Trump already remakes the world

Clearly the permanent government is still in control, and Trump is not yet in control. But equally clearly, he is working on it.

With Trump’s election, the Arab Spring died. Suddenly and mysteriously, the mysterious benefactors that enabled Arab subversives to operate from a big important expensive office, stopped funding that big important expensive office.

Simultaneously, Marvel heroes no longer push females doing manly things and sexual deviants doing admirable things. Supposedly this is because of a sudden and mysterious change in public taste, but in fact Spider Girl and Tranny Thor and the rest were always violently unpopular. It is just that until now the official truth was that they were popular, and were bringing in new and more diverse readers.

The Black Lives Matter movement was always a front for the Department of Justice, which is a branch of the United States Government. When Trump was elected, it vanished like smoke, and the numerous incidents of racist cops maliciously gunning down unarmed black male honors students (who dindu nuffin) on their way to choir practice, vanished with it.

When gangs of thugs burned down supermarkets and petrol stations, and forced white people to abandon their houses, that was the Department of Justice in blackface.

With the vanishing of Tranny Thor and the like, has come a similar vanishing of sex incidents in software engineering. Are smart engineers no longer talking down to affirmative action engineerettes in the art harem? Are horny engineers no longer finding excuses to visit the art harem to hit on the affirmative action engineerettes?

When I saw Trump’s tech summit, I noticed that instead of dressing in Silicon Valley expensive dark casual, the summitteers were dressed in job interview formal. I immediately knew that complaints of mansplaining and being hit on by insufficiently high status males (with the subtext that the complainant is entitled to be hit on by higher status males, and in a just and fair society would be considered hot) would no longer receive such a warm hearing. Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

125 Responses to “Trump already remakes the world”

  1. Learner says:

    Hey, he’s not changing immigration, healthcare, infrastructure, education or economic policies. But he’s changing comics and fashion. That surely guarantees a second term!

    • jim says:

      Immigration, healthcare, and such, are downstream of ideas, ideas are downstream of fashion, and Trump is changing the ideas that are being pushed. That there are no more Black Lives Matter dramas make a big difference to crime, affirmative action, and housing costs. That Arab Spring activists no longer have a high status office in a high building with an impressive view over Cairo, and instead a low status office in the back end of crapsville makes a big difference to stability and terrorism in the middle east. It makes overthrowing middle eastern regimes unfashionable and low status.

      Arab Spring is an idea that leads to political instability, terrorism, and the genocide of Christian minorities, an idea that controls who uses guns on whom. Trump has made Arab Spring unfashionable. Similarly Black Lives Matter is an idea that results in whites being ethnically cleansed out of certain neighborhoods, and Trump has extinguished this idea with remarkable suddenness and thoroughness. Since the executive order that created Black Lives Matter was unwritten, Trump could erase it with an equally unwritten executive order, and did so.

      Repeating: Ideas are more powerful than guns, fashions are more powerful than ideas, and Trump is changing fashions.

      • Learner says:

        And comics, Jim. Don’t forget about comics. That surely guarantees a second term!

        • jim says:

          Comics are more powerful than guns.

          • Learner says:

            Yeah, it’s a pity no one talked about fashion and comics during the presidential election campaign. So many promises related to healthcare and trade, so many Nazis talking about death squadrons, so few talking about the only (but decisive) change: fashion and comics!

            • jim says:

              You are just ignorant about those you hate and fear and hope to destroy. We talked one hell of a lot about fashion and comics, as for example the Rabid Puppies, Racefail, and Gamergate. I did not notice anyone talking about death squadrons, but I noticed one hell of a lot of people talking about Gamergate and Rabid Puppies.

              Googling for death squadrons, the only hits I can find are social justice warriors wanking off. Wrong shibboleth. We talk about death squads, not death squadrons – but not nearly as much as we talk about fashion and comics. Only progs talk about death squadrons.

              Death squads are like hitting your woman with a stick. Sometimes it is necessary, but it is better and more effective to make undesirable behaviors and beliefs low status, and we have in fact discussed making undesirable behaviors and beliefs low status far more than we have discussed death squads or hitting your woman with a stick.

              • Learner says:

                I don’t hate you. I don’t fear you. I don’t hope to destroy you. You and your children are intelligent enough to know what’s best for you.

                Some time ago you had Gamergate, now you have whitewashing accusations in Ghost in the Shell. Nothing has changed; especifically, nothing has changed in healthcare and trade policies and nothing has changed in controversies sorrounding the media.

                Well, there is a change: there is a more attention being given to Presidential corruption, since Presidential corruption, nepotism and ties to US enemies (including Saudi Arabia and Russia) are now huge.

                All in all, it’s not exactly what I’d call an accomplishment if I had dreamed about Restoration, Inquisition and the final solution for leftists.

                • jim says:

                  specifically, nothing has changed in healthcare and trade policies

                  Obamacare continues to collapse. That is the kind of change in healthcare I can and do support.

                  Trade policies have changed radically, in that the Transpacific Partnership, in which so many hundreds of billions of dollars were invested, so many lawyers had careers writing regulations, so many international corporations were re-organized for, so many lobbyists received so much money, so many international bureaucrats went on so many trips, is now dead in the water. A horde of Harvard trained lawyers are now without jobs. Enormous numbers of people who previously jetsetted between the world capitals to agree on international business regulation find that they can no longer afford to live in Washington and New York. That is change in trade policy I can and do support.

                  Also, H1B visas have effectively evaporated. I don’t think one person who now has a H1B visa would have qualified under the new rules. There will be something called H1B visas, just as there is still something called marriage, but the H1B visa that we have known and loathed for so long is no longer going to be issued. That is change in trade policy I can and do support.

                  True, the government is still bringing in hordes of black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, and dumping them on marginal electorates in flyover country, but after Friday, Trump no longer has to worry about queering Gorsuch’s judgeship, and will have a free hand to stop this.

                • Learner says:

                  Yes, a trade agreement was not ratified. If it had been ratified, it would have been even worse. That’s a change that didn’t happen.

                  There are many other changes that didn’t happen, including the changes that were supposed to happen. That’s why I told you that Trump won’t be a good nor a bad president. He will just keep on doing nothing. If a foreign country wants an agreement, he will first cash out on it. If Russia wants Crimea, no problem, he will cash out on it. Nothing else. Nothing at all. No Restoration, just a long siesta.

                  Having Trump is like having no government. And that isn’t the worst you could fare, indeed. Oh, and fashion and comics (once you forget about whitewashing accusations, etc.)!

                • jim says:

                  Trump is targeting the levers of power. If he has not wrested control of them yet, reflect on what mighty things he has already accomplished with what little he does control, and also reflect on how many times you counted him out before. Trump was supposedly all washed up a hundred times on his way to the nomination, and supposedly all washed up a hundred times on the way to the presidency.

                  Now he is supposedly all washed up on his way to taking control of the permanent government.

                • Learner says:

                  Time will tell. But this was not an election Trump won, but rather an election Clinton lost with a small push from Putin.

                  It is unfitting for such a longstanding democracy to present somebody’s wife, or somebody’s son, etc. as a candidate for the same office. I am glad that Clinton lost.

                • pdimov says:

                  Nothing has changed, except ties to Saudi Arabia are now huge? Now?

                  You should publish a newsletter so that people could feign interest in subscribing to it.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 If a foreign country wants an agreement, he will first cash out on it. If Russia wants Crimea, no problem, he will cash out on it. Nothing else. Nothing at all. No Restoration, just a long siesta.

                  Can you appreciate how revolutionary the end of the First World ideological bloc is?

                • jim says:

                  The American empire has been running at a loss, in that it has not been run in the interests of America. As a businessman who regards himself as CEO of America incorporated, Trump’s natural instinct is to sell off or abandon underperforming assets.

                • Learner says:

                  @ pdimov. Ties to Arabia Saudi have been huge since at least Bush. Ties to many different, powerful American enemies, like Russia and Saudi Arabia *at the same time*, have never been so huge, nor has so much attention been given to those ties. Trump is very indiscrete in his corruption.

                  @ jim. Trump doesn’t run the American Empire to the interests of the American people, but to his own interest. If China wants a bad deal for America and pays Trump, China will get it. If China wants a good deal for America and doesn’t pay Trump, China and America won’t get it. Bribing Trump makes all the difference.

                • jim says:

                  You are an idiot. Obama entered office without wealth, somehow mysteriously leaves it immensely rich. Trump will almost certainly lose money on being president through neglect of his business interests, though not enough money to make a difference to his ostentatious lifestyle.

                  Trump uses his power and connections to bypass the government, for example privately making peace with Sisi and Duterte. If Trump did all the corrupt things you think he does, what difference would it make to him? Solid gold toilet instead of gold plated? A larger flying palace? Whereas Obama’s mysterious gain of wealth makes a huge difference to Obama’s life.

                • Learner says:

                  @ jim
                  Believe it or not, rich people have been stealing money (through bribes and other corruption) to become mega-rich since the beginning of times. The fact that people in very good democracies like the US forgot what’s commonplace elsewhere speaks for itself.

                  What China can afford to have Trump sign a deal is measured in trillions, not in a couple of millions.

                • jim says:

                  Trump is already mega rich. You think he is going to buy a larger flying palace?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >What China can afford to have Trump sign a deal is measured in trillions, not in a couple of millions.

                  If Trump succeeds, he will possess the fount of all dollars.

                • peppermint says:

                  …maybe the chinks can give Him some authentic Great Wall guardhouse decorations for when He retires to a guard house on the magnificent wall He’s currently ordering construction of.

                  Or maybe His Majesty has no use for more federal reserve notes for Him and His immediate family and as He already has the loyalty of every military age man (oldfags are traitors and need to be interned in Obamacare fema camps if a civil war breaks out) He is looking for greatness.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Ties to many different, powerful American enemies, like Russia and Saudi Arabia *at the same time*, have never been so huge, …”

                  Sure, neither Hillary nor Podesta received a single cent in bribes from the Russians.

                  “… nor has so much attention been given to those ties.”

                  That you pretend to not notice is not an argument in your favor.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Learner says:

                  “Believe it or not, rich people have been stealing money (through bribes and other corruption) to become mega-rich since the beginning of times. ”

                  Yes Learner you’re absolutely correct. Hillary and Obama are both rich due to bribes and they both will run for office for exactly that reason.

                  Trump on the other hand isn’t rich due to bribes and so running for president is a spectacularly stupid strategy for making money. You ignored the specific in favor of the general – this is Corvinus level stupidity “corrected for accuracy – people have been known to accept bribes [Trump is a person, therefore Trump accepts bribes]”.

                • Learner says:

                  @ jim. Money is power. I can’t see Trump saying to himself: “Oh! My family and I already have enough power. I will reject that offer”. Can you?

                  Hey, don’t look at me, look at the evidence.

                  As I said before, just take a look at History or at most of the world right now. You’ll see plenty of examples of billionaires, including self-made billionaires, getting bribes and stealing from their people.

                • jim says:

                  You spend money to get power. Trump just purchased quite a lot of power. No way is he going to sell some power to get some money. Not much point in him buying a bigger flying palace, and he already has enough money to buy another presidency.

                • Learner says:

                  He won’t sell power to get money. He will sell the Americans to get more power, as every other billionaire politician the world has seen.

                • pdimov says:

                  Learner has now discovered that billionaires entering politics are obviously going to be more corrupt than non-billionaires entering politics.

                  You have a gift for the social sciences, Learner. A long and fruitful career awaits.

                  I wonder why you even bother. Are you being paid? It should be obvious that the audience here is not receptive to your professed views, yet you persist. Do you honestly not know that Podesta has received the equivalent of $35 million in bribes from the Russians?

                  “The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1 billion rubles — or $35 million — from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.”

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  One can’t take the Fink out of Stein,
                  But to know matters that truly concern her,
                  To arrive at the source of her whine,
                  One MUST take the ‘a’ out of Learner.

                • Learner says:

                  @ pdimov et al. I wish you good luck. I’d really like the Trump presidency to be successful. I don’t think anybody would benefit otherwise. Time will tell whether your optimism was well grounded.

            • lalit says:

              @Learner you very clearly do not understand Mis-direction. Jim, why are you bothering to reply to him?

  2. lalit says:

    What is it about sticking it to the Man that causes so much pleasure? Watching Trump stick it to the Man has been pure pleasure I say. So shall we give Gorusch 10 months to get confirmed going by how long it took Abbott to bring the courts to heel? Man, that’s a long time to wait, but the longer the wait, the more delicious the denouement, provided said denouement actually happens!

    • jim says:

      The schedule I expect is that Gorsuch gets confirmed pretty soon, probably on Friday of this week. Trump then proceeds to confront the judiciary until he provokes them into doing something sufficiently scandalous, arrogant, unconstitutional, and unpopular, or a long sequence of such acts culminating in something more disgraceful than usual, and then Trump pulls an Andrew Jackson.

      The ten months is how long it takes to get 51% of the the voters into his pocket on pulling an Andrew Jackson.

      People are disappointed, I am disappointed, that he is not pulling an Andrew Jackson already, but if we want judges to be permanently disempowered, then short of dissolving democracy (which I would also like to see) he has to prepare the ground first.

      • Alrenous says:

        Yes.

        Trump needs to prove the judiciary are traitors.
        The voters are dumb, or they would already know.
        But also because they’re dumb, Trump only needs to prove it once. Do it thoroughly and he’s good to go.

        • Cavalier says:

          You know, Moldbug once said that if there was a public vote on whether or not to dissolve USG, and the public voted in favor, that USG would dissolve itself without a doubt.

  3. reactionaryfuture says:

    “the mysterious benefactors that enabled Arab subversives to operate from a big important expensive office, stopped funding that big important expensive office.” – what you find when you delve into the primary sources is quite astonishing on this front. The primary role of Facebook in Tunisia and Egypt has gone seriously overlooked, as has the continuous build up of Democratic activists in these countries in the decades leading up to the Arab Spring. Its all on Wikileaks if you look properly.

    “The Black Lives Matter movement was always a front for the Department of Justice, which is a branch of the United States Government.” This too, can be confirmed from primary sources, especially from a number of Open Society meeting notes from 2015.

    But you are being far, far too optimistic. BLM still has more than $100,000,000 dollars parked behind it, democracy activism is still going to go strong, and you will find that the right wing, including the Pentagon, are actually in on it. Same with political Islam. In fact, often, they are the worse culprits, worse than the State Department by far.

    • jim says:

      The US government is still operating and funding lots of left wing activism, but Arab Spring, Climate Change, and Black Lives Matter have suffered drastic cuts, especially Black Lives Matter.

      Google Quanice Hayes. Tiny protests, and when they turn violent, as they usually do, police come down on them like a ton of bricks.

      Back in the Obama days, Black Lives Matter protests were huge turnouts of astroturf sent there by their government union bosses, and huge turnouts of black thugs eager to assault, loot, and burn without any risk of unpleasant consequences. The police stood back to let them loot and burn, but if business owners attempted to organize collective defense, cops came down on the business owners like a ton of bricks.

      Black Lives Matter still has hundred million dollars or so, but without the State Department and the Department of Justice watching over the funds to make sure they are used to drive white people from their homes, and continually replenishing the funds, the funds will swiftly be stolen and embezzled, if they have not been already, because those operating the campaign are merely mercenaries, with no real loyalty for it or enthusiasm for it. It is like the last days of communism. People do not really believe any more, they are merely driven by fear of punishment and hope of reward.

      • reactionaryfuture says:

        Lets get serious here. What Trump and his administration are is summarized by the following paragraph from American Greatness:

        “The Alt-Left largely dismisses the old liberal idea of 1960s Civil Rights. Liberals once promoted integration and the goal of an American melting pot empowered by the time-honored traditions of racially blind integration, assimilation, and intermarriage. The liberal goal once was a common American culture and experience where race became subsidiary. Yet we hear little from liberals any more about non-discrimination and integration. Instead, preference, diversity, and segregated safe spaces become the new discriminatory and reparatory agendas.”
        https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/02/what-is-the-alt-left/

        Cuckoldry, men dancing on the street in womens panties, a bag of dildos in every kindergarten, an ethic scumbag banging your daughter because “classical liberalism” – the American dream.

        This is what we will get from him, and any cretinous shitty little democratic party premised on conservatism/ classical liberalism/ ring wing “theory.” The left has its flavor of stupid shit, and the right has its version which is just as bad, if not worse for being more stupid for various reasons. When the right gets in, they go on their little holy crusade to force mini-skirts everywhere, or force Islam everywhere on the premise of religious freedom ala Locke, or some new monstrous form.

        Nixon, Thatcher, Nelson Rockefeller, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, take your pick of “right wing” heroes, total scum the lot. Trump is no different, and cannot be any different unless he goes for the jugular and effectively wipes out the republican structure. I see no inclination to do so. I see the usual restore the Republic theory at base. See the American greatness article for that.

        • jim says:

          Googled up the latest action of the Trump regime, as progs so delightfully call it. He is sinking a consent decree in Baltimore, unfederalizing law enforcement, which means that Baltimore progs, to their horror, have to take the heat for allowing and encouraging Baltimore thugs to rape and murder white Baltimore voters. Cuckoldry and all that is downstream of culture, and Trump is doing what Reagan failed to do, targeting the levers of the culture.

          Will he fail? Probably, but he is giving it a damned good try and is having major impact.

          Trump is no different, and cannot be any different unless he goes for the jugular and effectively wipes out the republican structure.

          Trump is different, but you are right he cannot succeed unless he goes for the jugular and effectively wipes out the republican structure. But I think that there is a real prospect that force of events will lead to him going for the jugular and effectively wiping out the republican structure. He intends to do something about the power of judges, which is a good start on wiping out the republican structure.

          The State Department is preparing a color revolution against him. War approaches, internal or external, and very likely both.

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          Why are you always so angry and bitter with regards to libertarians and classical liberals? Did one happen to screw your wife? Mother? Sister?

          • Michael Rothblatt says:

            I mean classical liberalism in America existed from 1783 to 1861, and if you were a consistent absolutist, you would blame king George for allowing independence to happen (i.e. failing to prevent it) rather than blaming some two-bit nobody scribbler like Locke. Who allowed Locke to live, write, and publish in the first place? King Charles. Again if you were a consistent absolutist you would blame kings for failing to address subversives in their domain, like it is father that is to be blamed when his children misbehave.

            • reactionaryfuture says:

              “Again if you were a consistent absolutist you would blame kings for failing to address subversives in their domain, like it is father that is to be blamed when his children misbehave.” I do. I blame every person who has had power in the west, and every person currently in power for failing to understand the nature of what is going on fully, and instead of just riding it, fixing it.

              As for liberals and classical liberals, I consider them the most dangerous, destructive and confused collection of people to ever grace the Earth. Everything they advocate is an existential threat. Their entire political theory is premised on destroying everything but the State and dragging us down to an individual based primitivism, and then claiming all the benefits that occur from the State’s actions as a result of the State’s centralizing on the back of the destruction they provide cover for, all the while screaming about the bad parts.

              • Michael Rothblatt says:

                I don’t know man. Ancien Regime throughout the most of Europe had already degenerated into corrupt and inefficient cleptocracies very much reminiscent of the West today. America from 1783 to 1861 was objectively a pretty good place to be. Objectively better than any other place in the world, in fact. Therefore it doesn’t follow that classical liberals are anything particularly destructive, despite holding some fundamental errors. Many a reactionary monarchy collapsed in an orgy of decadence, so why would we expect anything more from an objectively worse system of government? There’s nothing special about current state of affairs. Civilizations rise and fall. There will be no restoration, because there’s nothing to restore, only to build new, so deal with it. Present state of affairs only seems tragic to us, because we’re living under them. In time, new civilizations will rise, and, of course, fall.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 Ancien Regime throughout the most of Europe had already degenerated into corrupt and inefficient cleptocracies very much reminiscent of the West today.

                  Many monarchies were healthy before WWI. Only the bad ones were able to survive by swearing loyalty to the current versions of christcuckoldry.

                  》 There’s nothing special about current state of affairs

                  we have anonymous and pseudonymous free speech, we have evolution and game theory to destroy cucked philosophy

                  》 Therefore it doesn’t follow that classical liberals are anything particularly destructive

                  Signaling cucks only harm themselves until they gain the power to harm everyone. That’s why they need to be mocked early and often. Classical liberals are scum and their ideas are fantasy and bullshit, and only got a hearing because people were too muddle headed from the christcuckoldry.

                • Cavalier says:

                  And yet the Ancien Régime never conscripted its military-aged males and sent them to die in the Russian snows.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Classical liberalism has a point: purely hereditary hierarchy doesn’t work because of large variance in heritable characteristics and mean reversion of heritable characteristics. After the first generation, you end up with the wrong people in all the different castes, and after several generations it’s so bad that the lower castes have many more aristocratic people in them than the aristocratic castes, and then you have revolution.

                  Slavery was broadly fair. On a group level, blacks couldn’t and can’t manage things like their own finances, choice of job, maintenance of residence, etc. But at the same time, some blacks could, and some whites couldn’t.

                  Monarchy doesn’t work because only the first king will be fit to rule. You need an aristocratic caste ruling, not an individual, with both upward and downward mobility. The Restoration British Parliament up to Second Reform is the closest humanity ever came to it, and if the British electors of 1860 had had enough asabiya they would probably have repopulated the whole world by now.

                • jim says:

                  The Vietnamese aristocracy looked pretty damned cool to me. Seemingly all the really smart Vietnamese are of aristocratic descent, and most Vietnamese of aristocratic descent are really smart. Reversion to the norm is real, but it does not go all the way back to the norm. Most aristocracies don’t go purely on primiogeniture. Minor aristocrats and bastards get promoted, major aristocrats find themselves ignored and gradually impoverished. Aristocracies do not form in a single selection event, and then go on a purely hereditary basis for ever after.

                  Rather, if you have a fertile patriarchal administrative class, they start running the state as a jobs program for their children, and over generations gradually become an aristocracy. It takes a couple of hundred years before an aristocracy realizes it is an aristocracy, and starts consciously worrying about noble blood.

                  So if your state starts out somewhat meritocratic, you wind up with a governing elite that is not just a random selection of the great great grandchildren of men who were competent a hundred years ago, but rather men selected from the children of those who were competent, and whose ancestors were also competent.

                  We already have a semi hereditary military class. If the military start ruling, it will become even more hereditary, and the officers even more so, and in a hundred years or so … aristocracy.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >Monarchy doesn’t work because only the first king will be fit to rule.

                  Monarchy does work. But you need Roman\Chinese model based on Mandate of Heaven, and not Western European one based on hereditary Divine Right. Then anyone can become a monarch, and when rebellions happen they are always against the person currently occupying the office, and not against the office itself, thereby ensuring that result of successful rebellion is never revolutionary overturn of the social order, but rather the installation of the most capable man into the office. This also ensures that there’s no inbreeding, and thus no Charles II of Spain in the office. This made eastern Roman Empire and Chinese Empire among the longest lasting states of all time, despite somewhat frequent dynastic change.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The mandate of heaven meaning retroactive legitimation of whoever wins the constant civil wars. Not good either. Rome was a chaotic mess. I don’t know much about Chinese history but the reason is that Chinese history isn’t very important.

                  Parliamentary government – peaceful civil wars – is fundamentally a good idea. The problem is permitting expanding the franchise as a tactic.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The best system of all is the free market. In the free market, incompetent people smoothly lose their property, and competent people acquire it. Government, as a whole, tends to be a problem. But there has to be a government. The government should consist of property owners, to reduce the incentive to loot, but should not define who is a property owner, or incompetent aristocracy and red revolution results. Not an easy problem.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >Rome was a chaotic mess.

                  Not really, no. For a thousand years they were a buffer that has kept the Mahometan beast at bay, the wall that allowed the Western Europe to develop in relative safety.

                  >Chinese history isn’t very important

                  Vulgar provincialism on your part.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >The best system of all is the free market.

                  Rome and China were free-market, Western Europe was feudal. Rome was free-market for pragmatic reasons, China had a philosophical devotion to laissez-faire, and for a thousand years China was one of the richest and the most developed civilizations in the world. The eastern Roman Empire and China during some periods were so rich that they found it easier to just pay off the invanders than fight them.

                • peppermint says:

                  The franchise needs to be tied to the rifle and the household if we have voting.

                  Hereditary monarchies are a good idea. Divine right led to kings not of the people, but the true king of a kin must be of that kin. The true king can be a normal or even an unintelligent person because he and his court can pick a prime minister.

                  The fascisms that were destroyed by kings were destroyed by rootless cosmopolitans having little to nothing to do with the people who were given power instead of taking it and consequently gave it to the First World as soon as possible.

                  A country is never rich enough to pay invaders instead of destroying them. The wealth of a country is not in possessions but in the valor of it’s men.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “The Restoration British Parliament up to Second Reform is the closest humanity ever came to it”

                  Two words: Venetian Republic; three more: (with elective monarchy).

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  If the prime minister is smarter than the king, the prime minister is king.

                  That is fine provided that the prime minister is selected from a caste of meritorious aristocrats with asabiyah. But then let us call the state what it is: a constitutional republic with restricted franchise.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >America from 1783 to 1861 was objectively a pretty good place to be.

                  Classical liberalism created a sparsely-populated continent full of unexploited resources and then wiped out most of the few people living there? It must be a very impressive political philosophy.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  @ContaminatedNEET

                  Whole of Europe was sparsely populated. The problem was that in Europe unowned land was king’s, and you couldn’t homestead king’s land.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  In England, reform was pushed through by armed mobs of proles assembled by Whig/Liberal elites. The purpose of the House of Lords should have been to provide troops to suppress these accumulations and that of the king to coordinate and command them.

                  Reform happened because William IV was not prepared to die on the battlefield to prevent a change in the constitution that would pose relatively little personal threat during his lifetime.

                  Hereditary monarchy can be a useful flourish if the king can be guaranteed to act out his role as captain of the aristocracy. But practically every left singularity has begun with a moderate leftist king giving way enough to be devoured by extreme leftists.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Classical liberalism created a sparsely-populated continent full of unexploited resources and then wiped out most of the few people living there? It must be a very impressive political philosophy.

                  Well if it did all that, we need another one for Mexico, Central, and South America, one for SEAsia, one for India, one for Africa, and one for the Middle East.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Free market of power is a non-starter because the other word for a free market of power is civil war.

                  Only Slave owning patriarchal kings are the true anarcho-capitalists.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The Vietnamese aristocracy looked pretty damned cool to me.”

                  Maybe cause they’re Chinese? Lmao. Are you also surprised South African rich people have a way higher IQ than the poor there?

                • reactionaryfuture says:

                  1) There’s nothing special about current state of affairs.

                  There is plenty special about the current state of affairs. We have systematized a form of governance based on internal conflict which is deranged. We live in the exact state of affairs celebrated by classical liberals. That its maintenance as a “balanced” constitution failed is ascribed not to the impossibility of the design, but to nefarious forces.

                  2) Napoleon was an absolute monarch, RectionaryFuture’s dream come true, not a representative of male property owners.

                  I don’t misrepresent your position. I don’t understand why you continue to misrepresent mine. I don’t consider him to have had secure power at all.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >There is plenty special about the current state of affairs.

                  What?!? Never before in history have utopian schemes existed? Never before in history has a regime failed? Never before in history has a civilization fallen? The only thing unique is modern technology which allows for things never before possible.

                  >I don’t misrepresent your position.

                  Huh… that’s a new one. Misrepresenting is the only thing you do.

                  >I don’t consider him to have had secure power at all.

                  Secure power in your definition, or in Moldbug’s? Secure power in your definition doesn’t exist. It’s nothing but a shibboleth. As for Moldbug’s, secure power in Moldbug’s definition is the opposite of your definition. For Moldbug secure power means that sovereign can enact whatever policy he likes. For you secure power means Juche.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “We live in the exact state of affairs celebrated by classical liberals.”

                  This is an outrageous misrepresentation. Classical liberalism would involve a constitutionally limited government and a male property owner suffrage, not an out of control bureaucracy whose legitimacy rests on buying votes and brainwashing young children.

                  Reactionaries have a point that classical liberals were far too trusting in the masses but it’s not as if the 19th century right did not contribute to the disaster of leftism. It wasn’t the liberals who were funding the “socialists of the chair” and moaning about how bad the “satanic mills” were.

                • pdimov says:

                  “This is an outrageous misrepresentation.”

                  Not that outrageous.

                  “Classical liberalism would involve a constitutionally limited government…”

                  Exactly. Limited, passive voice. Who is the subject of the sentence here? Someone who has power to limit the government. Hence divided power. Hence consequences. Hence random judges in Hawaii overturning President’s orders.

                • peppermint says:

                  Problem: classical liberalism leads to expanding franchise and Boomers shouting inane slogans to each other while voting for the same Jews

                  But Wait: some of those Boomers are conservatives, not liberals, so it isn’t a failure of classical liberalism

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  If you think the problem began with boomers you need to read more history.

                  The fact is that without divine right as a political formula, the reactionary regimes had no ideology that could legitimize their rule. Classical liberalism replaced them, was much better than them, and had a good run for a hundred years, but due to its over-trust of the masses, also failed. But without classical liberalism, the result would not be a restoration but a New Deal in 1828 instead of 1928.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >This is an outrageous misrepresentation. Classical liberalism would involve a constitutionally limited government and a male property owner suffrage, not an out of control bureaucracy whose legitimacy rests on buying votes and brainwashing young children.

                  It must be mentioned that classical liberalism is not some monolithic political ideology, but rather an umbrella term encompassing all kinds of stuff. Thus, not all ‘classical liberals’ were Lockeans, nor were all ‘classical liberals’ constitutional republicans. Indeed, many were monarchists of one kind, or another. Doesn’t really matter, because contrary to RF, their errors weren’t just structural (and in case of classically liberal monarchists excluding Hobbes weren’t structural at all), their errors are functional. Though they were right about great many things, they were wrong about the fundamentals for there can be no freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and most of all no freedom of religion (because secularism and religious tolerance imply that society has no guiding purpose).

              • Michael Rothblatt says:

                >And yet the Ancien Régime never conscripted its military-aged males and sent them to die in the Russian snows.

                1) What does American old republic have to do with crazy French nationalism?

                2) Napoleon was an absolute monarch, RectionaryFuture’s dream come true, not a representative of male property owners.

                • peppermint says:

                  Hey cool! Lenin and Pol Pot were also absolute monarchs, therefore absolute monarchy is basically autogenocide.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “I don’t know man. Ancien Regime throughout the most of Europe had already degenerated into corrupt and inefficient cleptocracies very much reminiscent of the West today.”

                  Dude A: The Ancien Régime deserved to die because it was corrupt and inefficient, or whatever. Fortunately, it was brought down by men shouting “liberty, egality, fraternity!”. Those guys couldn’t have been so bad, right?

                  Dude B: Dude, what followed the death of the Ancien Régime was guillotines, regicide, the Reign of Terror, the deification of Reason as a goddess (femme fatale, lol), and Napoleon, who ended the traditional European practice of using professional armies by conscripting every man he could get his hands on and then spending the next decade in a series of bloody and catastrophic conflicts which, by the time they had ended, had killed a million Frenchmen. “This represents 38% of the conscription class of 1790–1795”, so sayeth La Wik.

                  Dude A: Oops, maybe ending Ancien Régime rule might have been a bad idea.

                  Dude B: Just cross your fingers that the next regime change isn’t so horrifying.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >The Ancien Régime deserved to die

                  Don’t put words in my mouth. Who said it deserved to die? That it was corrupt and inefficient was a statement of fact. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a lesser evil.
                  My point is mainly that it probably wouldn’t have died if it wasn’t corrupt.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Squid ink. You’re using the liberal definition of “corruption”.

                • peppermint says:

                  it was corrupted in my estimation as an nationalist when royalty merged into one family set apart from and upon every nation like the Jew itself

                  and before then, as an ethnonationalist, when marriage between royal families of different nations and subraces set the king necessarily against the kin

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >You’re using the liberal definition of “corruption”.

                  If every moralist who has ever lived is liberal, then yeah, sure.

  4. Alrenous says:

    Topic Status: OFF

    So Jim, when I said there’s oestrogen in the literal water supply, I meant there’s literally oestrogenoids in the water supply making people gay.

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/848907310172966912

    Birth control pills contain progesterone. They aren’t completely digested and enough ends up in the water to make hermaphrodite fish. If there’s enough to change the fish, humans drinking that water will also be affected.

    • Cavalier says:

      Isn’t that stuff somehow cleaned out of the water by the time a human turns on the tap?

    • lalit says:

      Progesterone? Progesterone? Progesterone is making men gay? I thought you made up the name progesterone! I thought you were being sarcastic. Are you shitting me? Jesus (sorry peppermint, you know I’m no Xtian), the jokes are literally writing themselves these days.

  5. Theshadowedknight says:

    The reason you have AltRight types complaining about Trump is because it holds a mirror up to them, shines a light on them. They have been whining and doing nothing for decades, and talking like this was inevitable. Trump’s successes reveal their failures. They would rather go without what they want than to be shown to be fools.

    That and purists who would rather have nothing than have half of something. All or nothing, and no attempts at compromise or incremental changes.

    The Shadowed Knight

    • pdimov says:

      We don’t have alt-right types complaining about Trump.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        Here’s Spencer himself despairing, if not complaining, and just four days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frr1wIbqnUw

        Such cyclical despair over Trump has been common in the Alt Right for all 22 months now since the candidacy announcement.

        To me, it simply underscores a glitch in the structure of humanity: the very people who can both notice something is drastically wrong and publicly declare it, have too high an IQ/dominance ratio to attain power. That was the Alt Right before Trump, from a Sailer, who ultimately was vindicated with tremendous influence but never temporal power, to various leaders in the trenches, struggling to maintain morale in all us people who ‘comprehend a nectar’ by dint of sorest need.

        Only a Trump could change the world for us. But even he can’t change ourselves.

        • jim says:

          Spenser is not despairing, and indeed is counseling against despai:

          “For God’s sake, we are not even a hundred days in.”

          “Making declarations of despair is completely stupid”

          “The status quo is being disrupted, and this is an opening”

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Hope you’re right, but then Spencer should’ve started stronger than ‘Yes Trump is in crisis and frankly I don’t see a way out.’

            He should be reading Jim. I doubt he is, or he wouldn’t waffle so much.

  6. Glenfilthie says:

    You’ve attributed all these noble accomplishments to Trump. I don’t deny that it happened; I just wonder what the mechanism is, and if you have seen it in action.

  7. Turtle says:

    I feel that everyday people’s shifting political behavior is a key thing. They are regressing from their libtarded platitudes, offending their lgbt-qtpie friends, dumping minorities in general, and acting like white men are great again. That’s the sociobiology-level shift- Trumpening demographically. So next, I think:

    homeschooling and charter schools will crush the teachers’ unions

    once Trump releases churches from the political activity ban, they will end prog theology, both by opposing and counterproductively supporting it

    once Trump ends nonprofit status for his enemies, they will shrink back to rank violence

    once Trump finishes investigating everyone else’s ties to Russia, he will do a super-big speech exposiing their dangerous hypocrisy,demanding resignations from Schumer, Pelosi, etc.

    the Clintons will finally be arrested

    local political bodies, like school boards, will have recalls

    sports will be reformed- national anthem sung by choirs, athletes without tattoos, no lesbian-leagues

    a baby boom, once pregnancy is sexy again

    white working class ‘despair deaths’ will end

    new Vegas-alternatives, like Branson, Missouri, will emerge out of a mix of anti-corporate sentiment and annoyance with the western region’s libertine issues

    urban SWPL areas will lose status, especially once they lose the sanctuary city battles, so suburbs will gain prestige, and ranchers, oil rig operators, electricians, etc. will replace lawyers and doctors

    many law and medical schools will close, and be replaced with needed, cost-effective, fair apprenticeships

    instead of barring them from employment, Trump will remove invaders from cell phone service, housing, sending remittances to 3rd world countries, etc.- refusing service is easier done than disemployment of ‘hard-working Americans’

    new literary classics- no more CIA-run journals and publishing, no more misunderstood McCarthyist Cat in the Hat (Karl Marx, I think), more Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose (an obvious parody by “Dr. Seuss”, an outstanding propagandist, of being overly generous to parasites)

    what Trump promised, from clearing out gangs with the military, and punishing abortionists, to registering Muslims

    more cultural shifts, like former CNN watchers switching to Fox, and radio stations going back to 80’s new wave-rock music

    More Trump grandchildren, year after year, eventually including Tiffany being an “asset” for marriage, perhaps to royalty, perhaps to an ally’s son, maybe some Netanyahu Jr. or a billionaire’s son

    the Trump Organization growing, gaining new market shares, perhaps entering resource extraction, soft drinks, housing, developing whole urban areas

    corporations giving up on their prog agendas, because of boycotts and dissension

    no more sluttiness at the Super Bowl, more MAGA propaganda than beer ads

    And the middle class will hire their neighbor’s kids to do chores, not illegals.

    Sounds too optimistic, right? But any of the above would be very nice indeed. We don’t need all improvements at once, we can be patient.

  8. TTAAC says:

    Other encouraging headlines:

    “Rex Tillerson in Turkey: Future of Assad Regime ‘Will Be Decided by the Syrian People’”

    “Sessions orders Justice Department to review all police reform agreements”

    “White House tells ABA it won’t be asked to review lower court judicial candidates before nomination”

    • jim says:

      “White House tells ABA it won’t be asked to review lower court judicial candidates before nomination”

      I did not see that one. That is close to tanks in the street. The ABA is the synod of the priesthood of the permanent government. It is Harvard in robes.Trump is telling the Papacy he will appoint his own Bishops.

      Charles the first said “No Bishop, no King” – meaning that if he did not get to appoint Bishops, he was not King of England, and this led directly to the English civil war, a war over Bishops. Trump demands to appoint America’s Bishops.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “The ABA is the synod of the priesthood of the permanent government. It is Harvard in robes.Trump is telling the Papacy he will appoint his own Bishops.”

        All true – but where is Trump getting his Bishops? The Federalist Society? Sure, it’s an improvement but not Trump’s Bishops.

  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    “Repeating: Ideas are more powerful than guns, fashions are more powerful than ideas, and Trump is changing fashions.”

    “…and Trump is doing what Reagan failed to do, targeting the levers of the culture.”

    Excellent notices there.

    Indeed indeed. All of these staged/composed photos and short movies from Don’s Twitter feed are surely pressing “status buttons” that I don’t even know that I have.

    Like for example, your notice of how pulling the plug on TPP put hundreds of super-status international corporate lawyers out of work, thus de-statusing them. Status Warfare makes itself known once again.

    I wish I could watch this unfolding history with a Hollywood movie producer/stylist/production-designer at my side. He would notice what I can’t.

    Don is playing a higher-level game than most people can even detect being played. But I’m trying to learn this stuff, I really am.

    • lalit says:

      Modi is playing a similar game in India. I suspect Duterte in Philippines and Abe in Japan are playing the same game. Abe of course is a lot more subtle, being Japanese.

      • peppermint says:

        Tell me about Modi’s universal civil code. He wants to execute halal butchers for selling beef and not pork?

        • lalit says:

          Tell me more about this question of yours. Are you merely baiting me or are you outraged at the mere hint that Modi could possibly equal the Brilliance of God-Emperor Trump?

          • peppermint says:

            I heard from a Brahmin expat that there’s a universal civil code coming along and it’s going to be like horrible for human rights or whatever

            • Lalit says:

              That’s quite interesting. Because I hear from an American prog expat here that trump is going to destroy America and take it back to the Stone Age.

              The Universal civil code in India merely proposes to place the same restrictions on Muslims that it currently places on Hindus, Sikhs, Jain’s, Buddhists, Jews, Zoroastrians, Animists, Nature worshippers, Atheists etc. I can see why that Brahmin expat would tell you that it is going to be like horrible for human rights or whatever because all Good progs know that only Progs and Muslims are humans, obviously!

              If you have the God-Emperor’s ear, may I suggest one more addition to the Helicopter-Ride list?

  10. Mister Grumpus says:

    In other news, please someone explain to me how
    o (((Jared-K)))’s trips to the Middle East
    o T-Rex saying nice things about NATO
    o Our Man Bannon getting kicked off the security council
    o Don saying mean things to Syria

    …are all part of Don’s latest 88-dimensional move to head-fake his opposition into victory-dancing into the helicopters.

    Because boy do I hope so. I just can’t connect the dots together under my own power.

    • jim says:
      1. Trump’s plan is that Israel can be Jewish, but they have to give up the Holocaust. Not sure that Jews will buy it, but if they do, it is a good deal for us.
      2. Not seeing nice things about Nato. Trump’s attitude to the US empire has always been that it is money losing business, and you know how he is about money losing businesses.
      3. Bannon not kicked off the security council. He can still attend if he feels like, but he was there to keep an eye on McMaster to smell him out to see if he was loyal to Trump. Has given a clean report on McMaster, so not needed there any more. Bannon is the political commissar, and McMaster is the regular commissar.
      4. Saying mean things about Syria is a strategic retreat, until the guys who really did the Sarin are exposed. Recall Trump on anti semitic threats. 3D Chess. Totally opposed to anti semitic threats while sending the FBI to hunt down the hoaxer.
      • Alrenous says:

        When managing your little dudes, you want to give them focused responsibilities. You want all their peak working hours applied to top priorities with no distractions. Every time you can reduce their responsibilities is a win time.

        I can think of exceptions but they obviously don’t apply anywhere near this particular issue.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “Saying mean things about Syria is a strategic retreat, until the guys who really did the Sarin are exposed. Recall Trump on anti semitic threats. 3D Chess. Totally opposed to anti semitic threats while sending the FBI to hunt down the hoaxer.”

        If – as everyone suspects – the attack was a false flag by CIA / State and their proxies it’s even better than a strategic retreat.

        Trump states how horrible the attack was – the media is suckered into repeating his statements and covering the attacks because it feels like a win for their agenda. Trump then loudly and publicly pulls out the rug. It gets ten times the notice that it would have if he didn’t talk up how horrible the attacks were.

      • peppermint says:

        The headline “Bannon kicked off” is now evidence that Kushner was leaking stuff. If he keeps it up he’s getting fired.

        I hope His Majesty lets the legacy media call for another Middle Eastern war for a week, then reveals it was ISIS, connects this to their lies about Iraq, and fires H-1b ambassador Nikki Haley.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Excellent work gents.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Scott Adams noted during the campaign that a Master Persuader may not be an expert in climate science, or space travel, or macroeconomic theory, or whatever…

          …but he IS expert — better than anyone — at detecting bullshit and scams. If there’s one thing Don’s got 10,000 hours at it’s sniffing out bullshit and scams.

          And my C-grade corollary to this:
          A master persuader ALSO know how to expose and educate other people on the scams he detects. Mr. Adams calls this “pace first, then lead.”

          So he’s “pacing” Mom and Pop and Cousin Susie back home right now on this BS has attack business. Don smells the BS, but he can’t just call BS right away because that would make him look mean/heartless, and people would reject him. This is why spergies never hold office.

          He knows how to spoon-out the lies, as he “discovers” them himself in slow-motion, so that when Mom and Pop and Cousin Susie are ready to be outraged at These Filthy J-Words screwing with them, our “entry character” King Don will angrily name our betrayer.

          At least that’s what I expect and hope for.

  11. Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

    Klaxon alarm, red alert, the (((neocon world))) is remaking Trump right back.

    President Donald Trump said Wednesday that it is now his responsibility to resolve the humanitarian and political crisis in Syria as he opened the door to military action in the country. Trump upped the ante in a Rose Garden press conference after having said earlier in the day that the the chemical weapons attack is a ‘terrible affront to humanity.’

    ‘My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,’ Trump declared, suggesting with the statement that he may be reconsidering his directive to US diplomats to take their focus off removing Bashar al-Assad from power.

    The ‘horrible, horrible’ sarin gas attack that killed small children and ‘beautiful babies’ had a ‘big impact’ on the president, who declared Wednesday that the attack ‘crossed a lot of lines.’ ‘When you kill innocent children, innocent babies…with a chemical gas that is so lethal…that crosses many, many lines. Beyond a red line,’ Trump said, making reference to Barack Obama’s infamous 2012 threat to Assad.

    • jim says:

      Russia says, and I believe, that this was an attack on a rebel chemical weapons factory. Trump has announced he is jumping to the politically correct conclusion, because he is under pressure for the alleged Russian connection. Let us see if he actually has.

        • jim says:

          The argument is that the warehouse would not have any Sarin ready to use, because Sarin has a short shelf life, and is made up shortly before use. But it is not made on the front line, not made immediately before use, it is made near the front line, a few days or weeks before use – which is to say, the kind of place that the Russians were bombing.

          He argues both that the supply chain is too short for there to be Sarin in the warehouse, and that the supply chain is too long, complex, and advanced. The final step in making Sarin is simply mixing a dangerous and extremely toxic liquid with another, to produce an even more toxic, but shorter lived liquid, the kind of thing one would do in a warehouse near the front line.

          • Turtle says:

            https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/63ow5i/guys_listen_to_me_the_syrian_chemical_attack_was/

            Red flags on the idea that Syria perpetrated this, in no particular order:

            Syria, with Russia’s help, is winning against ISIS. Why would Assad use chemical weapons when he has nothing to gain and everything to lose?

            This comes on the heels of the Dirty Rice Scandal

            This comes the day before an international conference about the situation in Syria.

            The USA, Syria, and Russia all concluded that the chemical weapons had been destroyed.

            Sarin is fucking nasty, and it sticks around for a while. The White Hats showed up without any protection immediately after the chemical weapons had been deployed. They should be dead, along with the victims.

            We know the “Moderate Rebels” have no compunctions about using chemical weapons themselves so long as they have a supplier. We also know that the US has funded these rebels through the CIA with resources, money, and weapons.

            An anti-Assad reporter tweeted about a media campaign covering the use of chemical weapons by Assad a full day before it happened.

            https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/63p28q/the_plot_thickens_disgraced_dr_drshajulislam/

            The Plot Thickens: Disgraced Dr. @DrShajulIslam Received Gas Masks Two Days Before “Chemical Attack” in Al Qaeda Held #Idlib. The Propaganda Continues.

            So… these dangerous theatrics are sloppy. McCain won’t be re-elected ever again, that’s for sure.

            • TTAAC says:

              Basic question: If Ghouta and Idlib were both “false flags,” why do the rebels ONLY use these WMD against THEMSELVES?

              • Alrenous says:

                Read more novels. I’ve seen this a few times, though admittedly not in real life.

                So, you gas your internal political opponent with a false flag implicating your external opponents. Cathedral comes down like a ton of bricks on your external opponent. Two birds.

                So what’s actually going on? Probably something a hundred times messier. I was reading some real USG politics recently. Mein gott. Twenty dimensional spaghetti code. Puts the Byzantines to shame.

              • pdimov says:

                Because they are given those “WMDs” – which aren’t WMDs at all – for the specific operation.

              • Anonymous says:

                >Basic question: If Ghouta and Idlib were both “false flags,” why do the rebels ONLY use these WMD against THEMSELVES?

                What Pdimov said. USG supplies the rebels with operational Sarin gas to be used against the Assad’s army, then spreads rumors of the impending attack among Syrian Military Intelligence, so Assad has no choice but to bomb them. Now if Assad fails to bomb them, they gas his soldiers, and the “international community” somehow ends up not hearing a word of it. If he preempts, as they expect him to do, then it gives them the pretext to oust him. The timing seems exactly right, too.

  12. John Rocker says:

    > With the vanishing of Tranny Thor and the like, has come a similar vanishing of sex incidents in software engineering.

    What about Susan Fowler and the Uber scandal?

    If anything, Silicon Valley has dialed the hysteria up to 11.

    • jim says:

      Never heard of her. On googling Susan Fowler Uber, I find … “former Uber employee”

      No doubt she is dialing the hysteria up to eleven, but she is not Silicon Valley. Uber is Silicon Valley. Seems she used the standard sexual harassment schtick, and they failed to respond by giving her a promotion and a leather jacket. So she resigned and sued them.

      • John Rocker says:

        > Never heard of her.

        She is the talk of the town among the right-thinking set in Silicon Valley. They have seized on this story as proof of their narrative. At least one Uber executive has been forced out.

        She hasn’t filed a lawsuit yet, only a blog post. Probably covered by a mandatory arbitration agreement anyway.

        There is no Trump effect here, at least not yet. The insanity continues to escalate.

        • jim says:

          The Trump effect is that she screamed “sexual harassment, therefore give me a promotion and a leather jacket”, and got neither the leather jacket nor the promotion.

          • pdimov says:

            The Trump effect hasn’t yet settled in when she did the blog post. It takes time. Will take time. That Trump does not yet appear secure in his power doesn’t help.

            It’s not ideas or fashions that are more powerful than guns. Power is more powerful than guns. Loyalty is more powerful. When Trump appears securely in power, many will turn. Fashion is just an indicator. Whoever is powerful is cool, and whoever is powerless is uncool. You don’t become uncool then lose power – you lose power then become uncool as people learn of your losing power.

          • John Rocker says:

            She screamed “sexual harassment,” then the company tucked tail, hired Eric Holder to investigate, and started purging executives based on unproven allegations in their past. I’ve never seen a more pathetic display of weakness and submission in my life.

            If Trump can get Silicon Valley to man up, he will have my undying respect. But right now… it ain’t happening

            • jim says:

              According to her story she screamed sexual harassment while employed, and asked for a promotion and a leather jacket, failed to receive the promotion and the leather jacket. She has hired a law firm, so naturally they hire a law firm. The executive fired is not alleged to have harassed her, or even to be involved in denying her her promotion and leather jacket, so you cannot count his scalp as a hers.

              Hiring a law firm when someone threatens to sue you is not cowardice. Settling is cowardice. They are not settling yet. Indeed, the blog post, and the lack of a leather jacket, is evidence of their disinclination to settle.

              Tucking tail and fleeing would have been giving the promotion and the leather jacket.

              • peppermint says:

                What do you think about the continued prosecution of ((Google)) for wage discrimination

                • jim says:

                  Sex discrimination laws are only applied against the politically incorrect, since they have been defined so broadly as to make everyone guilty. Suddenly companies that have converted with social justice warriors are no longer getting favors.

                  Similarly the proposed legislation against spying on your customers and selling their data would have only applied to those businesses that were not actually doing it, not to Google, Twitter, and YouTube – it was again a favor to businesses that were social justice converted.

  13. J says:

    Before the elections, Donald Trump’s pic in the media always showed him with an unearthly orange complexion. One had to wonder what skin disease he was suffering from. Nowadays he looks the tall freckled blond German he is. The media lies on many levels.

  14. Walt says:

    BLM don’t like the cold weather. They do their best and most important work when it is warmer outside.

  15. vxxc2014 says:

    “Ideas are more powerful than guns”

    Keep telling yourself that.

    You can because all your existence the guns have nodded their heads and protecting your free silly speech.

    Then we were betrayed. By Idea’s men. Well males.

    Of course what’s happened is the guys with guns have gotten their own ideas.

Leave a Reply