Time for a second Dissolution of the Monasteries.

In French Revolution, they smashed the enforceable apprenticeship system, and in the nineteenth century, the British smashed their enforceable apprenticeship system. After the enforceable apprenticeship system was ended, the quality of workmanship declined with each generation for several generations, as revealed by old furniture.

This was a move to priestly power. The priestly class were seeking to force all children to spend endless hours at Church school. And ever since then education has been getting longer and longer, and sucking up people’s entire youths, when they should be working and having children.

It is time for the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

The priestly myth of education is that there is some magic juju with education, that there is a special magic secret way, and if your kids do not get it, they will be irreparably harmed.

From time to time, drinking their own Kool-Aide, they have experimented with various magic formulae for teaching children, but each experiment produces the null result

On the face of it, this would seem to show that education simply does not work. But this is an obviously absurd conclusion, since it is obvious that when you do stuff, you generally get better at it, and it is obvious that when a child does stuff under the supervision of an adult who is good at that stuff, he gets a lot better at it.

Rather, the conclusion should be that there is no magic special sauce for education, and that priestly education is only good for teaching people to be priestly. If your dad makes furniture, and makes you help, you will get better at making furniture.

The control test for formal education is unschooling and Sudbury school, Sudbury being a school that just does not school children. There are 50 years of anecdotal evidence that the original Sudbury Valley School works very well, at least for middle class kids who are already probably of above average intelligence, and the numerous imitators produce similar results. Also works with parents volunteering in place of staff, which approximates the deliberately less formal and less organized unschooling programs.

Reading surveys of the unschooled, looks like the results are similar to schooling, supporting the null hypothesis, and that the results are better than schooling to the extent that it leads to the child spending a lot of time with adults, and worse to the extent that it leads to the child being socially isolated – that a child learns more spending time one on one with a random adult, than in a class of thirty kids and one teacher, and learns more in proportion as he spends time with several different adults. Bad outcomes occur if the only adult contact is the mother, and the mother does not know much or do much, but even bad outcomes are not conspicuously bad. An unschooled boy who has had bad unschooling is not obviously and radically worse off than the boy who has had good regular schooling. The worst unschooling does not make a dramatic or consistent difference, short of locking the kid in a dungeon and feeding him through the keyhole.

Unschooling is often combined with, or a result of, a theory that children don’t need discipline. If you have an undisciplined four year old in your house he will make a mess, break stuff, and hurt people. Starting at a quite early age children need to be stopped from doing lots of stuff they want to do, and made to do some stuff they do not want to do. Otherwise they will occupy the entire house and leave no room for anything or anyone else, and occupy everyone’s entire attention, and leave no time for anything else. But the priestly class does not have any magical special high value formula for stuff that children should be made to do. Most of their magic rituals are a great big waste of child’s time, when he could be actually learning something, such as learning how to do useful work by actually doing useful work. When kids transfer from unschooling to schooling, as often happens with college, they seldom have any problems catching up on all the stuff that the college kids were supposed to learn, but frequently failed to do so.

There is nothing obviously very wrong with unschooling. Most unschooled kids do OK. If a child spends a lot of time with adults who know stuff, he will learn stuff – but he will learn a whole lot better to the extent that those adults have loco parentis authority over him and he is compelled to treat them with respect. The most educational activity of them all is child labor under adult supervision. It is not that teaching does not work, but that a special cast of priestly highly trained specialist teachers using special magic juju methods does not work. Children spontaneously soak up knowledge from adults like sponges, and they soak it up better if compelled to treat those adults with respect. The rest is details that the priestly class, the educationists, have no special knowledge of or ability at. If the knowledge is around, the kids will pick it up.

In practice most stuff is learned from Joe Random, where Joe is not an educationist, but you glommed on to him because he was good at something you needed to do.

The professor is high status, and he tells people that everyone can be high status, thereby propagating his religion to other people’s children – and producing an oversupply of priests. Throw more money and power at the professor, and supposedly everyone will be affluent and high status like the professor. Probably writing essays on hermeneutic lesbianism in seventeenth century French poetry, and getting master of arts in intersectional basket weaving.

We obviously want to cut off open entry into the priesthood, and cut the priesthood back to reasonable numbers.

Assume an apprenticeship system. We used to have something very like apprenticeship for the officer class. That is a path to high status. We have something very like apprenticeship in the judiciary, with judicial clerks tending to become judges. And then Trump’s show “The Apprentice” marketed apprenticeship as a path to high status in the merchant classes. That was a path to high status. Most people are not going to get high status positions, but a plumber probably makes more money than you do. We are going to get excess demand for apprenticeships to high status positions, and the solution is to filter the applicants for intelligence, diligence, pro social qualities, and good breeding.

We want all kids to learn reading, writing, and counting. Not all of them, left to their own devices, will, but it seems that most will, much as all white kids and most black kids pick up human speech without any elaborate state intervention. It does not follow that we need to incarcerate all kids through most of their childhood and young adulthood. Maybe we should detect and incarcerate problem children, and the children of problem parents, into low status institutions for low status people.

Education obviously works, in the sense that if you practice something, you get better, and if you practice under the supervision of someone who is good at it, you get a lot better. The null hypothesis is not that education fails, but that if you try to bureaucratically mass produce it and make sure no one slips through the cracks, the results are not much different from what happens if kids educate themselves under the supervision of parents and adult associates of parents, that mass produced education fails to produce the expected and hope for results.

Education is not only “book learning” of various sorts, but socialization. Morals and ethics. Religion. Asabiyyah. Thus, for example, most American children still pledge allegiance to the flag every day. This sort of ritual binds the nation. We can do that for an hour on Sundays, and when people are being hatched, matched, and dispatched. Also various special occasions, such as thanksgiving and Christmas. We don’t have to suck up everyone’s childhood.

Reading old books, stuff written before 1935, it is obvious that the elite and upper class did not think the stuff taught at elite upper class schools mattered. The important thing learned at Eton was sportsmanship and forming social bonds with other upper class kids and social cohesion within the upper class. Some time during the twentieth century, we forgot the joke. People wanted to believe that if you gave everyone the right education, everyone could be upper class. It was said that “the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton”. In the book “When Worlds Collide”, written in 1932, the author takes it for granted in his character descriptions of upper class characters that that is the elite attitude to education, that elite believed that the sports and ensuing elite social cohesion was what mattered, that the educational material at Eton and Oxford was mostly pointless, not very useful or high status, and that the elite is correct to believe so. The null hypothesis of education is what all gentlemen believed back then. The trouble was that the priesthood running Harvard did not like people to know that truth. And now people don’t.

Classic Chinese, is I am told, a shared body of allusions and in jokes to poetry, history, story, and legend. Looks like the mass production of a shared elite culture, to hold China together against the centrifugal forces of empire. That is a legitimate and useful function of mass education, though cramming is going to give you a shitty elite culture of test optimizing grinds who are not actually all that good at anything.

But teaching engineering does not give you engineers. I know this well, for I was in on the dawn of software engineering, when no one was trained in software engineering and academics had not yet reinvented it as an academic discipline, and I subsequently had to interview no end of people who were trained in engineering by academics. Doing engineering gives you engineers. It is all self taught or learned by apprenticeship. If East Asian grinds think otherwise, they are all wrong.

232 Responses to “Time for a second Dissolution of the Monasteries.”

  1. J says:

    Well put, Jim. On the other hand, society pretends that education (spending 25 – 30 years in a classroom) is necessary because the alternative is worse. In the Victorian era, children and youth could be employed in economic production, but today they are utterly superfluous. Think that 1% of the population working in agriculture produces more food than can be consumed. So the real problem is how to take the unproductive out off the homes and streets, how to entertain them and give them the illusion that they are doing something significative. BTW, the Chinese imperial exam system worked exactly like that: it caused the ambitious fraction to spend 30 – 40 years studying Classics, distracting them from revolutionary movements. Actually, 80 – 90% of the mandarins reached their positions by purchase and intrigues, not through competitive exams.

    • The Cominator says:

      Nonsense, notice that when Trump started massively deregulating the jobs that Obama said were never coming back came back. There will also be a lot more room for male employment when we ban women from their non-traditional professions.

      Teenage boys will generally learn a trade, teenage girls will be married off.

      • Boswald Bollocksworth says:

        indeed, in a sane society teenagers could be doing a lot of the lower skilled jobs we currently have done by indios from Latin America. It will build character. Honestly competent teenagers can do a lot of the “office lady” tasks. I could employ smart teenagers in my data science group, if they’d already spent 3 years mowing yards and stocking shelves and basically had a 19th century chimney sweep can-do attitude.

        • Eddie Willers says:

          Indeed. In Mexico, it’s very common for teenagers to work in supermarkets as bag-packers. The supermarket gives them a uniform and insures them against injury but doesn’t pay them. They make their money in tips from the customers having their shopping bagged at the checkout and/or carried to the customer’s vehicle. Apparently, competition is fierce for certain markets in certain locations for certain shifts as good money may be made. Often, it’s the lower class kids doing this work to supplement household income but I’ve seem obviously middle-class kids (who tend to be lighter-skinned and possibly speak some English) at work too.

  2. Anonymous Fake says:

    Just like every other demand for educational reform, it fails by not noticing that everyone who has already gone through the existing system deserves a fair compensation for their work. You are calling for revolution, not restoration that treats people justly.

    Local schooling is the left’s best trap against the right, by the way. Local leftist schools hand out participation trophies while conservatives in their schools are drilled, grilled, and killed by other conservatives who think a rigorous, blue pilled disciplinarian upbringing “builds good character” etc.

    The left laughs all the way to the elite tier. It turns out participation trophies actually work. Good character conservatives with shot GPA’s get stuck in middle management, poorer than tradesmen and less respected than elite professionals. They die in that uncanny valley.

    • alf says:

      Obviously, those who have gone through the current educational system will be rewarded insofar they actually learned anything useful they can apply.

      As for the people very seriously learning, for years on end, how to be holier-than-thou; tough luck. Dissolved.

      The reason Jim’s plan is a restoration, not a revolution that you make it out to be, is that we intend to destroy educational prisons, returning us to freedom of old. Should people be rewarded for having gone through prison? Or rather, will they be glad they are out of prison?

      • The Cominator says:

        Women’s studies types, “queer theory” etc need to be compensated… with a helicopter ride.

        • alf says:

          You are too trigger happy.

          • The Cominator says:

            Perhaps with ordinary shitlibs but were talking specifically the priests/commisars here. People who major in womens studies, queer theory etc… They are would be commisars and they have to go.

            • alf says:

              The overwhelming majority of those people (blue haired feminists, low T soybois) are no threat whatsoever. They are followers. It is unjust to give them helicopter rides.

              • The Cominator says:

                Remember your Yuri Bezmenov (i dont remember how it was spelled) these people generally cant be cured and they aggressively spread their bad ideas…

                • alf says:

                  I don’t see the relevance in jumping from every women studies graduate to a single ex-communist.

                • The Cominator says:

                  David Horowitz was redeemed and Jim according to his own testimony was redeemed from being far left but in general it almost never happens. Mercy to the guilty is cruely to the innocent and it is the mistake that the right (with the sole exception of Suharto in Indonesia who followed my suggestion) always makes. Indonesia has an Islam problem unfortunately but they never again had a leftist problem.

                  To paraphrase gay frog man… The answer to 1917 is 1965.

                • alf says:

                  How the hell are people supposed to know that gender studies is punishable by death in cominator world?

                  Your murder list includes people who simply followed the rules. It is cruel and unjust.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “How the hell are people supposed to know that gender studies is punishable by death in cominator world?

                  Your murder list includes people who simply followed the rules. It is cruel and unjust.”

                  Bastardcide is cruel and unjust because the bastard did not do anything wrong, and I argued very strongly against it. I’ve also argued against any killing based merely upon race for the same reason. We do not need to soil ourselves with innocent blood and I’m against shedding innocent blood… But leftists are not innocent.

                  Leftist are people who want to steal from me and murder me and are actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to do so and one that if not for Donald Trump would have done so successfully. So how are they innocent people? When it comes to people taking women’s, ethnic, queer etc. “studies” these are would be leftist priests they DEFINITELY should not be spared (I have argued for sparing the New Agey type leftists… as I think they are genuinely well intentioned but misguided people and far less fanatical then the average leftist).

                  You ask what right is there in condemning them, I ask what right is there in letting them live? The right always lets too many live (except in Indonesia) and they always fucking come back because the virus was not truly eradicated (the only thing that eradicates it ironically is the left winning and spending a few decades in power…) im saying if we want to avoid the left in power we have to do the hard but right thing and exterminate them.

                • alf says:

                  Yea I’ll pass for this sperg murder fantasy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Alf should we win the question of what we are going to have to do with these people is eventually going to come up. Unfortunately given that we are on the right your side will probably prevail as the right traditionally tends to be foolishly merciful…

                  My problem with that is that (even if a monarchy is installed) if your side prevails the left within two generations is going to become a big problem again. The priests, politicians, activists etc. at the very least should not spared. The future St, Brevik knew the truth.

                • pdimov says:

                  1. kill all leftists
                  2. ???
                  3. profit

                • Not Tom says:

                  Jim has already provided a simple solution for this conundrum: simply invite them to apply for their old jobs and ask if they will uphold the new catechism, and then demand they repeat it back to you. If they refuse, then give them helicopter rides, or send them off to the monastery in the South Pole.

                  “But they lie!” True believers are incapable of accurately and coherently communicating the catechism. We know because we see it right here, over and over again; even the most motivated entryists outgroup themselves almost immediately. Their behavior is marked by high time preference; they can’t help themselves.

                  Yuri Bezmenov is fantasy, is tradcon/wignat wish fulfillment. The dude is real, obviously, but he comforts them into the false belief that America was doing great up until the 1960s or so, and if we can just overcome this invasive species known as Soviet Communism then we’ll be back to greatness once again. That’s no doubt what a lot of Trump voters believe, but we know it’s not true. I’m sure the man had perfectly good intentions with his defection, and with his “demoralization” ideas, but he does not understand the history of leftism and that means everything else he says must be taken with a grain of salt.

                  Christians would not have made it very far if they hadn’t given heathens the opportunity to sincerely convert.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Im saying that historically they come back if you do this, besides the leftists WON the English Civil war its just Cromwell stopped the purity spiral very early. We are not going to be dealing with leftist who’ve had the opportunity to get disillusioned with their own rule for a decade… Well be dealing with frustrated fanatics. Its trivial excluding the liars from their old jobs i agree, its not trivial to keep them from spreading their biolenistic and free shit ideas and ideas of priestly rule… So i ask again what is to be done with them.

                • jim says:

                  Whig history is that they came back almost immediately in the Glorious Revolution. This is not true. They grabbed for power in the Glorious Revolution, and lost. The anti Catholics, not the Lockians, came out on top and the Lockians fled England. They obviously lost, because they obviously attempted to grab power, and obviously ran like rabbits and did not come back. The Restoration held until a weak and lazy King took power at the start of the nineteenth century.

                  The problem with Charles the Second’s mild mannered solution is not that it led to leftists returning in England, but that it led to leftists returning in New England.

                • BC says:

                  >Well be dealing with frustrated fanatics. Its trivial excluding the liars from their old jobs i agree, its not trivial to keep them from spreading their biolenistic and free shit ideas and ideas of priestly rule… So i ask again what is to be done with them.

                  Cominator, all priests are liars, it’s the ones who the true believers that you need to dealt with harshly. Killing the entire priestly class off is just going to give you a shortage of priests.

                  As I’ve mentioned before you’re urging the Sulla solution, while it stopped the leftist singularity in Rome, it left Rome without a cohesive religion to back the state. What we need is a cohesive non evil religion and to run that religion, we’re going to need the best of the priestly class that are not true believers.

                • Not Tom says:

                  We are not going to be dealing with leftist who’ve had the opportunity to get disillusioned with their own rule for a decade

                  I think you’d be surprised at just how disillusioned most of them are. Most are afraid to say so in public, but behind closed doors, they admit that the current wave of wokeness is pushing them away from their long-held positions.

                  They still, even behind closed doors, are resistant to reactionary ideas, and even reactionary facts – but why wouldn’t they be? This is what they know, it’s what they’ve learned for their entire lives.

                  So some of them may not be the most enthusiastic converts; but they will convert. And as Jim has pointed out numerous times, it doesn’t really matter that their conversion is insincere or lacking conviction, what matters is that they teach their children to have sincerity and conviction.

                  What are you worried about – backsliding? Hidden agendas? So keep a close eye on the suspicious ones. It’s easier than ever with today’s technology; we could be 1/10th as intrusive as China is being and still successfully make progressivism a low-status belief.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Here are the main advantages of the Final Helicopter Ride.

                  1. We get a lot of simple booty to distribute (I’m aware of the problem of complex capital but civil war will destroy much of that anyway… with shitlibs most of their business tend to be big media and tech companies which are publically traded so if a shitlib who is a big shareholder is helicopter rided maybe the state should just confiscate his shares and sell them, small businesses tend to be run by non shitlibs).

                  2. Participation in what normally is a great crime (but that I think is merely justice to participants in a criminal conspiracy) is a great way of binding participants to a regime. Thus we do not make dedicated reactionaries carry it out (other then on a top level) we make center right borderline normies carry it out and thus bind them to the new monarchy.

                  3. Leftism won’t come back.

                  4. You’ll truly have white male aasibayah which leftism even latent repressed leftism makes impossible.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The problem with Charles the Second’s mild mannered solution is not that it led to leftists returning in England, but that it led to leftists returning in New England.”

                  But they DID return in England too and this was before the Cathedral essentially took over England after WWII. Gladstone was a shitlib, Lloyd George (other then Nicholas II probably the man most responsible for WWI) was a shitlib.

                  I’m NOT citing Whig History (and btw its not just “Whigs”, Papist like to spread the same smear of William of Orange and the 1st three Hanoverians) even if other people often do on this subject…

                  I’m saying its inevitable we’ll get a weak king, I’d rather not be pushed down a slippery slope to communism just because we got a weak king.

                • pdimov says:

                  >3. Leftism won’t come back.

                  You can’t make a unipolar magnet by slicing off one of its poles.

                • The Cominator says:

                  What are you worried about – backsliding? Hidden agendas?”

                  Free shit and bioleninism have a powerful appeal you underestimate at your peril. I have my issues with Spandrell’s blackpilling about Trump but Spandrell is very very much right about this. Priestly rule has a powerful appeal to priests (“intellectuals are the reserve army of bureaucracy”). You can’t expect the leftist cancer to remain dormant unless its cut out completely.

                  As for monitoring them… I dislike Orwellian surveillance I’d rather eliminate them, put it in the state religion that “though shalt not suffer a leftist to live” (not edit the bible but put it in something like the book of common prayer and link this to the Old Testament) and not have that…

                  And I must repeat Charles II had the advantage that the leftist were already disillusioned in that they won and yet utopia did not emerge (though Cromwell stopped it from becoming a complete nightmare and in fact was a rather competent ruler)… I think the hopes of our leftist died when Hillary failed. Now they have the problem that the idiots are increasingly in charge and they just can’t win anymore, and while some may be disillusioned some just get more and more fanatical. I lived in Massachussetts until recently, I know what I saw… this cult must be destroyed.

                  Now as far as ex-leftist who convert before things get violent… they should have nothing to fear.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Free shit and bioleninism have a powerful appeal you underestimate at your peril.

                  Bioleninism (and ordinary Marxism) are things because they work. You promise low-status people that after a revolution they’ll come out on top, and you have an army that’ll put you in power.

                  Killing a bunch of people once does nothing to eliminate this potential path to power.

                  You don’t understand the purpose of mass murder. It’s to eliminate a heritable trait from the genotype.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Heritable traits”

                  No no this is dumb wignat thinking, you don’t need to kill anyone for that reason when the technology exists to sterilize them.

                  The problem with leaving leftists around is they will inevitably try to corrupt other people into leftists the minute the boot is taken off their throat.

                • Not Tom says:

                  No no this is dumb wignat thinking

                  Gonna have to agree with pdimov on this one. You’re advancing a position with no logical consistency. On the one hand you assert that Marxism as an idea will always be around and able to seduce the unwary, and on the other hand assert that killing all the visible leftists will somehow eliminate the idea. Don’t you understand that this results in the same mass-murdering spiral in which the Marxists themselves always end up? It’s the kind of “solution” that could only come from a former leftist.

                  The only way to give your position any consistency is to assert that leftism is in fact a heritable trait – which it probably is, to some degree, but like intelligence, it’s probably also mixed up with a ton of other alleles, some of which are necessary for the good kind of progress.

                  If you want something to go away, you don’t just kill everyone who has any association with it. You make it low status, and kill a few people in order to show that you’re serious. The rest will fall in line.

                  Does that prevent leftism from ever making a comeback? No, but neither does killing everyone. The Father of Lies is immortal; we can’t drop our guard, ever, that’s the price we pay for having free will.

                  Also re: helicopters being both terrifying and humiliating: true, but I think woodchippers do a pretty good job as well, and good old-fashioned rope.

                • jim says:

                  No body, no martyr, and woodchipping the body treats it as important.

                • Anonymus 2 says:

                  I agree with the Cominator on this. The losers leave town at a sprint or get eliminated, and please, no sneaking back or legal chicanery either. Enemy priests get priority treatment.

                  This approach worked well to restore long-term order for Indonesia, Chile, Finland and others.

            • TBeholder says:

              Perhaps, but literal helicopter rides are far too inefficient, except on this stage. There are obvious ways to achieve the same either with much lesser costs (see also, “what happened to the Trotsky’s followers?”), or with much greater gain (as in, build a Happy Prog Zoo, later publish video records of what its inhabitants do to each other together with their public speeches).

              • The Cominator says:

                Not talking bout literal helicopter rides obviously…

                • TBeholder says:

                  Non-literal ones got expensive externalities too, just less obvious than unreasonable amount of fuel.
                  Stalin mostly clogged existing and spinning meatgrinder of Red Terror with fans and cheerleaders thereof. That’s one thing.
                  Now suppose you want to do much the same, and got power to do so, but don’t own a similar mechanism, nor have a ready opportunity to usurp one already in operation. Do you want to build and spin up such a thing? Building it from scratch is going to cost resources. And what to do with it after use? The best case scenario so far was that of Ivan IV — he had to perform a purge of his purgers after things got a bit out of hand and indecent. It’s more likely to go the way of Robespierre, however.
                  But also, Stalin purged via a comprehensive campaign, with comedy courts and propaganda and all. This worked, if not quite well enough.

                • jim says:

                  Literal helicopters have the great advantage of being both terrifying and degrading, in that those killed are being dumped like toxic waste. Other methods of killing are apt to inadvertently grant status. If no body, then no martyr.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Put them behind barbed wire and don’t feed them.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  I’m all for helicopter rides, but one could also mix in throwing them off high buildings.

                  Perhaps the methods of choice should be not just strikingly terrifying but also comical (status reducing).

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Drafty boxcars in trains who’s tracks go underwater… without the tunnel.

                  Collection, execution, and disposal, all on the same network!

          • ekiad says:

            Familiarize yourself with Michael Woodley’s ‘social epistasis amplification model in mice and men.’ Cominator’s instincts are right on this one.

            • The Cominator says:

              I can understand why people want to spare shitlibs with no official function but for dem politicians, activists, womens studies professors and the like we definitely need a “commisar order” for such people.

            • alf says:

              Those who deserve helicopter rides will be given helicopter rides. Plenty of helicopter rides to go around. Justice will be served.

              But Cominator’s plan is not about justice, it’s a genetic social experiment: to eradicate all leftist genes from the gene pool. I think this plan is
              – unfeasible; ‘leftism’ being far too vague a criteria.
              – unjust; no one deserves to die for having majored in gender studies. Tar and feathers maybe, but not the death penalty.

              I like the magnet analogy; can’t get rid of the south pole by chopping it off. Silly plan, bad results.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Magnetic monopoles, by the way, have not been found yet but are apparently theoretically possible.

                “unjust; no one deserves to die for having majored in gender studies. Tar and feathers maybe, but not the death penalty.”

                I beg to disagree. They are part of the spearhead of the dyscivilizational forces and should be treated as such.

                • alf says:

                  Yes, clearly women cutting their hair, dying it all colors of the rainbow, and writing phd’s on classical lesbianism are the spearhead of dyscivilisation. I am told Hillary Clinton does not make any decision until she has consulted at least three of these women. /s

                  Or, perhaps, they’re useful idiots, and the only goal you’ve achieved by murdering them is setting the tone for a Robespierre-like genocide spree.

                • alf says:

                  After all, lets see who obviously needs to be killed:
                  – all rappers
                  – all journalists
                  – all democrat politicians
                  – all global warming activists
                  – all hollywood actors
                  – hell, everyone in hollywood
                  – all the gays
                  – all the pop artists
                  – all professors
                  – everyone working for an ngo
                  – everyone who has ever worked for an ngo
                  – every vegan
                  – hell, every vegetarian
                  – every single mother (throw in her child for good measure, I mean, lets be real, kid’s never going to amount to any good anyway)

                  Off the top of my head. Do tell me who I am missing I’m sure the list can be a lot longer!

                • The Cominator says:

                  – all rappers (no)
                  – all journalists (no, but definitely most of them as they are left wing activists)
                  – all democrat politicians (absolutely though I would spare Tulsi Gabbard)
                  – all global warming activists (yes)
                  – all hollywood actors (no, I suspect a lot of greengrocers in Hollywood but all true believing leftists)
                  – hell, everyone in hollywood (see above)
                  – all the gays (no but back to the closet for them all)
                  – all the pop artists (no)
                  – all professors (no but most of them in the social sciences and ALL gender studies african american studies and such)
                  – everyone working for an ngo (99% of them yes)
                  – everyone who has ever worked for an ngo (unless they became right wing)
                  – every vegan (no)
                  – hell, every vegetarian (absolutely not)
                  – every single mother (throw in her child for good measure, I mean, lets be real, kid’s never going to amount to any good anyway) (no… remember I was the one who most strongly was against the bastardcide proposal)

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Ooh, are we making genocide requests? I would like to add the following:

                  -all abortionists
                  -all pornstars
                  -all the gays (I know the official stance is that we just force them back into the closet but I don’t think they’ll go back in so easily. I think we’d have to kill off most gays today and then any gays born after the restoration will probably stay in the closet. Killing them is justice for their perversions anyway.)

                • alf says:

                  You do not want to genocide the vegans? Comrade, I doubt your loyalty to the cause.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Yes, clearly women cutting their hair, dying it all colors of the rainbow, and writing phd’s on classical lesbianism are the spearhead of dyscivilisation. I am told Hillary Clinton does not make any decision until she has consulted at least three of these women. /s

                  As it happens, Hillary Clinton is literally a card-carrying coven-member witch these days. And please don’t give Donna “Eidolon” Zuckerberg a free pass just because she’s into the classics.

                  Not just a genocide but a spree genocide. I rather like that; Rwanda except furthermore a spree.

                  The unfortunate truth is, if your NRx includes the gender studies department, you’re not getting far.

                • jim says:

                  When we are in power, we can only punitively purge people for crimes. Before we can purge anyone, they have to commit some crimes. Otherwise, we are too dangerous to each other. After we make preaching heresy illegal, the equivalent of today’s hate crime laws, we can punish people for preaching supererogatory holiness. After we make it it illegal to cross dress, (Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.”) then we can punish women for cutting their hair short and dying it green.

                  If after we take power, we give some people in the former elite helicopter rides for what happened before we took power, we had better have a bunch of crimes committed by the elite, and only give those people who were in power when power did bad things helicopter rides. We cannot punish women for formerly cutting their hair short and dying it green, for we would turn such a dangerous weapon on each other.

                  Otherwise, the purge becomes most dangerous to those now in power – which is to say, us.

                  We can, however, blacklist people, removing them from quasi state and state power, for capricious reasons – as in the interviewer smelled something funny at the interview when the former member of the elite was invited to re-apply for his old job. That is how Charles the Second did it. Burned one heretic at the stake, fired a whole bunch of heretics.

                  In 99.9% of cases, loss of status and the threat of loss of status is amply sufficient. Everyone will conform, because they hope for status, and because they see high status people conforming.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not wanting to personally harm animals does not make you an activist leftist I know a bunch of pro Trump vegetarians actually and I’ve said before as far as leftist go the new ager/hippie types are the least fanatical and most harmless (I convinced a couple to vote for Trump lol playing up Hillary’s insane war with Russia craziness).

                  The new agey leftist is merely naive but not malovolent nor fanatical so they can live. I would argue they have a different religion then progresivism which makes them a lot more pleasant to deal with.

                  You can actually talk to them about good points of Trump and they don’t get triggered.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  (Hmm, is suddenly getting put in moderation a sign that I should be moving on? Or just not mention H.C./D.Z.?)

                • alf says:

                  Your lack of enthusiasm in solving the leftist vegan problem is noted.

                • Ehud ben Garrison says:

                  You guys are not nearly creative (sadistic) enough.

                  My wet dream is abducting the well-poisonariat and torturing its members psychologically and physically into sincerely confessing Jimianity. Take for example someone like peppermint or viking or Doug Smythe, or Chris Hansen if you will, pry their eyes open with an eyelid speculum, and force them to watch White Girls Fucking Dogs for hours upon hours. Then ask them to verbally pass a long series of Women Red-Pill Reactionary Questionnaires, each wrong answer meriting the good ol’ electric shock treatment. I want these white knights to viscerally grasp that their little 13-year-old daughter is a whore who enjoys sodomy orgies with Pakistanis. After 2 months of zap-zap-zapping our sworn, mentally-broken enemies into swallowing and digesting the red-pill, they will be Born Again to God’s Path and may even be allowed to go on live television to preach the Word. Imagine Chris Hansen telling you that you should beat your teenage daughter with a rusty stick for dressing like the anally-rosebuded slut she obviously is, and legitimately believing every word of it. Orwellian, you say? Excellent. There’s nothing more delightful than electrifying your enemies into True Belief.

                  Deus Volt!

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You guys are not nearly creative (sadistic) enough.

                  My wet dream is abducting the well-poisonariat and torturing its members psychologically and physically into sincerely confessing Jimianity.”

                  I’m not actually sadistic though I just know we cannot coexist with shitlibs.

                  There may be something to that some of them can be saved through extreme reeducation which will involve some pretty unsavory methods…

                • Ehud ben Garrison says:

                  There may be something to that some of them can be saved through extreme reeducation which will involve some pretty unsavory methods…

                  Come on, let’s get real. Extreme unsavory measures can make anyone believe in anything, period. Sufficient mental and physical trauma — a rigid conditioning regimen, a “Bullycide Brainwashing” program — will go a long way towards the kind of psycho-political transformation we desire. You can win friends and influence people with this one neat trick.

                  Breivik: Slaughter the youth camp.
                  Moldbug: Recruit the youth camp.
                  EBG: MKUltra the youth camp.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ehud i have a feeling you might actually achieve a high position in the Imperial Secret Police, nothing could ever make me SINCERELY belive in leftism… I was kind of a little shitlord despite all the trouble it got me into in skrewl.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim you are saying we need specific charges during the transition period to kill people or we become dangerous to each other… no that is AFTER the transition period when you need clear law… the transition period is the proper time to purge, butcher loot and settle scores.

                  The reason leftist are dangerous to each other is the leftist hierarchy is generally unclear (as hierarchy is theoretically evil) and informal and they promise utopia which never comes in fact things “mysteriously” get worse as such standards ever shift.

                  It is easy to keep a clear line between our forces and enemy leftist during the “transition” period. And if we want to insulate ourselves just say that anyone who supported Trump can only go down for very specific narrow criteria (intending to desert to the enemy or passing information to the enemy and such).

                • jim says:

                  The elite is already committing crimes, and will commit more and more serious crimes. We will have no shortage of grounds for executing large chunks of the elite.

                  The problem, however, is thought crimes: Someone who promoted the culture that made the elite crimes possible and likely. We need to be careful about thought crimes. Punishing past thought crimes can easily get out of hand. And punishment is not really the right tool for suppressing thought crimes. You need to make certain thoughts low status.

                  Supererogatory holiness is particularly tricky. We are already seeing lots of entryists telling us that they are righter than we are, and orange man is gun grabbing Jew, when they are obvious leftists. When we are in power, going to see a whole lot more of them. The people who are today lefter than thou, will when we are in power be righter than thou. That is going to be the big problem, not purging purple haired screaming harpies.

                • The Cominator says:

                  We declare leftism a non theist religion which it is and make belief in it a crime.

                  Belief in islam will also be a crime. I don’t see the problem.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Cominator, are you volunteering to do the killing yourself? Are you going to look that woman in the eye and tell her, in front of her 1 or 2 children, that her life is over because she has a gender studies degree, or because you found an old Facebook photo where she had purple hair? Are you going to pull the trigger?

                  I’m always deeply suspicious of people who go out calling for blood but don’t intend to do the dirty work themselves.

                  A lot of women go into women’s studies because their boomer parents pressured them to go to college and women’s studies looks like an easy way to skate by without doing too much real work. Same reason men go into social studies. Who is to blame here – the brainwashed adolescents who really never wanted to go to college, or the “conservative” parents who vote Republican but also sent them off to that college?

                  But let’s not blue-pill here either. Several of them made the decision completely independently of their parents – and did so because they assumed college was the place to have fun and find high-status men/fertile women to bang. In other words, you want to lethally punish the men and women for… being men and women.

                  Will you personally listen to the former gender studies students’ protests that she doesn’t really care about any of that stuff, just did it for the easy marks, and would actually love to be set up with a good husband, look her in the eye, and then throw her off the rooftop?

                  Gender studies students are not the shooter, are not even the gun, they’re the bullets. Hating the bullets as much as you do is counterproductive and a little bit crazy.

                  And, as Jim says, you can’t govern by arbitrarily making new laws and enforcing them retroactively. That’s exactly what the progressives try to do, and everyone hates them for it. The prog elites are guilty of numerous crimes under the current system; they are the ones to make an example of. Everyone else only needs to follow the new rules post-enactment.

                • pdimov says:

                  >I don’t see the problem.

                  People like you never see the problem right until they end up before the firing squad.

                  Some, not even then.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’d have no problem doing the work to shitlibs myself you have no idea how deeply I hate them… I lived in Mass remember. It used to be tolerable then this cult… ruined all life and the people who went along with it are guilty… fuck them.

                  But pragmatically we should make people carry it out who are not leftist but aren’t politically reliable either… to bind them to the far right and the new monarchy.

                  Mitt Romney should be put on a helicopter ride himself as should all unreliable republican politicians, but with say Ben Shapiro… its perhaps better to give him the choice between going on a helicopter ride himself or being the commandant of a camp. He’ll have to come out and justify himself that he did everything according to his principles and that those principles were that those commie fuckers had to die.

                • jim says:

                  If the new regime commits crimes that binds people to the new regime, which is good, but who is the new regime? As soon as you have the slightest smidgen of power and influence, you have entryists crawling out of the woodwork. Just being high status and paying above market wages will bind people to the new regime.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Suharto did it without an entryist or purity spiral problem so it can be done.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It used to be tolerable then this cult… ruined all life and the people who went along with it are guilty…

                  So because a few hundred, or a few thousand, or even a few tens of thousands of people made your home unpleasant – a home that was really theirs to begin with anyway – that justifies the mass murder of tens of millions, many of whom were just following fashions?

                  Madness. Utter madness. Keep it in your pants, bruh.

                • Dave says:

                  “History’s ratchet always advances toward Communist utopia, but it seems to be stagnating of late, even though President Sukarno generally supports us. Hey, I know, let’s kidnap six high-ranking generals, kill them, and overthrow the government! That’ll get things moving again!”

                  It sure did, and the Communists learned nothing from it. They do us a huge favor by always believing that they will always have at least as much power as they do now, so they make little effort to conceal their identities.

                • Anonymous says:

                  There is an extremely high concentration of leftists, including literal communists, behind the turnstiles of government buildings. To succeed in government, you need to be evil, for the rewards are $100k wages and $10m budgets for people who couldn’t manage an Etsy shop, and those who would use those wages and budgets responsibly will be outbid by those who would not.

                  The campuses of the monasteries at least have the occasional sushi bar or taco stand. The good quality, non-holy ones might even lack the usual climate change pamphlets.

                  The monasteries take money from victims, a lot of whom do not know any better, but many of whom are willing, to benefit a few priests, some of whom might even be good, like the ones in STEM.

                  The government on the other hand takes huge amounts of money from a productive populace and converts it into cake and biscuits and cauldrons for overfed land whales, and into rent-a-friends and rent-a-wives for disgusting, hideous goblins.

                  We hate the enemies that are nearest to us. I have my biases, TC has his biases, and others here will have their biases also.

                  The only way to find out who is evil is to hold your position of good and see who attacks you. This could be, for example, to refuse to change your data while doing economic research, or by refusing to enact policies that do not work. The WRPQ does this too, this blog tells me, but I need more IRL experience with this before I can say this conclusively.

                  I most fear the Sybil attack.

                  When you are in the thick of the attack, it is often hard to distinguish the specific evil of individuals from the generalized evil that surrounds you. A few days in the woods, without any gadgets, and outside of any communications, can help you to do this. Your subconscious is evolved for this task; your dreams are a gateway to your subconscious; so listen to your dreams.

                  Eventually, they run out of guys.

                • Anonymous says:

                  In defense of TC’s “thou shalt not suffer a leftist to live,” watch up to about episode 21 or 22 of Like A Flowing River.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “that justifies the mass murder of tens of millions, many of whom were just following fashions?”

                  People who willingly (as opposed to being coerced) follow fashions of burning their children to Moloch are worthy of death. Most leftists have yet to do that but they have definitely followed fashion into a conspiracy to mass murder every Trump supporter and everyone who MIGHT BE a Trump supporter. I’m not sympathetic to the “following fashion” defense…

                  I say turnabout is fair play… to quote John Rambo “they drew 1st blood”. Its only just that they can drown in it now that they’ve lost. I’m not worried about right wing purity spirals etc… rightist believe in clear hierarchies so purity spirals are unlikely.

                  For instance… Scott Adams though a very smart guy is not to my knowledge far right but he supported Trump and is clearly not an enemy leftist and I’m not going to start seeing him as an enemy leftist in the future and I don’t think others will either. No Trump supporter is ever going to have to worry about helicopter rides for his politics because we are right wingers who believe in actual historical records and clear hierarchies.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I say turnabout is fair play… to quote John Rambo “they drew 1st blood”.

                  But most of them didn’t. Most of them did nothing to you. Most are just susceptible to the propaganda, or are actually being coerced to some degree.

                  Most are not plotting to murder you. Some are, and they’ll be executed in horrendous fashion, but most are little more than passive vessels. They should be pitied, marginalized and ostracized until they can act civilized – marginalized, not executed.

                  They’re NPCs. Do you kill all the NPCs for following their script, or program them with a new script?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Leviticus 20:1-5 would agree with you. Moses specified stoning rather than helicopters but that was three millenia ago and we too must keep up with the fashion of the times.

              • The Cominator says:

                If leftism is genetic then I would favor sterilization but I think that its a religion that spreads “memetically” with perhaps some genetic influence.

                My aim is to stop its memetic spread, and to the extent leftism will exist after my plan it will be the “smash and grab” leftism of the days predating Rosseau, Marx and the French revolution.

                I also emphasize that active leftist are NOT innocent people at all, they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to rob and murder us and one that if not for Trump would have succeeded but I think in letting “the squad” become prominent their leadership is too incompetent now and they can no longer win. Conspiracy for such crimes is worthy of death.

                Indonesia had some anti Chinese riots (the Chinese being a market dominant minority in Indonesia) after Suharto (who carried out my plan as far as leftist went) died because they were envious and have an Islam problem, but it was a smash grab and loot nobody believed really in equality or marxism anymore.

                You cannot get rid of envy or even the desire to smash and grab in short term riots… you can get rid of the religious delusions of equality, marxism and social justice.

              • The Cominator says:

                “There is an extremely high concentration of leftists, including literal communists, behind the turnstiles of government buildings. ”

                Yes that is another category of people to be categorically considered political enemies and to become part of the final helicopter ride… all government bureaucrats (we will need police and fire temporarily though most police departments will be abolished in the long term) unless they can show evidence they supported Donald Trump in 2016 is to be considered a communist and an “enemy priest”.

            • Michael Woodley of Menie’s (the man is a Baron, use his full and proper name) model wouldn’t favor mass murder of the leftoids, though. Social epistasis works by having a relatively small number of mutants with broken brains occupy the tops spots of society (because they are primarily the sons of the elites) and signaling insanity downwards towards the people who go along to get along, NPCs who would be Nazis in the Third Reich, Communists in Stalin’s Russia or Trumpists in der Trumpenreich. These are people who are , as per the big 5 personality model, highly agreeable and conscientious, basically the modal middle class, the ideal small business owners (often grocers). These people accept the signals from the mutants on top and act out the official religion contained within.

              If we accept Woodley of Menie’s model, then Cominator is wrong, insofar as eradicating the source of the problem in the sense of minimizing the amount of blood spilt. Whether we want to have mercy to NPCs who were “just following orders” and who wanted our heads on pikes not a year ago, that’s a different discussion.

              I can understand Cominator’s justified (if hidden) hatred of the NPC greengrocers, though. From what I can tell, the modal extreme rightist is low in agreeableness and low in conscientiousness (which gives us our innate ability to resist Cathedral signals and have memetic sovereignty in greater or smaller amounts) and this is diametrically opposed to the modal greengrocer.

              • The Cominator says:

                Small business types are NOT generally orange man bad NPCs. Small business owners tend to either be apolitical or pro Trump (with the exception of dotheads and reform jews who own small businesses who tend to have TDS).

                The average wignat is so low in conscientousness he is barely able to function but I think NRxers tend to be

                1. Right wing chads from the manosphere or ex libertarian chads.

                2. High functioning autistics who aren’t influenced much by the way people around them think if they think are wrong (this is me). Poor social skills but not necessarily low conscientousness or disagreeable.

                “Whether we want to have mercy to NPCs who were “just following orders” and who wanted our heads on pikes not a year ago, that’s a different discussion.”

                Group A: There are the greengrocer woke types (and yes I have a very very special hatred for them because I witnessed these people conform to the cult of wokeness damn well knowing it was insane and not being coerced into it) and yes I agree they won’t spread the ideas if they are spared… but yet they are generally evil and untrustworthy people we’d be better off getting rid of. Maybe I’m wrong I’m not objective about them because I truly truly hate them. At the very least they should be the ones in order to prove their loyalty to the new order forced to carry out the helicopter ride of group B.

                Group B: The true believers (and the ones not just in it because they want to loot the shop and steal beer) in some ways I view with more sympathy as they are more insane then malovolently evil and yet they absolutely cannot be suffered to live because their mental disease is almost incurable and the only way to cure it is to have them be persecuted by a hardcore leftist regime and survive and if allowed to live will corrupt younger people when they get older.

                Group C: Yoga crystals new agers and hippie girls… their religion is genuinely different then progressivism their women are in practice the most un-feminist in personality you’ll find in the US (I convinced some of the women to vote for Trump). Genuinely actually tend to hate hardcore feminists and SJWs. They aren’t really progressives but they like animals and nature so are prone to fall for green propaganda. All you need to do with them is take their weed away for a while and make them take a course on why the leftist propaganda on the enviroment were all lies.

                • Small business types are NOT generally orange man bad NPCs. Small business owners tend to either be apolitical or pro Trump (with the exception of dotheads and reform jews who own small businesses who tend to have TDS).

                  They’re Orange Man Good NPCs. See, the term MAGApede exists for a reason. These would be the kind of people who would follow Trump blindly, even if he declared his undying love for Moloch and became a bona fide shitlib tomorrow. Y’know, the kind who were howling for Assad’s head when Trump launched the missiles, even though they were against the war during the election. This is a group which overlaps with the leftist NPCs who receive Cathedral, rather than Trump or Conservative Inc. signals.

                  As for personality, all dissident rightists are by definition very low in agreeableness almost by definition, given that we defy the tribal will (manifest in Cathedral signaling). NRx is probably the least agreeable group, given that we’re furthest removed from the Cathedral and closest to full memetic sovereignty. Scan this comment section – it’s the exact opposite of a hugbox. Low conscientiousness allows us to think outside the box, and high openness to experience makes us likely to consider novel ideas.
                  Manosphere chads vs. NRx autistics probably differ on extroversion and neuroticism (high low for chads, low high for autistics), but I think that on conscientiousness, openness and agreeableness, we’re the who we are. Incidentally, the modal conservative is the exact opposite that.

                  The Yoga types should be given a course on RW conservationism and made to understand that loving nature is OK, but worshipping nature is not OK, but I generally agree that they’re the least bad and that they don’t have malice in their hearts.

        • Anonymous says:

          It is demoralizing to the righteous to see those whom having, with great enthusiasm, followed and profited from the old regime, now being given high positions in the new. It is dangerous for good people to see evil being rewarded. Recall that sheep dogs can readily become wolves under the right conditions.

          The idiots are indeed still in charge, and, while they cannot affect the future they want, they can inflict great damage to those who would make the future, purely by spite.

          Vengeance against the spiteful and the evil has a soothing effect on our inner chimpanzee. It has no cost other than time if the spiteful and the evil are also useless.

  3. I AM says:

    If software “engineering” were software engineering, it would scale. It doesn’t scale, because it isn’t engineering. Don’t blame yourself; blame Bjarne Stroustrup for maximally aiding the continued fucking-up of the world with memory unsafety and a bazillion undefined behaviors when all you want to do is perform a simple and straightforward series of visuo-spatial operations related to your specific domain without also having to be an expert on the byzantine and ever-changing morass that is the C++ standard; blame Linus Torvalds for publishing the first performant open-source OS as a clone of the C-based UNIX clusterfuck; blame basically everyone since for going with the flow instead of trying to unfuck this situation of endless 0days, privacyless internets, and so on and so forth.

    There’s a much simpler way to explain the state of Ivy League eduction “before” and “after”. Before, there was a homegrown American (read: WASP) elite. After, there wasn’t. If the student composition of “your” institution keeps changing, it’s because someone else has seized control of your admissions office and is twisting the dials for his own benefit.

    When every language you’ve ever used has been written in C, it means that your entire neurological process thinks within the bounds of C.

    How about a verifiably halting language?

    • jim says:

      I am an expert on scaling software.

      You are full of shit, throwing jargon around you have read somewhere without understanding it. Anyone with a minimum understanding would realize that the idea of a “verifiable halting language” is ludicrous. It is worse than Derrida’s “Einsteinian constant”. Your factoids are true, but they don’t hang together into a coherent story, let alone the story you purport to be telling, revealing that you do not understand what they mean or imply. They are just random fragments of tech stuff that do not add up or relate to each other. It is just a random pile of tech stuff. A pile of tech stuff assembled by someone who understood it would not be random.

      Further meaningless technobabble will be silently deleted. You are wasting space with random factoids you plainly do not understand.

      • Not Tom says:

        Can confirm Jim’s response. I’ve heard I AM’s rant before, sometimes from the Haskell/FP spergs, but more often from incompetents who once read a couple of Paul Graham essays and think that makes them experts.

        It always starts with some bogeyman, like null values, and how if we just fixed that one thing then it would eliminate almost all bugs; and then when someone actually goes and fixesthatproblem, most of the bugs stubbornly and mysteriously fail to disappear. It turns out that there’s no substitute for competent engineers and programmers, and all of these new innovations have the effect of making the top 10% marginally more productive while the bottom 90% sees no benefit because it is struggling with far more basic issues, like being able to write a correct FizzBuzz program, or if they’re really “advanced”, knowing the difference between a BFS and DFS.

        It mirrors Progressive thinking in many important ways. When the magic schools fail to be magic, and the magic dirt fails to be magic, and all of the other magical interventions fail to be magic, they must escalate to progressively more ridiculous and impossible interventions in order to “fix” the problem of MPAI, until we end up with ludicrous statements such as “just solve this NP-Hard [halting] problem and we’ll finally achieve utopia”. Thanks buddy, if we knew efficient solutions to NP-Hard problems, we wouldn’t need computers.

        Computing, like every other industry, is ruled by supply and demand. If there is a problem that is important to solve, and practical to solve, then someone will solve it. If something you think is a problem hasn’t been solved, then either it’s not as interesting as you think it is, or no one knows how to solve it yet.

        • jim says:

          > I’ve heard I AM’s rant before, sometimes from the Haskell/FP spergs, but more often from incompetents who once read a couple of Paul Graham essays and think that makes them experts.

          I AM’s rant is a sperg rant garbled by a postmodernist. You can tell it is gibberish to him, (“verifiable halting language”) and he thinks that talking gibberish is high status, because postmodernists speak gibberish to each other and he sees people we respect talking what sounds to him like gibberish.

          • pdimov says:

            Or, “I AM” is peppermint.

            • ten says:

              too mean

              • Anon says:

                You’re right, ten.

                “I AM” may excrete his stony kidneys out trying to impress the audience here of his profound wit and wisdom, but does he try to sneak in the blue-pilled notion that teenage sluts are innately chaste, and that only low-status men would ever dare to pursue fertile, nubile trim? I highly doubt.

                The reservoirs of bullycide are vast and indomitable, and white knights make up the majority of their designated targets. Literal-minded folks like Cominator may envision an actual mass extinction event involving the lib-loon genus (aka Blue-Hairocaust, aka Soyodomor, aka Veganocalypse), but as the aspirant priesthood, we must pave the way forward with a figurative extermination of blue-pilled inclinations and instincts; the heretics’ temperamentally-compromised blood must be boiled from the inside out, if you know what I mean.

                You see, my friend, Patrick’s dominatrix has undoubtedly been “stretched wide and deep” by their ever-so-neighborly Burundian Buddies, or wherever the heck these click-clocking machete-wielding blacks hail from. Now, now, let’s not rush to conclude any baseless conclusions in this affair; the proposition that these perfectly consensual sexual encounters are initiated by none other than Patrick himself cannot be ruled out, and is statistically well within the purview of what’s acceptable in the Female-Led Lifestyle.

                Rather, what concerns us is how Patrick has arrived at his current theology. Look, there’s no “pleasant” manner to relay the facts of the matter, but relayed they shall be.

                It all started at the end of yet another “ginger without, chocolate within” session, as per the routine. Having pathetically despaired of stroking his literally iron-clad (chastity belted), raisin-sized marshmallow of a member, Patrick — gratified, so to speak, by receiving a “mouthful explosion” of a most voluminous character — made a venture to the bathroom. “Ayyo, hold up!” Patrick looked behind his shoulder to see a mischievous, shining bright grin on Mobutu’s face. “We be role-playing, now.” Blushing with pent-up sexual arousal, Patrick turned instantly eager to prep the bull in whatever creative, quirky fashion the bull would so desire, and with utmost diligence.

                “You ain’t going to the toilet, lame-ass cracker. Yo loser, you are the toilet here, you mother-fucking stupid bitch.”

                Patrick has yet to register the true implications of such a splendid suggestion when, quoth Snoop Dogg, “the nuts hit the tonsils.” Within mere seconds, an unfathomably foul, steaming, odious influx of turbo (Negro) feces — taken together, a gargantuan 5 kilogram output — has been discharged right into Patrick’s pharynx. Yes, that gives a whole new meaning to the aforementioned “ginger without, chocolate within” concept; or rather, a thematic focus-shift from regular cuckoldry in a somewhat milquetoast BDSM context to one that is primarily scatological, and therefore “daring,” in essence. A sight to behold! Mouth all agape, our favorite lisping girly-boy has been supplied with a heavy, not to say heavenly, portion of this Bombastic Brown Blessing. A preternaturally spiritual moment, let there be no shadow of a doubt about it.

                Having thus relieved himself fully for tonight, Mobutu departed to the family bedroom, not without saying “good night honey-pie” (or, still more accurately, “I’m gonna finger bang yo’ fat cunt-juice out when I wake up, dumb ho”) to Patrick’s young daughter down the hall. Delighted by this exciting, truly toe-curling turn of events, Patrick briskly rushed to the bathroom to brush his teeth off, as he would have it, “The generous gift from south of the Sahara.” Human toilet or not, Patrick does strive to keep minimal hygiene — cleanliness is next to godliness, right? — and moreover, Pat-boy is primarily aroused by the ritual performance of coprophagia; his sensual palate, however, has no particular preference for the dookie “in itself.” (That’s a philosophical statement paging Kant, by the way)

                While brushing his teeth off “the gift,” Patrick wondered deep within his CAD-diseased heart, “What is my purpose in life? What am I here for?” It was at that precise moment that he had an epiphany. An inner voice cried out from within the depths of his fickle, womanish soul,

                “Patrick, as you have been defecated into, so you must do unto thy fellows. Go forth and shit, shit, shit everywhere you can. Thou shall also go on the internet and shit up all the blogs that entertain thee with endless gibberish spam, which endless gibberish spam shall become like genuine, corporeal, incarnate poop in pixel form. Patrick, henceforward… you have the POWER!

                And it came to pass, that P-boy has arrived here to shit up the comment section, driven as he is by an unshakable religious conviction that, “You shall shit into others as you would like others to shit into you.” That, and only that, is the true apotheosis of Patrick’s theology.

                • I AM says:

                  10/10

                  42/12

                  88/14 would read again

                • Anonymous says:

                  Why do you hate Peppermint so much? He was right about Epstein even though he is blue pilled on women.

                • Peppermint = Sleazy Sperm Slurping Sodomite says:

                  White Knights deserve all the venom and scorn in the universe, and as per Jim’s unequivocal command, they will be ruthlessly beaten to death through the streets come the restoration.

                • ten says:

                  Is there some interracial scat porn version of the nobel prize?

                • Anonymous says:

                  You can have the white knights if I can have the Satanists.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The reservoirs of bullycide are vast and indomitable, and white knights make up the majority of their designated targets. Literal-minded folks like Cominator may envision an actual mass extinction event involving the lib-loon genus (aka Blue-Hairocaust, aka Soyodomor, aka Veganocalypse), but as the aspirant priesthood, we must pave the way forward with a figurative extermination of blue-pilled inclinations and instincts; the heretics’ temperamentally-compromised blood must be boiled from the inside out, if you know what I mean.
                  >we

                  Explain yourself please.

                • I AM says:

                  peppermint (little p) is unironically my favorite poster, self-aware sometimes-satire obscurantism is my favorite genre, and Infinite Jest is my favorite novel.

        • I AM says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Since you have been called a postmodernist faking technical knowledge, you should have a chance to prove us wrong.

            The ability to reproduce criticisms of the C language and coding environment more or less accurately does not show you are a techie, does not show you understood those criticisms.

            Give me a C++11 templated function (or a set of templated functions) of the form:
            template <class T> T multipleof(T x)
            Which uses compile time introspection (not rtti) and std::is_integral(T), std::is_signed(T), and std::is_arithmetic(T) to compile to a set of functions multipleof(x) that gives three times x for signed integer type, twice x for x of integer unsigned type, zero for non integral arithmetic types, and generates a compile time error for non arithmetic types, where the compiler makes the decision of which to return at compile time, rather than the decision being made at run time. (You cannot use the results of std::is_integral(T) etc in common code that gets invoked for every type at runtime.)

            And then I will agree you are a techie, believe you are a good one, and allow posts that I otherwise would have censored for random technobabble intended to impress without communicating.

            • I AM says:

              [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                All tech posts from you will be censored unless you show you can code, and code beyond fizzbuzz.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  The code in your comment resembles code the way your tech posts resembled techie discussion.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Still waiting for a C++11 template program using compile time introspection before I will allow any supposedly techie posts from you.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Aw, I wanted to see what sorry excuse for a program he came up with.

                  Don’t feel bad, IAM – coding above beginner level requires an innate affinity for high-order abstractions and symbol manipulation that most people don’t have, including most white men. It’s why women disappeared from the field with the emergence of high-level languages. Even a lot of higher-IQ midwits can’t hack it. We aren’t exactly sure what the secret sauce is.

                  Just don’t pretend to be something you’re not. You can still participate in other ways.

                • jim says:

                  Postmodern babble is bad for the blog, because it encourages people to speak in postmodern babble, and discourages people from trying to understand difficult and complex sentences. Also, I specified C++11 template metacode and a high level job interview problem, and his program, supposing it could compile which I doubt, was not C++11 template metacode, or even recognizable Python.

                • jim says:

                  The higher the level of abstraction, the harder it is to see all the way through the abstractions to the low level program execution, hence the disappearance of women from programming. The failure mode of high level language programming is also the failure mode of postmodernism – they cannot see that the abstractions are not the concrete, and treat abstractions as concretes. Similarly with Marxist “classes”. Lisp is tough, and C++ template metacode is tough, because it is written at a very high level of abstraction.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  As I said, not allowing any tech posts from you until you submit the requested C++ template program illustrating metacompilation.

                  The question was fizzbuzz for template metacode. There is probably a cheat sheet around with some version of the question of on it, and in truth if I was going for an interview where they wanted template coding, I would check the cheat sheet before attending the interview, but interviewers always ring minor changes from the cheat sheet, so you have to understand the cheat sheet well enough to make those minor changes.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  If you solved my “inane, fizzbuzz, level question” days ago, let’s see the solution.

                  Your comment containing the solution will sit in moderation until I run it. If running it produces a sensible result, I will allow the comment and stop deleting your tech comments.

            • pdimov says:

              [*deleted*]

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        What anticipated events and crises do you anticipate could be spun or steered in a monastery-dissolving direction?

        Student loan crisis is one obvious such business case, but what others?

        Chicago and Illinois State government bankruptcy?

        Something bigger but more subtle than I can’t natively detect?

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          (I beg your pardon. Feel free to move my above posting out of the comment tree and to a “top level” position at the very bottom.)

    • Eli says:

      I was wondering about the same… “verifiably halting language?” Someone didn’t study their complexity and computability theory. Unless it was meant ironically, but then you, I AM, lost me even more.

      And what does scaling have to do with “memory unsafety” (you mean, it’s hard to use pointers, and your programming efforts don’t produce anything of value, ie dont “scale”)? Or do you mean scaling as in “distributing” and “parallelizing” (pointers and scaling would then be orthogonal concepts)?

      Also, C was a tremendous advance. One didn’t have to write things in asm anymore (well, for the most part). Your unhappiness stems from just being a very mediocre engineer, if are one at all.

      But there are other approaches out there. Did you check out Lisp or Haskell?

      As to “every language was written in C” — this is plainly absurd. Ever heard of compiler bootstrapping?

      I can see how people can be unhappy with C++. The learning curve has become really steep, especially with the new compile time stuff, rval refs, and STL. But, again, if *you*, I AM, cannot master it, hating the whole ecosystem is stupid. Move on to Python or C# or something. This pointers and templates business isn’t for you, for the same reason that you are clueless about computer architecture and its implications on software programming.

      Listen, being a software engineer, esp when it comes to low-level programming and systems architecture, is hard and isn’t for everyone. Instead of complaining, bother to propose and work out actual creative ideas and solutions (like this crazy guy: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/System.htm) instead of spitting crap.

      There is way too many imbeciles complaining without putting in any real work. Where is that famous WASP work ethic?

      • Ron says:

        If you don’t have a love for programming in C than you lack a soul

        If you work in C++ than may God have mercy on that soul

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        The first C compiler was written in BCPL, I believe, by Ken Thompson. Since Lisp is 10-15 years older than C the first implementations presumably were not written in C either (the very first one was written in machine code, as it happens). The first Lisp compiler was, of course, written in Lisp.

        The first assembler was apparently viewed with suspicion by then-programmers because it provided unwanted abstraction. (Source: Richard Hamming’s memoirs.)

      • I AM says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Another tech comment deleted for the same reason as before. There is a lot wrong with constexpr, or rather the environment that makes constexpr necessary, but criticisms of constexpr need to be made by someone who demonstrably understands its use, otherwise the complaint is just postmodern babble, intended to impress, rather than communicate.

          • I AM says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Deleted for the same reason.

              Your criticism of constexpr C++ happens to be true, but if you cannot write the template metacode for an interview question that checks your ability to write C++ metacode, only by true by coincidence or by copying the words but not the meaning from someone who understood the criticism.

              It took me three days to get my head around c++ metacode and in the course of getting my head around it, I found a whole lot of pages on the web explaining how to write C++ metacode, by people whom I eventually realized did not in fact understand how to write C++ metacode.

              The function of constexpr is to bring an inconveniently arbitrary and limited subset of C++ into template metacode, which is full of C++ expressions that work in a way fundamentally different to C++, and are used in ways and for purposes utterly alien to their intended C++ usage. But I am not going to let people spam out pseudo erudite material on such a proposed rewrite who plainly do not understand metacode. Your stuff on C++ is just postmodernism, the equivalent of Derrida’s “Einsteinian constant”

              Template metacode was never designed as a Turing complete language. Rather, it is an accident that any sufficiently complex system is apt to be Turing complete, unlike Lisp metacode which is just regular lisp, with a few added and quite lispian features. Thus it is an unholy mess, where features never designed to write metacode code are tortured to write code by being used in a way that is as malicious as the brainfuck joke language. This is an unfortunate accident of history, and there is a good argument for a total rewrite from scratch, not of C++, but of its template metacode system. But I am not going to let people who cannot write template metacode discuss that rewrite.

              What we actually need to write metacode is a system where your namespaces are just data, merely an instance of the std::map type, analogous to javascript metacode, syntax trees are just data, analogous to lisp metacode, and every type is a decltype of an existing javascript like object which is potentially compilable to a C++ object, so that your type definition could potentially be compiled to the same sort of data as any instance of that type. But no one who cannot write metacode is likely to truly understand what I just said, because it is a statement at an even higher level of abstraction than C++ metacode itself. Not many lisp slingers actually understand lisp metacode, even though it is a lot easier than C++ metacode.

              Lisp metacode language is massively better than C++, but C++ is massively better than lisp. We need to redo the template system that you can write metacode in the way that lisp and javascript do it, but not in a lisp or javascript like language, instead in C++, so that C++ metacode gets just in time compiled to the same stuff as regular C++, in the same way from regular C++, so that metacode expressions are written in regular just in time compiled C++ (not in lisp or javascript), as lisp metacode is written in regular lisp, albeit used at a higher level that is harder to get your brain around. Lisp metacode is more usable because it is written in regular lisp, and C++ metacode would be more usable if written in regular C++.

              C++ is an excellent language, but it is growing all these carbunkles, such as constexpr, because never designed to support metacode. We need to make the abstract syntax tree available to the person writing code as manipulabledeclval objects and the namespaces available as manipulable std::mapofstd::declvalobjects

              • pdimov says:

                There’s nothing wrong with constexpr. It was a limited subset in C++11 because that was the conservative option at the time, but it was designed to be a full subset of C++, and is becoming such with each subsequent iteration.

                constexpr is perhaps the best designed C++ feature.

              • simplyconnected says:

                It’s true there is something kludgy about having the exact same code running at either compile-time or run-time (since you can’t overload based on the constexpr-ness of the arguments). Hence the need for std::is_constant_evaluated later to separate compile-time and run-time code.

                Not an expert on this but I imagine perhaps cleaner to have a separate compile-time language. Constexpr is certainly better than traditional template meta-programming.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Well what do I know: c++20 will have consteval which will be a tag for exclusively compile-time code (no gcc or clang support yet).

              • I AM says:

                [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for technobabbling about my interview question andconstexpr.

                  Since you did not realize that templates are Turing complete until I commented on the interview question, it is not surprising that you do not understand either the question, nor the usage ofconstexpr.

                  The primary use case of constexpr is, in conjunction with decltypeandstd::declval,to use C++ code inside template metacode.

                  When you first started technobabbling, it was obvious that you did not understand your own babble.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You quote a relevant statement of mine about constexpr, quote the relevant part of the C++ standard, and then technobabble about them in ways that reveal you do not understand either one.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I will allow you to post on if constexpr when you demonstrate that you understand what that means by providing a relevant example of usage.

                  Implement

                  template <T> ... abs(T i){...}

                  so that abs(i) returns an unsigned type if i is of signed type, and the original type otherwise, and returns -i if i is negative, and the original value of i otherwise.

                • pdimov says:

                  Are we still going on about this?

                  Jim, would appreciate if you let his comments stand, I’d like to see them.

                  FWIW, “discarded statement” is the `false` part of `if constexpr`, which is C++17, not C++11.

                • jim says:

                  The world is full of mighty impressive sounding babble, by people who do not know what they are babbling about. High energy physics has gone postmodern. I am waging war upon postmodern babble. If he submits the requested interview question, which is dead easy, fizzbuzz for compile time code, then he can post stuff on if constexpr

                • I AM says:

                  This post is dedicated to pdimov.

                  Jim’s second interview question, tagline: even gayer than the first one:

                  https://pastebin.com/8cj0C7CM

                  cmd: clang++ -o $FILEPATH.out -std=c++17 -fsanitize=address,undefined -o -g $FILEPATH && ./$FILEPATH

                  Jim’s first interview question, tagline: an end to all censorship:

                  https://pastebin.com/fWB3yJVm

                  cmd: clang++ -o $FILEPATH.out -std=c++11 -fsanitize=address,undefined -o -g $FILEPATH && ./$FILEPATH

                  Freedom of speech, and of the press, are fundamental, inalienable human rights, and the Reformation did nothing wrong.

                  Long live the Republic.

                • jim says:

                  OK, it compiles and does approximately what I specified, any deviations being plausibly a lack of clarity in my specifications.

                  It does not show you can write template metacode, but is shows you have the concept and can use some of the tools, hence are allowed to critique those tools.

                  And having navigated your way through assorted weirdnesses in C++ metacode, you surely have some legitimate complaints.

                  Having performed this exercise, now visualize performing it back in the bad old days before auto and if constexpr

                  I can do it the old way, but I don’t want to.

                  I am very glad of if constexpr. I regret what makes it necessary.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Old school template meta programming (in the spirit of Blitz++ expression templates) was dreadful. Indeed the ability to generate code at compile-time was pretty much discovered by accident, not what the language was intended for.

                  if constexpr is a godsend in that regard. Why would it be a problem that if constexpr is needed? Generating code at compile-time is incredibly useful.

                • pdimov says:

                  >This post is dedicated to pdimov.

                  Thanks.

                  The best thing about interview questions is that you not only need to solve it, you need to guess which solution the interviewer has in mind. In this case I suspect Jim wanted https://godbolt.org/z/uXN17i, minus the constexpr part, of course.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, for the first interview question, I intended, and expected, that cheat sheet.

                  I should have worded the question more restrictively.

                • FP Über Alles says:

                  What cheat sheet?

                  The first question stipulated:

                  * C++11
                  * a set of templated functions
                  * compile-time introspection

                  I’d thought that it also stipulated the use of static_assert, but I see that this isn’t the case.

                  The boost bit to stringify variable types came from SO ages ago. Everything else is whatever. SFINAE is used in the first question. Both are maximally minimalist in nature. Total time investment is in the dozens of minutes.

                  How is this not template metaprogramming? This is exactly template metaprogramming.

                • jim says:

                  It is the smallest possible subset of template programming.

                • FP Supremacist says:

                  Scroll up and count the deleted comments. Almost every one included a demand for a better question.

    • pdimov says:

      -fsanitize=address,undefined

    • TBeholder says:

      Linus Torvalds for publishing the first performant open-source OS as a clone of the C-based UNIX clusterfuck;

      What clone?
      It’s rather common knowledge that all he had at the start was his own terminal program and a newsgroup post requesting POSIX standard specs.

  4. something says:

    My parents like many others just throw me in public school and taught me nothing, fuck they actively gone their way to avoid teaching me anything. So after twelve fucking years by the end of high school i was kinda illiterate in portuguese, knew pretty much no english, at least i learned math and some science. I was useless to myself and society. And after all of this university wasnt much better, learn some more much and some more physics, but that was mostly my fault.

    Now i am a shitty gunsmith trying to learn stuff from the books i can get my hands on and youtube videos.

  5. simplyconnected says:

    Your description of the education system as a prison and, mostly, a waste of time is spot on, as far as the experience of every smart person I know goes.
    But it’s made even worse by homework. I had to do (high school) homework in europe and US. US homework was worse (longer and more repetitive). But it was mostly a waste of time in both cases.
    Some homework is useful. Did learn from grad school science homework problems, because they were pretty close to solving research problems, so you are actually doing something quite a lot like your job.

    Wondering how the role of homework ties into the “monastery dissolution” plan.

  6. Commentator says:

    School also ruins children’s interest in subjects.

    I remember when I was around 8 years old and the history project was going to be about children who had to be evacuated from London because of the blitz. Literally takes about 5 minutes to cover that topic.

    I wanted to learn about the battles and the tanks and the guns used by the armies and everything interesting that could be learned about the second world war.

    No prizes for guessing the gender of the teacher.

  7. Eric says:

    My wife grew up in Bangalore, and her and a dozen mates would check in first period every day at school, and then skip the rest of the day together, returning home at five to pretend they had been at school. know what happened to them in later life? every last one of them wound up working in a high paying tech job in San Francisco.

  8. hoots says:

    Engineering coursework teaches domain-specific theory and mathematics, which are necessary but not sufficient tools for doing real engineering. Good engineering involves creativity. If you never see engineering as an art, you’ll never be a great engineer. For most students with the opportunity, their most valuable experiences will be the internships and co-ops that exposed them to the real-world practice of engineering.

  9. Dr.Jim says:

    Very interesting. In medicine, the priests and the journeymen have been at war for the past 50 years over the apprenticeship system (residency), and the priests are now near total victory.

    In the past, we worked 36 hour shifts with little or no sleep, but we learned the craft. Now, they work (at most) 16 hours and the constant signing off of patients creates many preventable errors, while preserving a sense of self-entitlement and allowing invincible ignorance to persist. In surgery, it’s worse. There’s an old (and mostly true) saying:”Q: You know what’s the worst thing about working every other night? A: “Yes. You miss half the great cases”.

    Of course, the new system, which depends on periodic “evaluations” to “improve quality” requires the employment of many priests, and those in the training system’s highest aspiration is now to become a priest instead of a real doctor.

    It is not a coincidence that the retirement of any real doctor requires hiring 2.5 “new and better” doctors to replace him.

    This has resulted in very predictable deleterious consequences, which I hope someday to be writing about.

    • Dave says:

      Like the tragedy of Continental Express Flight 2574, where one shift started replacing parts on the plane, then went home and let the next shift finish the job. Were the subsequent rule changes appropriate, or did they just create more hoops to jump through?

  10. TBeholder says:

    Thus, for example, most American children still pledge allegiance to the flag every day. This sort of ritual binds the nation. We can do that for an hour on Sundays, and when people are being hatched, matched, and dispatched. Also various special occasions, such as thanksgiving and Christmas. We don’t have to suck up everyone’s childhood.

    Curiously, excessive preaching of this sort is the same as “using the name in vain”. Which perhaps should be categorized as self-regulation process. Or: virtue signals are memetic counterpart of fiat money inflation, the more is printed, the less its value becomes, until eventually even bothering to chase obviously counterfeit becomes barely worth the expense, and…
    Compare to the “Jelly-bellied Flag-flapper” in Stalky & Co.

  11. Anonymous Fake says:

    I think the most underrated aspect of educational reform is that one has to stick with it. Just a generation ago, it was conservatives demanding higher standards (testing), homework, extracurricular activities, and expansion of higher education to beat the Soviets, the Sputnik moment. Schools were seen as traditional and home schooling was for “special” problem children.

    If warriors were in power, what’s to prevent them from going straight back to Prussian education? They started it. They lack a consistency that the priests do have.

  12. Not Tom says:

    The long-standing “argument” from progressives is that, sure, anyone could learn to be a potter or blacksmith, but today’s knowledge work (mostly STEM) is really hard, and requires highly specialized training, which you can tell from the number of tech companies struggling to find competent workers.

    This is of course a lie, as easily observed by:
    – The rapidity with which teenagers and pre-teens are able to learn technological skills that took their parents decades;
    – The number of successful tech companies started by college drop-outs and some high-school drop-outs;
    – The staggering failure of engineering programs to consistently produce female graduates who last more than a few years in the industry;
    – The 10-15 minute “coding IQ tests” that predict, with surprisingly high accuracy, whether or not an individual can succeed in that field;
    – The mysterious and rapid expansion of social sciences programs which clearly have nothing to do with these tech fields of supposedly historically unprecedented difficulty.

    The progressive argument is also an argument from ignorance, much like their anti-gun arguments; becoming a competent mason or blacksmith is incredibly difficult, but knowing absolutely nothing about these trades allows one to proclaim that they simply didn’t require the same level of sophistication as today’s high-skill trades, as opposed to the more obvious explanation that the universities are simply artificial gatekeepers of today’s high-skill trades.

    • I AM says:

      [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Unresponsive.

        Not what Not Tom was talking about.

        • I AM says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            If you want to know Not Tom’s opinions on various matters related to his comment, ask him about those things. Don’t tell him he was talking about those things and that you want a “clarification”. He was not talking about those things.

            By purportedly asking for a “clarification” you are putting your own frame on him. You ask “does he mean X or mean Y”, when he said Z, Z being a different assertion on a different topic.

            The status of engineers is a topic in which I am very interested in, and the progressive attack on the status of engineers and doctors is entirely on topic, and I welcome discussion of it. But no framing other people.

            • I AM says:

              O software guru, I ask for advice. I ask for advice because my every day is a small refracted hell of blind incompetence and interminable fluorescent lighting. /1\d\dk\/yr/ is not enough for this unnatural toil; I need at least /3\d\dk\/yr/ so that I might stake my claim to a small cabin in the Rockies, with good skiing and maybe fishing and ideally a modest remote income with which to continue vacationing in the Alps.

              If you will not do this, O software guru, then I ask for a supply of code puzzles of arbitrary complexity.

              Otherwise, I must turn my face from you, O software guru, for Jim’s Blog has become mundane and anodyne in my sight.

    • I AM says:

      Your comment is unclear. Please clarify the following:

      * Is, in fact, software hard?

      * Does, in fact, software require highly specialized training?

      * What is the implied relationship between the humanities and the engineerings?

      * Blacksmithing et al. requires “highly specialized training”; does this undergird or undermine the situation vis-à-vis software?

      * Are, in fact, tech companies struggling to find competent workers?

      * If they [the “tech companies”] are, in fact, struggling to find competent workers, then how does one best establish communication with one, e.g. Apple, with more cash than it knows what to do with, willing to pay a fat FAANG salary?

      • jim says:

        Not Tom’s comment was entirely clear, and the questions you are asking about his comment are arguably raised by his comment, but are unrelated to his comment.

        Feel free to ask him questions about those issues, but stop telling him that his comment was about those issues. It was not about those issues. You are persistently trying to hang a frame on him that he does not share.

        I will gladly answer those questions if Not Tom does not, for I am pretty sure I agree with him on both his comment, and the issues raised by it. Both are uncontroversial here, and I know well the answers from job interviews. But I won’t answer them, and I will prevent anyone else from asking or answering, if they are part of hanging a frame on other commenters.

        • I AM says:

          I literally (and this is the most honest thing I have ever written in a comment on this blog) have no idea what either you or Not Tom are talking about.

          I LITERALLY

          LITERALLY

          HAVE NO IDEA

          Hence the questions.

          • jim says:

            Perhaps you had no idea what Not Tom meant. But ask the questions without telling him what meant.

            You keep asking “did you mean X, or did you mean Y” when he said neither X nor Y, but Z.

            The frame you impose on Not Tom presupposes a shared agreement that priestly education in “computer science” is important to software engineers and desired by employers. It is desired by Human Resources, which is not at all the same thing.

  13. Curious says:

    Given the environment you’ve described, how do you plan to raise your (hypothetical) son?

    • jim says:

      Discussing this would leak too much information about people I love, potentially leaking my identity and endangering them.

      • Curious says:

        That is reasonable.

        How about this version: how would you recommend an American, living in America, raise his sons? Any dangerous specifics can be generalized.

        • jim says:

          I don’t necessarily recommend total unschooling, because unfortunately academic credentials are necessary for status, an evil and hostile system we need to dismantle. But dad should be high status in the eyes of his sons, act to counteract the baneful influence of teachers, ensure his sons do not credit them with inappropriate status, and minimize the time wasted by schooling.

          As for daughters, university is whore school, and if you send your daughters to whore school, you will not have grandchildren.

          • My future kids won’t be going anywhere near a public school. If my sons want status, they can join the damn army. If they want money, the trades are open to them. If they just want to learn, I have a huge library of old books.

            “Ensure the teachers aren’t credited with high status.” My granddad, an ex-paratrooper, got into an argument with my uncle’s teacher back in the 60’s and snapped him like a twig. No charges. That’d be the most effective way to do it, but I can’t get away with that today and who knows how (literally) pozzed the schools will be in a decade.

            Don’t want to waste my time and energy fighting a constant war for my sons’ souls with evil fat catladies and trannies. Far easier to homeschool and inoculate the kids against mainstream thought in measured doses.

            • We want status for our kids because it means they can reproduce. Unfortunately, the dog and pony show that is our elite cannot convert their high status into pussy or grandchildren because their religion preaches whoredom and soy. As I mentioned on Aidan’s blog, I recently went to the opera. The level of manhood was, to quote Trump, “Sad!”.

              If having grandchildren means taking a status hit as defined by the Cathedral, so be it. Besides, if my sons are anything like me, the university system will boil them away like impurities.

  14. You know, Jim, this is one of the rare cases when a “far-right” idea could be actually popular. All my college classmates were aware of something like this after a year of graduation.

    For an average corporate job in my neck of Europe, one needs two things. A degree, any degree, could be Renaissance art. And be able to do actually do something useful, which can come from a summer job, productive hobby, or something learned at the job. Like, Mark is a passionate photographer and also taught himself PhotoShop, he is just this visual type, graduated Renaissaince art, gets hired by a marketing department to make the ads in the mags or online. The degree is a requirement, but the actual working knowledge comes from a productive hobby.

    Especially those learned this lesson who did not have a productive hobby or similar useful knowledge. Like… me. I was planning my career from 15 years old, studying all the relevant things. One little thing I missed was to learn to… work. The curse of the relatively affluent kid. Never needed a summer job. Never had to help dad fix the car. “You just study and read, that’s the best for you.” My resume after graduation basically said “very book smart, never ever got any work done”. So after graduation, after 9 months of desperation, it was a series of sheer luck to get hired and then to not get fired, and what I learned on that job, to get something actually done, was what my later career was based on.

    One more thing. Who is the priesthood? Intellectuals but I would say, law degrees are rather overrepresented among them. This is why I developed some doubts lately that Moldbug isn’t entirely right about elected politicians having no power, only the permanent government. Remember The Onion saying when Obama got elected: “Hope and change: one Harvard law grad leaves the presidency, another one takes it.” Senators, congressmen, European politicians too, are overwhelmingly law grads. So are the permanent government. So are the SCOTUS, and their European versions, usually called constitutional court. Who have the highest amount of actually formal sovereign power. Granted not so many law grads in the media, and the most influential professors are currently not that of law. So the informal Cathedral is not so much dominated by lawyers. But historically we see them lawyers everywhere, the French Revolution, Germany’s Parliament of Professors in 1848, who were professors of law etc. Historically we see lawyers everywhere at the levers of power, suggesting elected politicians have some too, because why else would they match this power-to-the-lawyers pattern so well?

    And lawyers were already job trained in the Middle Ages at the university. They are the great exception. Although usually several years of apprenticeship required on top of that. So this is the core of it, IMHO. If you look at who were in the Scholastic university of Bologa or Sorbonne at 1200. Theologians, priests. Medical doctors, but that was a very bullshit training. And lawyers. Which of these people are powerful today? Lawyers. This is why everybody has to go to university. (And for those who are always looking for the Jew connection: because of verbal IQ and cultural experience in pilpul, Jews producing a large number of succesful lawyers is a true stereotype.)

    So I think a sovereign has to break lawyer power, judge power first.

    • Having lots of lawyers on your side is the key to wielding power in a liberal republic. This is why populists and nationalist movements flounder in power even if they have overwhelming electoral victories – that’s why Trump has no personnel pool to draw from aside from the Federalist Society. Modern law schools are basically not so much leftist indoctrination camps (although still to a certain degree) but crucibles which boil away natural rightists.
      No rightist lawyers means no personnel to implement policy and in particular, no personnel to act as prosecutors and judges. No rightist prosecutors and judges means rampant and unchecked leftist criminality on all levels, from elite to ghetto niggers.

      • Not Tom says:

        One could argue that lawyering is inherently a left-wing profession, as opposed to police or judicial work. In a reactionary system – that is, a formalist one – the law would be obvious to everyone, and lawyers as we know them today would mostly be out of jobs.

        That, and the fact that reactionary rulers tend to crack down on runaway legalism. Lawyers are completely justified in being paranoid about the right.

        • If we accept that substituting procedure for judgement is leftism, yes, I could agree with that. In my practice, I see a lot of a) make-work and LARPing to conceal the fact that the big decisions are made using judgement, b) procedure biting into judgement at all levels and c) the corrupt hiding their corruption behind procedure, presenting themselves as victims of “the system”. And I’m in a more mercantile branch of the profession (damage restitution and claims adjustment).
          But in the sense that a reactionary system would replace procedures with judgement (a government of men), it’d need lawyers to serve as judges and prosecutors, though I suspect “lawyer” will not mean the same thing as it does today.
          My original point, however, was that in the current regime, it is very difficult to create rightist legal cadre for any purpose, which is I guess the secret to the enemy’s stranglehold on the civil service and justice system.

          • Not Tom says:

            I believe the saying goes something like: “If the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law.” At a meta level, this implies that the entire system is duplicitous, geared toward manipulating outcomes rather than establishing a fair and consistent process, therefore tailor-made for leftism.

            The Harvard legal system was designed for revolutionary movements; it is not compatible with reactionary goals.

            I think we’re basically in agreement here, I just find the explanation more fundamental and not entirely power-based. An analogy would be inquiring as to why more women don’t own fleshlights. Well, nobody is stopping them, but it wasn’t made for them and doesn’t work with their anatomy.

  15. “Education doesn’t work” is probably the biggest redpill you can feed the average person. It’s not as politically loaded as democracy, or race, or women, but most importantly education is a rare sacred totem of the Left on both sides of the aisle that is an entirely falsifiable lie. Most of the Left’s lies, like any good religion, are unfalsifiable. White privilege, the equality of man, systemic oppression, can’t argue for or against them with logic and evidence. Education is very, very holy, and also a falsifiable weak point.

    The data is very easy. Our spending on public education has ballooned by an order of magnitude since the 1970s and test scores have not changed a bit. The inner-city all-black schools that perform the worst are better funded than any other type of school. It has been the first and foremost goal of educational policy since the 1960s, publicly and internally, to close the racial achievement gap. The best and brightest teachers in the world, all sincere true believers, have been trying their hardest for three generations with not even minor results; no results whatsoever.

    The generations that went from the first powered flight in 1903 to landing on the fucking moon a mere sixty-odd years later? Most people did not graduate high school and college enrollment was tiny. Yet there were people who saw the Wright Brothers fly, who lived to see the Apollo 11 broadcast. What have we achieved since then, now that we have more education than ever? And yet, Mr. Normie, there is no politician talking about this obvious and readily available data. Absolutely nobody sane and respectable near the levers of power would dare mention cutting back education. Why do you think that is?

  16. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Once you recognise that standards in produced goods fell as a result of abolishing Order, it’s inevitable that you end up completely opposed to all of the Whig reforms, across the board, and shed any residual reluctance to oppose wickedness based on what the name badge says.
    If it’s evil for the government to do it, that’s because it’s evil, period.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      “Once you recognise that standards in produced goods fell as a result of abolishing Order”

      No mention of apefirmative action.

      Once again, Communist Revolutionary gives women and Blacks the get out of jail free card.

      • jim says:

        Also, standards fell, conspicuously and spectacularly, as a result of abolishing the enforceable apprenticeship system, which was more effective in transferring skills from older practitioner to younger practitioner. The universities taking over from apprenticeship had obvious harmful effects, and he gives educationism a pass.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Actually I was agreeing with you. It’s good to see the libertarian pipeline still functioning.

          Once the penny drops that it was this ‘liberalisation’ of the professions that led to plummeting standards, there’s really no saving any aspect of Enlightenment thinking.
          I’m not excessively attached to the label ‘reactionary’ these days and there are things Marx was right about, eg. the existence of such a thing as ‘the workers’ and such a thing as ‘the bourgeoisie’ ie. people who don’t need to work because they have alternate income streams.

          Basically five minutes at an antiques fair is enough to prove that antique furniture, cutlery, pottery, art, penmanship, craftsmanship and cuisine greatly surpass anything seen today.

          Indeed the spectacle of the sheer disquality of ‘gourmet beef-burgers’ is one of the many reasons I hate seeing people spending their paycheck in Chiquito’s; the Mexicana-in-Europe factor being of course another of many.

          As for Rocket Man, that’s a bit of a reach but fine if that’s how you want to read it. While those things definitely matter, and while I wasn’t suggesting otherwise, I’ll see your ‘blue pill’ and raise you another just to trigger you: blacks and women per se simply do not have the ability to drive standards as low as they’ve fallen. For that to happen, it takes a magical piece of Whiggery known as ‘the labour market’, in which people attend college, not workplaces, then compete for entry into fields rather than already be embedded. It’s a great deal for employers and the people who capitalise the businesses because the cost of apprenticeships is removed, but the resultant standards really do speak for themselves.

          Carlyle was wrong about education by the way. He thought it might just make democracy sorta kinda work. He was very mistaken.

          • jim says:

            > mIt’s a great deal for employers and the people who capitalise the businesses because the cost of apprenticeships is removed, but the resultant standards really do speak for themselves.

            As someone who has interviewed no end of people freshly graduated from elite universities, I can tell you it is a terrible deal for employers as individuals. We want engineers, and get priests.

            Also, the purpose of the priestly takeover of education was to raise priestly status, and lower employer status. Which is a terrible deal for employers as individuals.

            And collectively, employers pay most of the taxes to keep kids off the streets, when they could be working, which is a terrible deal for employers collectively.

            You are, as always, using Marxist analysis to blame to merchants, when the reactionary indictment of our society necessarily indicts Harvard and the priestly class.

            My biggest gripe with Harvard is that they destroyed the scientific method, by taking scientific debate behind the closed doors of priestly synods. The scientific method is necessary for the victory of truth and human flourishing.

            • Not Tom says:

              What CR is really saying (not intentionally, and not consciously, but demons are compelled to admit their desires) is that the university system is a great deal for priests impersonating employers, whose goal is not to create or expand capital but rather to appropriate it for their factions, and expand their empires.

              They get to pay nothing for apprentices, which is good because they do not want apprentices. They want pre-approved acolytes instead, which the system provides to them in abundance.

              A real entrepreneur does not want to pay obscene salaries to fresh graduates who can’t do anything useful – for labor that is high-cost and low-skill.

              • pdimov says:

                This implies planning on the part of the priests.

                It’s more likely, in my opinion, for higher education to have expanded as an unplanned side effect of employers wanting to hire white people, with a degree requirement being the only legal way to do so.

                Priestly influence has obviously increased as a result, but not because they planned it to happen.

                Cancer doesn’t plan, it just grows unless checked.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I agree with you that a lot of it wasn’t consciously planned. But it is still a great deal for priests, and CR, by telling us it is a great deal for merchants, is actually telling us it is a great deal for priests.

                • pdimov says:

                  CR gets a lot of undeserved flack.

                  In this case, it’s true that in an environment in which the employee can jump ship at every opportunity, employers would prefer to shift training costs onto someone else. It’s true because I know employers and they say so. They don’t fancy investing into an employee for him to then promptly move to the competition for a higher salary.

                  Shifting the training into education obviously doesn’t work, but this doesn’t matter; what works is illegal.

                  Did priests outlaw what works? Debatable. Do they benefit? Obviously.

                • jim says:

                  With enforceable apprenticeship, you can recoup the cost of training.

                • pdimov says:

                  The two things that work are enforceable employee retention and employer coordination (guild-provided training, gentleman’s agreements, etc.)

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Again, you employ Marxist analysis and presuppose that everyone agrees with Marxism. Deleted for presupposing a position that is controversial, and universally rejected on this blog.

                  I am painfully aware of the reasons why employers need to employ party men. We can debate them, but I am not going to debate them with someone who insists on assuming Marxism and assuming that we all agree with Marxism.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              A typical atomised individualist libertarian take, which is a shame because the article is actually a departure from that.

              Yes, a 21st century engineering firm is harmed by the transition from the apprenticeship system to what we have now, which you, rightly in my view, characterise as religious overreach.
              But that entirely misses the point: the transition didn’t happen in the 21st century, it happened…… when exactly? I mean if you answer that question it’s ok but if I do, you’ll get all shirty again.

              Either way, whenever it happened, the economy (that’s to say the stuff people were actually doing) wasn’t geared towards engineering. Engineering went on, of course, but the economy overall was concerned with ‘industry’ – that’s to say textiles, widgets, food processing (eg. flour mills), ‘the trades’ (carpentry etc.) and accounting of all sorts.

              In those professions, those industries, it’s far better for the owner of the mill not to have to train the apprentice when he can just shift in a worker ready-made, or so he thinks. Now of course quality fell as a result – and that’s the point your article made, and with which I agreed, so that’s not an argument against what I’m saying, because I agree!
              Quality is not profit, and the good of the industry as a whole is not profit.

              To the individual mill-owner, the death of the apprentice system was a net positive – to him personally!

              After all, that’s the whole point of Whiggery: what right does some stuffy old aristocratic Guild have to tell the owner – the owner mind you – what he may or may not do with his own property – his property dammit!

              • jim says:

                You are giving us Marxist history and Marxist economics.

                Engineering, Engineer led businesses advancing technology and making technology widely available, Rand’s heroic engineer CEO archetype, appeared immediately after the restoration, starting around 1663, about three years after the restoration. A lot of people who had previously been in priestly jobs lost them, purged, or due to the radical reduction in priestly careers, and some of them, taking advantage of liberation of the corporate form to pursue profit, proceeded to apply science and engineering to make technological advances widely available.

                Engineers and scientists were on top in Silicon Valley, which was founded primarily by Shockley and engineers who learned under him. Engineers ceased to be on top during my career.

                So, from the restoration to late twentieth century silicon valley, engineer CEOs, such as Bill Gates, were the men advancing science, technology, and Engineering, Rand style.

                And when they lost out, late twentieth century, early twenty first century, then industry and technology ceased to advance.

                You talk about textiles on the Marxist basis that the textile mills and their machines just magically appeared, and the bosses just grabbed them and would not let the workers use except that the workers paid tribute to the bosses.

                Someone built and designed those mills, and taught the workers how to use them. And without that someone telling the workers what to do the workers would not have been able to use them, the machines would have soon stopped working.

                Engineers have long existed. Shakespeare refers to “the engineer hoist with his own petard”, which is a reference to the fact that war machines were hard to move before powered tracked vehicles, so were assembled near or on the battlefield at the last minute. What was new, and what existed from the restoration to the late twentieth century, what made the industrial revolution and technological advance, was engineer CEOs and the corporate form, the engineer in charge of other people’s capital and other people’s labor.

                And those were the people that built those textile mills that Marx talks about, and kept them operating. Very few people can make a pencil, except their boss provides them with materials and equipment, and tells them what to do with those materials and equipment – which is the missing factor from Marxist economics.

                Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO built those textile mills and kept them going, and without those men, the workers would have been scratching the dirt with sticks for a living.

              • alf says:

                A typical atomised individualist libertarian take

                This line works well against libertarians; they ARE atomized, after all. No match for mass cooperation by enemies.

                But we’re not atomized. We are also setting up mass cooperation. Does that scare you, CR? I bet it does.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Actually it’s not even true to say that the scientific method is necessary for the victory of human flourishing. Truth sure, maybe, or at least a certain kind of truth: truths about technical details yes; truths about life, how to live it and what it all means, no the evidence is in and it’s been corrosive to that in practice.

              There’s nothing wrong, in practice, even in strict engineering disciplines, or in medicine for that matter, with a much more pragmatic trial-and-error approach. The idea of endless disproof of not-entirely-perfect hypotheses as an engine of genuinely useful things is ridiculous and nobody’s ever believed that until our current hyper-religious epoch. You’re just falling for the religion yourself (or pretending to, and I don’t know which is worse).

              The line between engineers (not that engineers are the be all and end all but you seem to want to focus on them) and tinkers is much narrower and blurrier than the line between engineers and physicists.

              • jim says:

                You are unfamiliar with the scientific method, probably because it is now a thought crime, and you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to hear thought crimes.

              • Not Tom says:

                Dude… trial and error IS the scientific method. I mean, what the actual fuck, do you have to practice to be able to say this many words and still be completely incoherent?

                • jim says:

                  Yes, the scientific method is trial and error, but that is just an individual pursuing the scientific method individually.

                  Science is the collective pursuit of truth, and the key part of the collective pursuit of truth is the reliance on the primary source, the primary source being the man who actually did the trial and error, the man who says “I did so and so, and saw such and such result.”

                  When you use peer reviewed data, you are not relying on the word of an identified man who did identified things, but the word of a secret and anonymous committee meeting behind closed doors and drawing conclusions on the basis of secret evidence, which evidence they refuse to reveal even in the face of freedom of information lawsuits backed by rich and powerful people who are suffering adverse consequences from peer reviewed priestly tales.

                  As a general rule, the main conclusions of peer review and the usual implication of peer reviewed data is that they are holier than you are, and that rich and powerful people who fail provide payola should be smacked around a bit. Peer review is in practice as scandalous as Papal indulgences were. You should never believe it. You can believe the bits where the author says “I did so and so saw such and such”, but the conclusions, the abstract, the summary data, and such are going to be lies.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Real journals like arxiv aren’t quite so bad as e.g. psychology or climate science journals, but of course peer review and the citation metric is vastly inferior to the gold standard metrics of reproducibility and practical application.

                  But for CR to say that “pragmatic trial and error” is qualitatively different from the scientific method is absurd. The scientific method is precisely how you do trial-and-error properly, pragmatically. Test a falsifiable hypothesis. Falsify it. Trial and error.

                  Peer review is obviously not the scientific method; most peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even have a null hypothesis, never mind control groups. Peer review is just religion in a scientist’s skinsuit, just as welfare economics is religion in an economist’s skinsuit, postmodernism is religion in a philosopher’s skinsuit, and everything else that Progressivism has produced is the same rotten core wearing the skinsuit of something we used to respect.

                • jim says:

                  > Peer review is just religion in a scientist’s skinsuit, just as welfare economics is religion in an economist’s skinsuit, postmodernism is religion in a philosopher’s skinsuit, and everything else that Progressivism has produced is the same rotten core wearing the skinsuit of something we used to respect.

                  Anything that earns respect, they kill it and gut it so that they can wear it as skinsuit, so they kill everything that deserves respect.

                • Do I interpret this right, Jim? That peer review in an open manner would happen after publication anyway, other scientists read the article and criticize it and all that. So the issue with peer review is that it happens secretly before the article is published, that the peer reviewing committee acts as a gatekeeper, by rejecting an article they prevent the larger scientific community from viewing and reviewing and debating and criticizing it?

                • jim says:

                  The problem is that if the article has “incorrect” results you have to adjust the abstract, the conclusions, and less convenient data in order for it to be publishable.

    • t. spurdo says:

      breddy gud XDDD leds go hang oud in dhe gondola thread nao XDDDDDDD

      Well, almost, the phrase that’s kinda problematic is opposing wickedness, Christians don’t really talk like that, this is a fallen world and there is no one who does good.

      • Idiopathic Ventricular Fibrillation says:

        Does it feel “good,” or “bad,” knowing that Tyrone pulls your daughter’s endearing pigtails when he sodomizes her?

        >kinda problematic
        >don’t really talk like that

        The problem with your id, or lizard brain, is that you’re a lisping effete bisexual who slurps semen off the big bucks in the locker room “like a champ.” You’re a snake-sitter, a yogurt aficionado, a Meteoric Gender-Dysphoric, and the reason you constantly talk like a fag… is because you are one. (Big surprise)

        Learn to talk straight.

  17. Mister Grumpus says:

    OT:
    In DC news, this intentional provocation of the Ukraine call impeachment business reveals some real confidence that the FBI is in hand, doesn’t it?

    • Red says:

      The currentl coup attempt is CIA run. Not sure what the FBI is doing.

      • The Cominator says:

        The Mueller coup attempt was actually CIA run too. Brennan is the real evil spirit behind them both, McCabe was taking orders from Brennan not the other way around. Luckily he and his co-conspirators are imbeciles.

        • jim says:

          > The Mueller coup attempt was actually CIA run

          Really? Mueller is FBI, and troofers are FBI.

          The latest “whistleblower” is a Soros operative, and Soros is state department.

          All the corrupt Americans looting the Ukraine were ngo/Soros, and ngo is state department, not CIA.

          Brennan is CIA, and endorsed the “whistleblower” but that does not make a Soros coup a CIA coup, and I don’t see that it makes the Mueller investigation the Brennan investigation.

          Yes, Brennan is demonic commie entryist, a bad apple that rots everything around him, but I don’t think he is powerful. If not powerful, then these operations are not CIA operations.

          • The Cominator says:

            Its my impression of Brennan as a man (and his background as a true card carrying communist) vs. the rest of these bureaucrats.

            You see all these other bureaucratic government functionaries talking about Trump from Clapper and McCabe on down what do you see… bugmen, empty suits, NPCs. These people do as they are told they have no real drive or soul. They are not possessed by a demon so much as that a demon ate their soul a long time ago. They can’t be the evil spirit behind anything because they have no spirit left…

            Brennan on the other hand is a card carrying communist (voted for Gus Hall) and he gives the same truly demonic impression (but without the intellect) Brzienski and Soros do.

          • Not Tom says:

            If you believe the New York Times (and that is a big if) then the not-actually-a-whistleblower is CIA. Almost certainly low-level CIA since he (or she) knew nothing firsthand.

            But I do think it is interesting that the complaint was essentially rejected by the agency. They straight-up said that there was no substance and that the complaint was clearly partisan. Obviously the media has memory-holed that response, but it did happen, and I think that does show Trump having made significant progress in de-Obamifying the IC.

            • jim says:

              I don’t believe the New York Times. The whistle blower complaint was prepared, not by the whistleblower, but by Soros connected lawyers, and Soros is a State Department cutout.

              • Not Tom says:

                I don’t either, but when you put it together it’s almost an admission against interest. Low-level CIA bureaucrat with a bad case of TDS puts together this “complaint”, quite possibly with the help of Cathedral operatives, and is promptly told by the top brass that he or she doesn’t know dick and to go suck a lemon, then gets salty and opts for the usual strategy of leaking directly to the media.

                While I don’t have any specific reason to believe the NYT, it’s not hard to believe that some recently-hired entryist in a low-level position was involved.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Imagine this… CIA post some Brennan acolyte with TDS to the White House. Trump and the rest of him know exactly who he is.

                  He is approached by one of Trump’s (actually loyal but posing as disloyal people) who tells him hail fellow Nevertrumper… I know this happened with the Ukraine just imagine if it was leaked to the media. You could easily get away with leaking it I’m just too bound by old fashioned scruples to do that myself… but someone with clearance with less scruples could.

                • Not Tom says:

                  That’s Tim Pool’s theory, that this is part of a red-green controlled-leak infosec strategy to catch moles. His evidence is that there were some rather specific sounding false facts in the document.

                  It’s an interesting theory, but we’ve seen how quickly and easily Trump’s enemies will resort to just making stuff up, so only Trump and his team will ever really know if that’s what happened.

                • jim says:

                  I think Trump wanted impeachment on the Ukraine. They were going to impeach him regardless of the facts. Hard to imagine grounds for impeachment more favorable to him and more unfavorable to Democrats.

                  “Well,” said Br’er Fox, “it looks like there’s no water around here to drown you in. I guess I’ll skin you instead.” “Okay, Br’er Fox, no problem,” chattered Br’er Rabbit, “Go ahead and skin me, cut out my eyes, cut off my legs, just don’t throw me into that briar patch!”

                  Looks like Trump is already reveling in that briar patch.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim exactly I posted this on the other thread and we interpret “im draining the swamp” the same way.

                  Trump is saying they’ve fallen into the trap/briar patch and he thinks they are totally fucked now.

                  Trump not only gave the Democrats what is called in intelligence parlance a “marked card”, he gave them one that is going to self destruct.

                • jim says:

                  I steal from the best.

  18. Javier says:

    Moldbug talked about his “Antiversity,” an alternative source of knowledge devoted to truth rather than ideology. The idea being the Antiversity would serve as a lighthouse for reactionaries to flock to, a safe haven from the chaos of the decaying state. Is that what you’re doing? Is that what Infogalactic is trying to be? Hell, I think you could even put Heartiste in that category.

    • Heartiste is already Dean of Whamanology. Infogalactic is… ok, but I don’t trust Teddy Spaghetti not to shoehorn his autism about “muh fixation rates” into important matters of evolutionary theory.

    • jim says:

      It is obvious that it is untrue World Trade Tower Seven fell by “by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” because it started its fall by falling like southwards like a tree, towards the side notched by the terrorist damage and on fire, and landed, not on its own footprint, but on the square to the south of it. Therefore, the columns damaged by terrorists and weakened by fire, failed first, and the northern columns only failed when the building was no longer over them, but had bent a fair way southwards.

      Check any troofer photo of the rubble pile, and notice that is taken from the south, and that the square south of World Trade Tower Seven is mysteriously missing.

      Also, notice that Universities will cheerfully allow themselves to be associated with transparently bogus troofer studies, but not with any study that casts doubt on global warming, feral women in the workplace, or that we don’t have a gun problem, we have a black problem.

      • Zach says:

        I dug into this long ago. And long ago I concluded troofers are wrong. I will be driving into this study for fun when time permits.

  19. info says:

    Speaking of the modern priesthood. Looks like Freud and Keynes were worse than we thought:
    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/09/psychoanalysis-as-pedocamo.html?m=1

  20. White Man says:

    Formal education has its uses. There is too great a variety if degrees now though. Stick to the basics. Medicine, Engineering, Law, etc. Todays professors are trying to teach morality and that is not their place. My gripe is property tax and overpayment of administrators. Here the school admin makes $2 mil/yr. Ridiculous. If your school is programing your child to hate their whiteness, you need to take steps. Spend time, go to meetings. Your kid is your future.

  21. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    A crucial distinction that often gets confused in peoples minds is that a test is *not* the same thing as education.
     
    The way most people speak of college, and the way the modern university system purports itself, is as a venue of education. But in most cases the education it provides to those hoping for better employment opportunities often falls along a range varying from irrelevant to useless in most fields of employment; they are trained by their employer anyways to actually do their actual job, and cannot assume other duties without experience. In most cases the huge universe of multivariant minutae of different real world vocations simply cannot be practically represented in a classroom that would generally apply for everyone (id est, business degrees or the like).  
     
    What the real function universities are serving then, the way most people tend to subconsciously intuit even as they use the wrong words in describing it, is as *a test of competency*.
     
    An oil company hires a geology grad over someone not accredited not because they actually expect them to actually know all about prospecting already, but because they hope he is *the sort of person* who would *be able* to become a good prospector.
     
    This is what the most eucivic subsets of the young population are spending the most adventurous years of their life on and selling themselves into debt peonage for (side note; students loans is one of the most successful rackets there is; what better way is there to get the most industrious and future-oriented goys of the future generations to work tirelessly to enrich you with their surplus capital, and thank you for the privilege even).
     
    Because this state of affairs is not de jure and clouded by misapprehension, its *teleology* is obscured. Because people involved do not have an explicitly conscious conception of what it is really doing, and hence how it may be properly optimized, it naturally performs very poorly at its de facto purpose; being one of the most convoluted, inelegant, and inefficient ways to actually function as a test of potential practically possible.
     
     
    In the popular discourse today, ‘education’ is often considered a sort Panacea, that can be applied to cure or ameliorate any and all social ills. It is a very safe, deracinated, and uncontroversial position to take, appealing both to peoples existential hangups about potential in general, and their pretensions to being cultured and intellectual in particular. Indeed, it is perhaps the *only* position one is permitted to take on the question of constructive social policy, beyond simply smashing stuff white people organized and stealing bits of the rubble.
     
    After all, who could argue that ‘more education’ is a bad thing? Surely that is better than ‘less’ education, no?
     
    The fact that amount of formally recognized education is largely uninfluential on things like test gaps when all groups involved are in the same program, or on broader metrics such as criminality or socioeconomic status (or that where it is predictive it is simply acting as a proxy for already existing status or ability) may be empirically true, but that fact alone doesn’t fully touch on the more fundamental issue at play here.
     
    It is an issue that probably deserves an expansion in an article all to itself (or several books even), but chance occasions to touch on it here.
     
    Like any phenomena that merit entry in any good metapolitical dictionary, having to verbosely describe or elaborate what it is exactly you’re referring too every time the issue comes up is inelegant, and puts you on the backslide in the memetic energy expenditure economy. Such things need short crunchy designations, so they can be wielded with the easy flourish of a rhetorical rapier. Provisional christening I have settled on for the purposes of furnishing this essay is this: ‘ Wand Waving ‘.
     
    In brief, wand waving is the declaration of uninformed, unrealistic, or impossible imperatives, that are demanded to be met.
     
    The Wells-Fargo brouhaha that happened a few years ago is a small scale example of this phenomena at work; management sees that a competing bank is pulling in a certain amount of revenue per client; management then decrees from on high that branches must now pull in that same amount or else heads will roll. ‘How are we supposed to do that’? say branch managers and sales reps. ‘That’s your job, not ours, figure it out’ says management from on high.
     
    What was the result? Widespread, institutionalized coning and defrauding of clients in order to meet the mandated revenue targets in time.
     
     
    What makes wand waving so dangerous is not that nothing meets it’s demands, but that something *does* arise to meet them.
     
     Like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, they do not anticipate the true consequences of what will happen when they wave their wand. Wand waving *creates illusions*; when an unsupported, unrealistic, or impossible demand is made, a *simulacrum* is created to meet it.
     
    And what elevates it to the ultimate perversity, once a simulacrum is created, it will even *consume* and *assimilate* into itself, what elements or examples of the genuinely adaptive article that may have already existed before, until *only the simulation is left*.
     
    Such is the present reality of education in the west today. Such is the reality of *many* things in the west today.
     
     
    In 380 B.C., a notorious Athenian pederast scribed a sheaf of fan fiction. This entry into the fantasy genera later became known as ‘The Republic’.
     
    In this meandering effluviation, our putative writer floated the novel policy suggestion that, ‘wouldn’t it be great if kids had a good education and not a bad education?’
     
    How would this amazing state of affairs be realized you ask? Why, by kidnapping children from their families and have them be raised by the almighty sta-, i mean ‘Guardians’, of course.
     
    When pressed to elaborate, as Plato’s imaginary interlocutors did, most wand wavers tend to proffer some form of centralization as the magic bullet to solve all earthly logistical concerns.
     
    This is an expression of their deep seated feelings of insecurity, borne out of a frustrated desire for control that is inherent to most every variety of ape creature, but especially inherent in this variety. To them, the idea of average people all conducting their own average affairs without ‘oversight’ is disturbing, because *they themselves* are so bewildered by a reality that they find incomprehensible, the motions of everyday existence a constant source of stress and struggle. In their congenital solipsism, they project this state of affairs onto others, assuming all are the same sort of miserable creature as themselves.
     
    Is it any wonder why such schemes tend to have such a poor track record, when those who desire them the most, who are most attracted to *staffing* them, are such persons?
     
    For any Office, there is always a selection mechanism at work which determines who or what ends up in that Office. Lack of immediately *visible* mechanism does not mean one does not exist. In fact, *occulted* selection mechanisms so often select for traits that can end up being rather *demonic*, especially if the Office *itself* is occulted and presumed not to formally exist (see for instance: power dynamics in democracies, permanent bureaucracies, et cetera).
     
    Beware the pitfall of the passive voice; if they go so on and on about the foibles and frailties of fallen man, what difference would ‘collectivizing’ the whole business through the grand soviet make, since it too, far from being some abstract, atemporal arbitrator, is also composed of people?
     
    ‘Oh, we’ll just make sure they are good people.’
     
    And how will you do that?
     
    ‘Well we will just have this central accrediting institution…’
     
     
    Like Aristotele’s third man, a wand waver often finds themselves trapped in an infinite regress; in his superficiality he can never find a way to jump the tracks, he can find no escape beyond simply kicking the can further down the road.
     
    It is a neat, ironic trap: one who lacked virtue concordantly lacks capacity for *recognizing* virtue as well.
     
    Just as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice foolishly attempted to wield the power of Magic for himself, wand waving sets an arcane process into motion, where the objects of its intention magically become *even worse* or *the opposite* of what it intended to improve or enact.

    Shams posing as a desired object are easier to deliver than the actual desired object. Such is the perverse irony of naive credential fetishism, then; that it creates an environment where shams that hack the selection criteria in fact now have an unprecendented advantage over genuine articles; not only are they easier, they often also *better fit into the mandated criteria than genuine examples of the desired object themselves*. Not only do the shams succeed, they get *officious blessing* for it; while actual desired objects get driven ‘off the reservation’.
     
    Anyone who waves their wand and decrees that there must now be [thing], without a concrete understanding of how [thing] is already being provided presently in reality (if even at all), is liable to not only not get [thing], but inadvertently *destroy* presently existing [thing] as well.
     
    Anyone who floats a vague sentiment of, ‘why don’t we just have more of [good thing]?’, without actually having a clear idea of *what that thing actually is*, its teleology, its implications, its effects, is asking for that signal to be hacked by a pusillanimous, chimaeric abomination passing itself off as the desired object.
     
    A flawed system is not better than no system, it is *worse* than no system.
     
     
    From the perspective of a talent scout, be they Sovereign, or a lesser employer, the level of formal education broadly available is largely irrelevant; those who are most worthy, will find a way to acquire the skills and information they need in any case; you simply have to accept those who show up. The only difference trying to expand the reach of formal education to broader subsets of the populace makes, is the number of resumes you have to sift through.
     
    From your family and mannerbund you learn about life, from your company you learn about your job, from your church you learn about holiness and the more transcendent; at no point does the modern public education system as we conceive of it today fully figure into this scheme, except where it attempts to usurp these natural charges.
     
    Any institution dedicated to training and development that receives Sovereign funding will indoctrinate its charges with the official doctrine of the official religion.
     
    This is not necessarily a bad thing; after all, when staffing the halls of power, it pays to staff them with true believers.
     
    The only question is, how much of a market actually is there for ideological purity? The halls of power tend to be a rather rarified employer after all.
     
    This is the nuance that most systems fail to maintain: stridently enforced orthodoxy amongst those with access to power sources, while at the same time trending *de*politicization amongst the population at large. As how the old chestnut once went: it’s impolite to bring up politics over dinner.
     
    A propriety sadly lost on many modernes of today.
     
    In our present reality, we are awash with priests without a pulpit; a legion of pretenders to ecclesial charism, all agitating for their own slices of power and influence. And what is more, their seminaries were simulacrums borne out of wand waving; not only are they rogue priests, they are *heretical* priests, promulgating demonic ideology.

Leave a Reply