not need to worry about survival. They need to worry about gaining freedom. To gain freedom, they need to understand what freedom means.

        • pdimov says:

          Occam says nonsense on stilts. The idea that “they” will or can turn race replacement off at the magic number of 40% is laughable, and the relentless promotion of miscegenation and various other degeneracies, as well as the destruction of the family, is not consistent with the hypothesis of livestock management optimization. The goal is white fraction zero for irrational reasons, not white fraction 0.4 for rational reasons.

        • Morkyz says:

          Thanks for introducing me to that blog, but I don’t get how he thinks the state makes decisions.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Jim”, there is no way to find solutions to stopping White Genocide until pro-whites are allowed to safely go into public to build consensus for possible solutions…The anti-white thugs who rule college campuses and other public venues will beat up anyone doing so. And, that’s in the U.S. In Europe, anti-whites simply use good old-fashioned thought police to shut it down…

        A.J.P.

  39. Mark Citadel says:

    Absolutely nothing wrong with the LARPy fashy memetic warfare. It is driving the left insane, however people who are actual 14/88, Aryan Nation activists are literal cancer (also a strange correlation with Jew hoaxes). Be especially wary of people who just became 14/88 to be edgy and fit in somewhere because they were considered retarded everywhere else.

  40. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    If leftoids are aids, Jews are leukemia.

    Regardless of whatever your pet issues or fantasies are for the fate of society, they must start with the restoration of patriarchy, because women (and effeminate men) will instinctually destroy or (((moderate))) any rightful right wing revanchism.

    Regardless of whatever your pet issues or fantasies are for the fate of society, they must start with the exclusion or minimization of Jewish influence, because the tribe will instinctually destroy or (((moderate))) any rightful right wing revanchism (by white people that is).

    Now all you need to do is square that circle.

    • jim says:

      Whites will not succeed in reproducing at replacement with emancipated women.

      Female emancipation preceded substantial Jewish influence.

      • Jack says:

        Jim, your “argument from chronology” doesn’t hold water upon close scrutiny. What you’re saying — and correct me if I misunderstand your position here — is that because female emancipation and abolition preceded Jewish subversion, it follows that Jewish subversion cannot be conceived independently from female emancipation and abolition. That is, you contend that the specific historical background in which Jewish influence flourished obviates the necessity of specifically addressing said Jewish influence, abhorrent as it is, that ostensibly proceeds from it. In your view, Jewish conduct is akin to a thorny “branch” sprouting from the rotten “root” of the Enlightenment, so the branch will naturally wither when the root is decimated.

        The first issue with this argument is that it lacks a definite elucidation of the causal link between female emancipation or abolition of slavery and, say, Marxism, the Jewish theory and the Jewish application thereof. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, with no uncertainty, the exact causative process leading logically from the former to the latter. What’s the causation? Why should Gentile adoption of proto-Progressivism or early Progressivism result in the dictatorship of the proletariat as envisioned by Jewish intellectuals? You can say that it “logically follows”, but you have failed to demonstrate why that is the case.

        The second, more essential hole in your argument, is that it rests on the occurrence of what may or may not be an “historical accident” rather than the immutable, fundamental characteristics of the Jews, which go far beyond high verbal IQ. To see where I’m going with this, look at the various religions of the world and how each nation and tribe interpret and re-interpret their creed (whether adopted voluntarily or imposed by force) according to their own natural inclinations and qualities. Christianity as practiced by Africans is different than the one practiced by Whites, which in turn is different than the one practiced by Asians. The Christianity of the Jewish followers of Jesus was not the same as Roman Catholicism, or the various branches of Protestantism which different European ethnicities have shaped in their own image, according to their own tastes. Likewise, Islam as Persians do it, as Arabs do it, and as Whites do it are all different from one another. Therefore, even if we accept that Leftism began with Gentiles, the distinctly Jewish versions of it cannot be disregarded as “mere conversion”. “Mere conversion” is always a temporal illusion: the convertees do not, ever, replicate the religion the exact way its foreign founders conceived of it; they always transform it into their own brand, and — this is my whole point — amend it to suit their *preexistent* traits.

        To elaborate with further specification, let’s look at it from another angle. I don’t know where your knowledge of Islam comes from, but mine comes from the admittedly biased writings of Robert Spencer and Craig Winn. Well, my conclusion based on the material provided therein is that “an Islam” was inevitable. That is, the individual of Muhammad is less crucial to the development of Islam than the inherent nature of the Arabian tribes. The religion reflects Arab neuro-psychology with unsurprising precision, and it’s quite possible that Muhammad did not even exist, but was invented by Arab warriors or Caliphs to justify their conquests. In short, the original Islam reflects the authentic Arab spirit. This is further indicated by the behavior of secular Arabs; Arabs are not violent because of Islam, rather, it’s vice versa. I believe we agree on this one.

        (Here let me digress and voice my disagreement with Carlyle: the Carlylan — and also Hitlerian — notion of “great men” is utter bullshit. In his view, historical and civilizational progress follow not from slow, small-scale, conservative, gradual changes based on trial-and-error that occur organically, but from the actions of single individuals endowed with exceptional, other-worldly greatness. Well in my view, whatever their achievements, exceptional individuals owe their very existence to the society and historical context of which they are but a product. Nations, on the other hand, are exceptional and unique exactly because they have developed separately over a long enough timeframe, exactly because thousands of years of evolving apart from other races constitute gradual rather than abrupt progress. Exceptional individuals are random noise, random mutants who could only have been born of nations that furnish exceptional qualities, nations that have the evolutionary potential to produce such beings. “Great men” don’t matter in the long-run, only great nations. This is me being more racist than Hitler and more right-wing than Carlyle, you’re welcome, blog.Jim)

        Now given all of the above, how far-fetched is it to conclude that whatever it is that Jews advocate today, it does not simply ensue from any specific historical development, or “accident of history” as I called it above, but from the very nature of this ethnicity? After all, the Jews had been deeply involved in radical Leftism decades before European anti-Semitism culminated in the Holocaust. There must be something else going on here *other* than Jews passively responding to Gentile thoughts and actions. Once this ultimate thoughtcrime is grasped, the Jewish Question, and its answer, must be judged independently from popular Gentile philosophies, must be analyzed as its own phenomenon whose origin predates, is distinct from, and should be addressed regardless of, the predicament of Gentile Progressivism.

        • pdimov says:

          Very good. blog.jack.com when?

        • Irving says:

          >The first issue with this argument is that it lacks a definite elucidation of the causal link between female emancipation or abolition of slavery and, say, Marxism, the Jewish theory and the Jewish application thereof.

          Jim will correct me if I’m wrong, but he never actually posited a direct causal link. What he said is that the decay of Western civilization provided the environment in which Jewish subversion was able to take place. Were Jewish subversion the main problem, than it would have chronologically preceded such things as female emancipation. Yet as the matter stands, the Jews were largely irrelevant up until 200 years ago or thereabouts, when they were emancipated from the ghettos.

          >“Mere conversion” is always a temporal illusion: the convertees do not, ever, replicate the religion the exact way its foreign founders conceived of it; they always transform it into their own brand, and — this is my whole point — amend it to suit their *preexistent* traits.

          Except you’ve forgotten to acknowledge that though race’s may modify whatever religion or ideology they convert to in order to make it compatible with their preexistent characteristics, the religion or ideology they convert to will modify that race’s genes and culture to such an extent that its preexistent traits will be modified in turn. In this case, Jewish subversion doesn’t just subvert Gentile societies, it subverts Jewish identity as well, and this is obvious for anyone who cares to investigate the matter.

          >“an Islam” was inevitable. That is, the individual of Muhammad is less crucial to the development of Islam than the inherent nature of the Arabian tribes. The religion reflects Arab neuro-psychology with unsurprising precision

          This is emblematic of your extremely crude racial-biological determinism. History is much more than just the inevitable working out of each race’s inherent biological characteristics. That race is real doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as contingency in history. For example, it may be that Islam precisely reflects Arab neuro-psychology; but this does not mean that Islam is the only religion that could precisely reflect Arab neuro-psychology. The great man theory of history is valuable because it recognizes that though Muhammed may have instituted a religion that precisely reflected Arab neuro-psychology, the religion of Muhammed would not have been instituted had Muhammed never existed, or if he had died prematurely.

        • jim says:

          In your view, Jewish conduct is akin to a thorny “branch” sprouting from the rotten “root” of the Enlightenment, so the branch will naturally wither when the root is decimated.

          Exactly so. Converso Jews will adopt the new state belief system as easily as they adopted the old.

          Why should Gentile adoption of proto-Progressivism or early Progressivism result in the dictatorship of the proletariat as envisioned by Jewish intellectuals?

          Marx documented his links to his Puritan predecessors, for example the diggers, in copious detail and at great length. In effect he says, at length and in detail, that he is a truer adherent of our official religion than we are.

          Arabs tend to violence, but Christian and Jewish arabs are markedly less violent than Muslim arabs. Conversely, Islamic State is substantially powered by non arab converts.

          Beliefs matter.

          • Irving says:

            >Converso Jews will adopt the new state belief system as easily as they adopted the old.

            It seems as if you’re intent on completely exonerating the Jews from any criticism whatsoever.

            I agree that, for the most part, the subversive Jews among us are converso Jews. But there is, without a doubt, something distinctive about the Jews, something that makes there subversiveness more pernicious than it otherwise would be were we dealing with another group of people. Doubtless part of this is simply due to the higher than average Jewish verbal IQ. But it is also the case that the Jews have always been in conflict with various Gentile peoples, especially white Christian Gentiles. This obviously plays a role in Jewish converso behavior.

            • jim says:

              It seems as if you’re intent on completely exonerating the Jews from any criticism whatsoever.

              Jews are priests by nature. They joined a holiness spiral that was already under way, and were and are disturbingly successful at it.

              The solution is to get rid of the holiness spiral, not the Jews.

              But there is, without a doubt, something distinctive about the Jews, something that makes there subversiveness more pernicious than it otherwise would be were we dealing with another group of people

              Sure. And I think our resident Jewish supremacist B would probably agree with you.

              But the subversion was already plenty pernicious back before the Jews got involved. Incidents such as demonizing the military hero Lord Cardigan, and valorizing the camp following whore Florence Nightingale, and the incident of the Hottentot Venus, were as bad or worse than any recent shenanigans.

          • Irving says:

            >But the subversion was already plenty pernicious back before the Jews got involved. Incidents such as demonizing the military hero Lord Cardigan, and valorizing the camp following whore Florence Nightingale, and the incident of the Hottentot Venus, were as bad or worse than any recent shenanigans.

            This is all very well. But the point that I was making was that though the Jewish subversives may for the most part be ‘conversos’, they bring an intensity to the table that often makes it appear as if they are doing what they are doing with a kind of vindictiveness and malignancy. This isn’t typically the case of non-Jewish subversives. In my experience, Jewish feminists have always been much more shriller and extreme than non-Jewish feminists; Jewish atheists have always been much more strident, especially in their attacks on Christianity, than are non-Jewish atheists; etc.

            At any rate, I have no doubt that all of these Jewish feminists, homosexual rights advocates, media executives, financiers, etc., at least at some level, understand the nature of their activities and positively exult in the fact that they are contributing to the ruin of the people who they think of as their former oppressors.

            The Jewish converso theory is satisfactory in so far as it eschews the tendency of vulgar anti-Semites like Jack to blame everything on Jews. But when taken to far, it tends to completely exonerate the Jews from much of the blame that they deserve.

            • jim says:

              they bring an intensity to the table that often makes it appear as if they are doing what they are doing with a kind of vindictiveness and malignancy. This isn’t typically the case of non-Jewish subversives. In my experience, Jewish feminists have always been much more shriller and extreme than non-Jewish feminists; Jewish atheists have always been much more strident, especially in their attacks on Christianity, than are non-Jewish atheists; etc.

              Difference does not seem sufficient to get all that excited about. Check out the case of the Hottentot Venus.

              Angela Merkel hates Germans and Germany – is viscerally repulsed by them, clearly wishes all Germans and all memory of Germany and all German culture to end with her. Remember her revealing reaction to the German flag. Like a vampire doused with holy water, or exposed to the rising sun.

              Your argument boils down to that non Jewish leftists are fine. They are not fine. Merkel wishes us dead. The Khmer Rouge wished themselves dead, and proceeded to kill each other.

          • Irving says:

            >Your argument boils down to that non Jewish leftists are fine.

            No. Rather, my argument boils down to “non Jewish leftists are bad, but Jewish leftists are very often worse”. And I don’t see how my argument is incompatible with your Jewish converso theory. I don’t understand why you have a problem with it.

            • jim says:

              Sure, Jewish leftists are very often worse, but that is a difference without a difference.

              If all men are created equal then it logically follows that all white males must die. If you believe all men are created equal, you are going to pursue the goal of the death of all white males regardless of whether you are Jewish or not.

            • jim says:

              The left has always been autogenocidal. When the Populares allied with the Samnites that showed they wanted to kill all free Roman males.

              Indeed, cosmocidal. They want to immanentize the Eschaton, and the only way to do that is to kill everyone and destroy everything.

          • Irving says:

            There is one caveat that I would like to add to this Jewish converso theory.

            It is that Jewish subversives, though they may by and large be conversos, apply themselves to their subversive activity with a special kind of intensity that is inordinate and extremely destructive, and that this intensity can only be accounted for by the preexistent hatred that these Jews had before they became conversos.

            For example, the Jews who created the porn industry were undoubtedly conversos. But at the same time, the justified their actions by citing the special hostility they had for Christianity, and they admitted that one of their main motivations was to use porn to undermine Christianity. It is all very well to say that the ruling ideology of the time–progressivism–was also hostile to Christianity, but it is telling that it was only the Jews who went so far as to create the porn industry.

            Your converso theory is, I think, mostly correct, but it would be fully correct if you were to modify it to account for the fact that there is an unusually noxious aspect to Jewish leftism that is generally not seen in non Jewish leftism.

            • jim says:

              Your converso theory is, I think, mostly correct, but it would be fully correct if you were to modify it to account for the fact that there is an unusually noxious aspect to Jewish leftism that is generally not seen in non Jewish leftism.

              Leftism is inherently cosmocidal. This suicidal, destructive, and self destructive tendency is as common as dirt even among the non Jewish left. Granted, the Jewish left is worse, but the difference is nothing to get excited about.

        • ..peppermint says:

          What the hell, what does libertę, egalitę, fraternitę mean other than dictatorship of the proletariat?

          If you can tell me what proto-progressivism is, you’ll probably recognize it as signaling for taking from the White middle class and giving to the Other, either signaling by those very same White middle class men for the purpose of signaling their comfort and reliability, or by women for purity and to appeal to the sexy men.

          And if the proletariat must rule, it must be through direct dictatorship and meritocratic bureaucracy, not a corrupt aristocracy. And if the proletariat should not rule, well, the reason you don’t care about the poor is that you don’t really have enough to support a woman and children.

          • ..peppermint says:

            By the way, my gf thinks I’m vaguely liberal but am above taking sides. Not even taking not my side is a high-status posture.

            Sometimes she suspects me of supporting Trump, because women are very sensitive to what their man likes. When hinted that she thought I was a Trump supporter, she looked betrayed, because she wants to follow me, and also wants to hang out with all the cute people who are accusing a self-made billionaire, the only goy in the top 10 hymietown real estate magnates, of being an idiot, while supporting that worthless commie who says nothing is wrong and “a future to believe in”.

            Saying that something is wrong (make America great again) is low status. Saying the only thing wrong is policies towards niggers and promising socialism is high status.

          • pdimov says:

            L-E-F is the rejection of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. The proletariat hasn’t been invented yet.

          • peppermint says:

            Proletariat hasn’t been invented yet? And the plebs who voted for Gracchus to make Rome great again weren’t “the middle class” either.

          • pdimov says:

            Dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist term; the proletariat under Marxism didn’t include peasants (as those owned their means of production.) The goal of the French revolution was a republic, inspired by the American example, not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

          • peppermint says:

            » Dictatorship of the proletariat is a Marxist term; the proletariat under Marxism didn’t include peasants (as those owned their means of production.)

            nice autism, nerd

            » The goal of the French revolution was a republic, inspired by the American example, not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

            cool story bro

          • pdimov says:

            Well, you could say that the goal of the French revolution was to put the people in power, and the goal of Marxism is to put the proletariat in power, and that therefore they are the same. But not quite. The defining characteristic of the French revolution is rejection of hereditary nobility as illegitimate, and the defining characteristics of Marxism are (1) rejection of private property as illegitimate, and (2) the idea that class trumps nationality.

          • pdimov says:

            “cool story bro”

            Blaming America is high status. I blame America for that.

          • peppermint says:

            the nobles renouncing their titles was the beginning of the French revolution, not the end

            whatever the stated justifications and stated goals are, Occupy Wall Street was at least honest in that it did not have any stated goals, it’s all about signaling

          • pdimov says:

            “the nobles renouncing their titles was the beginning of the French revolution, not the end”

            Once you set the wheel in motion it rarely stops where you’ve liked it to stop; that’s true for all revolutions.

            The question is where those who set it in motion wanted it to stop. I say that they wanted a republic like the American one, and not a communist society without a concept of property.

            “The inspiration and content of the document emerged largely from the ideals of the American Revolution.[5] The key drafts were prepared by Lafayette, working at times with his close friend Thomas Jefferson,[6][7] who drew heavily upon The Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in May 1776 by George Mason (which was based in part on the English Bill of Rights 1689), as well as Jefferson’s own drafts for the American Declaration of Independence.”

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

          • peppermint says:

            » I say that they wanted a republic like the American one, and not a communist society without a concept of property.

            what they wanted was egalitarianism, for the stuff that the rich had to be transferred to the poor through the trusted

          • pdimov says:

            But that’s not what Marxism wants. Marxism wants to abolish ownership, not to equalize it.

    • Morkyz says:

      So we’re going with Stalinism now? Trick the Jews and Leftists into putting into power a strongman who will purge them?

    • peppermint says:

      left_ism is cancer. Jews are HIV that tries to destroy the cultural immune system, which lets leftist memes metastatize from the isolated pockets of degeneracy and spread degeneracy everywhere

Leave a Reply