We are all comicsgate

Ethan Van Sciver sues Vox Day for personal ownership of the comicsgate brand.

This is pissing inside the tent, and is likely to result in social justice warriors taking over comicsgate, since judges will rule in favor of social justice without regard for merit.

Whosoever pisses inside the tent is my enemy, for if he sues Vox Day, likely will sue me.

As the Comicsgate Wiki rightly tell us:

ComicsGate (or #ComicsGate) is an online movement that believes the comic book industry (especially publishers Marvel and DC) is oversaturated by political messaging that appeals explicitly to only one demographic that is not interested in the medium, to the detriment of the existing consumer base and the industry as a whole. It also addresses a lack of professionalism, inclusivity, objectivity and accountability of the publishers and their employees (i.e. management, editors, writers, artists, etc.) when dealing directly with the customers.

Ethan Van Sciver is attempting to appropriate value that a multitude of other people have created, Vox Day among them, which attempt, if successful, will inevitably wind up with the brand being used to educate us in the horrors of white supremacism, male supremacism, cishet normatism (or whatever they are calling it now), islamophobia, and so on and so forth.

Ethan Van Sciver is not comicsgate.  He is pissing inside the comicsgate tent.

Inevitably, should the case go to court, the lawyers are going to depict the other side as nazis, white supremacists, islamophobes, antisemites, and whatnot, which puts the heat on everyone to hire social justice warriors and to issue comics where the main story is about a racial and sexual minority struggling with oppression.

The net effect of such a lawsuit is not just spending money on lawyers rather than artists.  The net effect is that money raised to produce content of interest to people who don’t want to be preached at and told that they are sinners will be used to hire people, to pay people, to preach at them and tell them that they are sinners.

The winner of this lawsuit will be the man most willing to use your money to tell you that you are a horrible person who should never get laid and deserves to die in a fire.

552 Responses to “We are all comicsgate”

  1. […] We are all comicsgate […]

  2. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    “Inevitably, should the case go to court, the lawyers are going to depict the other side as nazis, white supremacists, islamophobes, antisemites, and whatnot, which puts the heat on everyone to hire social justice warriors and to issue comics where the main story is about a racial and sexual minority struggling with oppression.”

    Capitalism in action.

    Some fragment of the minority opinion emerges in a market saturated by a certain perspective and the entirety of the majority market springs into action to apply social and economic ostracism to force them to fall in line.

    Evil as the government is, it’s not the government that’s doing this. ‘Nazi’ comic books will be cut off from payment processors, advertising channels and economic partnerships while the press unites in vilifying them, for basically the same reason: the newspaper that dissents gets branded as a Nazi White Supremacist rag, advertising gets pulled and partners ‘express their concern’.

    It’s like Moldbug said of Mises: if the value of rogue variable X, which is normally zero, is not in fact zero, the world model fails.

    Capitalism in a healthy society, such as the 18th century in England, looks to a naive observer *as if* it’s a force for good. All the while it steadily erodes the very health that makes it appear good, until finally it’s revealed as poison. Treating labour as a commodity leads to Marxian envy-driven socialism and calls for equality of access to power. Unleashing private innovation to serve whatever wants the masses happen to have leads to AIDS, gambling addiction, debt and morbid obesity.

    “All economies are planned” – Eric Striker

    To paraphrase slightly, “all investors are activist investors”. The best hope for capitalism, if we MUST have it, is for human investment in equities to be banned outright, and strictly profit-focused algorithms to do it all. Retail investors may buy ‘shares’ of the algorithms, but even then, they must not be allowed to pick and choose subsets of the economy, otherwise Misesian calculation problems quickly emerge.

    • jim says:

      > > “Inevitably, should the case go to court, the lawyers are going to depict the other side as nazis, white supremacists, islamophobes, antisemites, and whatnot, which puts the heat on everyone to hire social justice warriors and to issue comics where the main story is about a racial and sexual minority struggling with oppression.”

      > Capitalism in action.

      The Judiciary commanding businessmen to hire social justice warriors is no more capitalism in action than the Judiciary ordering Trump to open the borders.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        That evil judiciary deplatforming Alex Jones. We need to privatise the government, clearly.

        • The Cominator says:

          “That evil judiciary deplatforming Alex Jones. ”

          The people who decided to deplatform Alex Jones glow in the dark.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            So do the people selling you online poker and pizza delivery.

            • The Cominator says:

              You think glow in the darks run pizza companies? I believe they run the media but pizza…

              You’re going full retard again…

              • Roberto says:

                You see, CR can argue that glow in the darks run the internet itself; and moreover, that the King should abolish the internet outright.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                I’m seeing Goldman and Jacobson at Domino’s, but just like the US Senate, it’s not so much the one taking the decisions as the ones pulling his strings.

                • Roberto says:

                  Oh, you think that “glow in the darks” stands for “Jews”? Heh.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Oh I see, the eyes and teeth, yes that’s amusing.

                  Sorry for being so naive. It never occurred to me that coons ran the world. It all makes so much sense now lol

                • Roberto says:

                  Lolz, not coons.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Still trying to guess. Sorry I have no idea. Nationalists don’t obsess over hating other races. They can have their place over there and we’ll do remote&rare cultural exchanges from time to time, and we’ll have our place over here.
                  There’s no need to propagandise quite *why* we don’t want too many people from group X in our society, because it goes without saying that we don’t.

                  I actually felt a little twinge when I used that epithet, because while blacks certainly can be reasonably expected to ‘act out’ when they’re in unnatural environments, I harbour no particular animus towards them.

                • Roberto says:

                  “The Work of a Nation.”

                • The Cominator says:

                  Glow in the darks = spooks/spies/the intel agencies you silly leftist…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Oh I see, sorry……. nationalists always think in ethnic terms, libertarians always think everything’s the government. I get it.

                  Yes the government runs the food industry and is giving everyone cancer so they can create more jobs in Medicaid.

                • TBeholder says:

                  Or the other way around?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

                  Pizza companies are run by capitalist.

                  Big tech media otoh is run by glow in the darks.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Serious question:

                  If you think intervening in private business affairs is unbecoming of a good leader and basically constitutes leftism, how do you propose to stop globohomo re-establishing itself once you get rid of it?

                • jim says:

                  Globohomo is a state religion dependent on state power. If we institute any other state religion, even worship of the flying sphagetti monster, even a state religion that absolutely no one believes, it evaporates overnight.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If you think intervening in private business affairs is unbecoming of a good leader and basically constitutes leftism, how do you propose to stop globohomo re-establishing itself once you get rid of it?”

                  Anyone who believes in egalitarianism who tries to go into the media or education dies.

                • TBeholder says:

                  It’s probably easier to privatize education. And then “get woke, go broke” will do the rest.
                  Not sure about media, but some safeguard for not having the likes of Soros being able to run too much of it would help.
                  Without nets of front companies, inbred oligarchic empires and CFR+spooks (in case of USA), this leaves, say, Salon_com, but we all know it’s absolutely pozzed, and can treat it accordingly, so what of it?
                  And no doubt a bunch of hipster-press Marxist papers, but vast majority of sane people in their area have never heard the names of those even now. So who cares.

                  The underlying problem is that oligarchies can form under any faucet of power, and once they grow, they can shit on anything including anti-trust laws, bend any “state religion” into its opposite, and do things previously unthinkable.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “Pizza companies are run by capitalists.”

                  Well then capitalism’s a huge part of the problem, but let’s not make this about pizza again, let’s stick to comic books. Jim writes:

                  “Inevitably, should the case go to court, the lawyers are going to depict the other side as nazis, white supremacists, islamophobes, antisemites, and whatnot, which puts the heat on everyone to hire social justice warriors and to issue comics where the main story is about a racial and sexual minority struggling with oppression.”

                  We can all see the part about lawyers, but what exactly is the nature of this ‘heat’?

                  It’s advertisers and other sources of revenue, investors who think they should have a say, other ‘stakeholders’ of all kinds, and yes indeed social media and payment processors.

                  The risk for a comic book publisher that doesn’t toe the line laid down by the lawyers calling the industry institutionally bigoted is absolutely not that they’ll be arrested.

                • Roberto says:

                  >If you think intervening in private business affairs is unbecoming of a good leader and basically constitutes leftism, how do you propose to stop globohomo re-establishing itself once you get rid of it?

                  What does the first part of the question have to do with the second part? Globohomo is there because Harvard memetically conquered the globe. The solution to bad religion is good religion; or in other words, need to win the holy war against progressivism. What does that have to do with your King banning Domino’s Pizza?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Absolutely everything, and that’s why it rustles so many Jimmies.

                  If you want to impose a new state religion by force, you’re going to have to say “no” to quite a few aspects of the existing culture. One of those is the idea of recreational eating, or ‘gluttony’ as Thomas Aquinas put it.

                  I realise this is very rustling for all of you and you’ll try to paint it as moralising Puritanism. It isn’t, but I already see there’s zero hope of deflecting such a powerful propaganda response.
                  The next one that always crops up when attacking unbridled capitalism is ‘leftism’. There’s nothing left-wing about ending the restaurant culture but again there’s zero hope of deflecting such a powerful propaganda response.

                  So, let’s stick to comic books. If you don’t think a future ruler of a future reactionary society ought to intervene when private companies are doing anti-social things, how will you defend comic book publishers from the Poz?

                  The implication – and it’s why I’m accusing all of you of being libertarians – is that it’s the government. It isn’t.

                  Comic book publishers are not afraid of being arrested. They’re afraid of being blacklisted by other private companies.

                • jim says:

                  No state religion in history has ever socialized food and survived.

                  Because unable to feed their believers, and eventually unable to feed their soldiers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR you realize that reaction and the right in general is a movement of cynics who want to be left alone but realizes the left won’t leave them alone and realizes the king needs enough power to keep the leftist corpse from rising from its grave.

                  When you propose that the new restoration government won’t leave them alone either you lose a lot of people period.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What are you talking about?

                  If you’re living paycheck to paycheck and blowing your last hundred bucks on FOOD, you’re almost certainly a normie peasant.
                  Since you’re obviously NOT a normie peasant, I find it very hard to believe that you live paycheck to paycheck and blow your last hundred bucks on food.

                  So in what universe will you not be left alone?

                  Worst case scenario, you quite like eating hamburger and fries and paying through the nose for it. That’d be weird and retarded but it’s conceivable.

                  So you’d rather put up with globohomo talking about Russia hacking the 2016 election but not talking about Rotherham, than go without a night of toxic junk food and be forced to eat disgusting home-cooked food instead?

                  Wait, weren’t you supposed to want your women chained to the kitchen?

                  I’m a little confused now.

                • jim says:

                  Your confusion reveals you to be an academic Marxist, who is hilariously unfamiliar with the shibboleths of the group you are unsuccessfully attempting to infiltrate.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “No state religion in history has ever socialized food and survived.

                  Because unable to feed their believers, and eventually unable to feed their soldiers.”

                  Banning junk food restaurants if and when they misbehave (such as by lacing their food with fat sugar and salt and hiking the prices) is not the same thing as socialising food.

                  There’s no reason at all why someone cooking at home shouldn’t be perfectly at liberty to bake a 3000 calorie pizza and eat it solo.

                  There’s no reason at all why the price of the factors of production, up to and including foods, should be distorted in any way whatsoever by a Domino’s Pizza ban.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Your confusion reveals you to be an academic Marxist, who is hilariously unfamiliar with the shibboleths of the group you are unsuccessfully attempting to infiltrate.”

                  Or a non-American who doesn’t consume much conspiracy theory material about how the CIA secretly developed real existing voodoo dolls in the 1950s.
                  Unlike the local troofers, I skipped the part of the ‘red pill process’ where lizard men and flat Earth theory sounded interesting.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Oh I see, sorry……. nationalists always think in ethnic terms, libertarians always think everything’s the government. I get it.

                  Reactionaries think in terms of truth – intelligence agencies run some things, nepotistic ethnic cliques run other things, still other things aren’t centrally run at all.

                • Roberto says:

                  >If you don’t think a future ruler of a future reactionary society ought to intervene when private companies are doing anti-social things, how will you defend comic book publishers from the Poz?

                  The poz is there because the Cathedral (government-media-academia) mandates it. Abolish the Cathedral — institute a healthy state religion — and instantly the poz evaporates. Poz is the result of government-media-academia having maliciously wrong ideas about society. When someone sets them straight, the poz will be gone from comics and from the entertainment-culture in general.

                • X says:

                  Globohomo is a state religion dependent on state power. If we institute any other state religion, even worship of the flying sphagetti monster, even a state religion that absolutely no one believes, it evaporates overnight.

                  Who is “we”?

                  The global elite control the State religion via their control over mass media. How do you plan to eliminate the bastards that perpetrated (or in your preferred narrative “allowed”) 9/11?

                  Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Soros for example hates tribalism and patriarchy and the easiest way to destroy you guys is to get to believe that Muslims attacked us on 9/11? So the you guys take your eyes off the ball and go fighting wars in the sane against camel riding idiots who are no threat whatsoever to us.

                  The truth rather is the global elite are pulling the strings behind the curtain. And they deceive us which is why we can’t get organized.

                  What solution do you propose for “we” to impose our State religion when we can’t even agree who our mutual enemy is?

                  You and I fighting over whether the camel-rising hijackers armed with box cutters perpetrated, or the global elite had their dupes in our government perpetrate 9/11. That is why we white men have no chance in hell of winning because the Zionists have divided-and-conquered us.

                • X says:

                  Or a non-American who doesn’t consume much conspiracy theory material about how the CIA secretly developed real existing voodoo dolls in the 1950s.

                  Unlike the local troofers, I skipped the part of the ‘red pill process’ where lizard men and flat Earth theory sounded interesting.

                  Associating that shit with 9/11 is analogous to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or associating the smell of a rotten fish with an unwashed vagina.

                  If you would actually study, you would realize that 9/11 absolutely was a controlled demolition. Then from there you realize there are some evil mofos in control of our State. And then you need to decide who those mofos are and what is their modus operandi and objective. And then of course you would realize the Zionists are of course dividing-and-conquering us.

                  steemit.com /politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-succinct-absolute-truth-about-9-11-and-las-vegas-massacre-20180915t164833948z

                  (note Steemit seems to having some difficulties today, so you can also find an archive or wait for Steem to come back online)

                • jim says:

                  > If you would actually study, you would realize that 9/11 absolutely was a controlled demolition.

                  If you actually look at the videos, it is as obviously not a controlled demolition, as your red hot coals are obviously not white hot molten steel.

                  Each collapse, most clearly WT7, starts with stuff disintegrating little by little, then the tower starts to lean into the damage done by the airliner like a tree leaning into the notch cut by the axeman, and then it goes into free fall.

                  Robert Mueller was complicit in the attack, but in the same way, and for the same reasons, as Major Hasan’s colleagues politely and respectfully listened to his power point presentation on why he was going to murder them.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Indeed. The towers’ collapse progressed directly from the insults from the airplanes. Mighty prescient for demolition people to know exactly where to place explosives. There was certainly no need to “melt steel”. The towers had a fasces architecture. Strong vertical steel support columns, bound together by the much weaker floor structures. The planes took out some columns and much flooring. With missing floor bindings the, heat softened/weakened, columns had NO lateral stabilization and buckled inward/outward, leading to building failure.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            OK you got me. What the heck does “glow in the dark” mean in this context?

        • jim says:

          In fact it is the evil judiciary, in that where we know who was giving the orders, Google’s firing of Damore, we know that Human Resources, a tentacle of the state inserted into every nominally private corporation, threatened management and the board with the evil judiciary.

          The Judiciary did not itself give the order to deplatform Alex Jones, but whoever did give the order was able to give the order because, like Google’s Human Resources Department, he had the judiciary in his pocket.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Libertarian.

            Worst case scenario, James Damore would have been arrested, but this is extremely unlikely.

            What’s more likely is Google risked having blue-haired mooses screaming repetitive slogans and, more importantly for the bottom line, advertisers pulling their accounts.

            • jim says:

              Human Resources threatened the company leadership with lawsuits for hostile work environment against the company and against individual leading executives. That was not the worst case scenario, that was the smack-them-in-the-face right next move scenario.

              HR gives the leadership memo that if they don’t fire Damore, it is a hostile work environment.

              First move, the memo.

              Next move, if they don’t fire Damore, one of the Google Social Justice Warriors launches a lawsuit for sixty billion dollars, against the company and each member of the management, her lawyers do discovery, and just happen, surprise surprise, to “discover” the memo.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                This is the standard libertarian hot take.

                In the real world, Google is neither reluctant nor coerced by government.
                In fact it’s not even coerced by private vested interests: it’s doing it on purpose.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Google isn’t coerced – they just naturally follow the Progressivism because you view it as right and holy.

                  At the same time you believe that after the restoration the King will have to intervene in the market because firms will still want to follow Progressivism – because progressivism is right and holy.

                  You believe progressivism is right and holy and can’t even imagine that others don’t.

                • Alrenous says:

                  You can tell Google isn’t coerced because in America they perform the censorship that the America Party wants, while in China they perform the censorship that the Chinese Party wants. They just voluntarily believe these entirely contradictory beliefs, you see.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Come to that, who benefits from open borders? The courts?
        I suppose cynically they benefit from the need for translators and so on, plenty of jobs for the swamp boys there.

        The elephant in the room though is the firms that have a ready supply of compliant, atomised, solidarity-lacking labour, and the philosophical origins of their thirst for such a perverse thing? Laissez-faire. No Lord has the right to lay down the law: we’re all equal participants in the economy. So what if you’re not even from here? What does that matter? Either you can stack shelves or you can’t.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Your least favorite acquaintance at the friendly local games shop can benefit from open borders if he can use the abstract idea of them to shame you in social interactions in front of other people.

        • X says:

          It’s true that the large globalized corporations think they benefit from open borders and free movement of labor. And I would agree with them if we didn’t have these Zionist global elites imposing a religion on us with their control of the mass media, their control of the central banks and national intelligence agencies.

          But the reality is that without in-group cohesion we’re completely at the mercy of the Zionists.

          So the question for Jim is at what scale can we reformulate in-group cohesion and defend it from the Zionists who invade it by tempting us with disinformation propaganda and other divide-and-conquer strategy?

          Come on be realistic now and answer this question realistically.

    • eternal anglo says:

      >human investment in equities to be banned outright, and strictly profit-focused algorithms to do it all. Retail investors may buy ‘shares’ of the algorithms, but even then, they must not be allowed to pick and choose subsets of the economy

      CR appears to be trying to invent Fully Automated Penury Communism. Now this is the sort of brain-inverting High Theory I come to Jim’s Blog for.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Arguably, the market’s already moving towards algorithms. They dominate many parts of the major developed markets. The only trouble with them is they’re being programmed by certain types of people. If people who wanted to maximise the wealth and health of the *nation* were programming the algos, and if the algos stuck ruthlessly to profit calculations only, it could work.
        Of course it still wouldn’t be perfect, because non-traded businesses wouldn’t be included in the picture so there could still be resource allocation imperfections and outright distortions.

        Ultimately, rule by algorithm is a bad idea, but as a stand-in for what happens in capital markets, it’s hard to see the downside beyond ‘muh democratic dollar-votes’, otherwise known as ‘muh freedom to choose’.

        It’s all democracy. We need something more radical than patches to market democracy. We need rulers capable of and willing to just shut the door on harmful enterprises.

        • The Cominator says:

          People let other people invest their money because they are stupid lazy and fearful.

          Even if you lose more initially investing is a skill more then any other worth learning yourself because it can make you rich. If you are good at it not much else matters.

          • peppermint says:

            Even in a functioning economy, it would not be possible for a normal person to know enough to make good investments, since investing in your own business or field of expertise opens you up to black swan risk.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Wow Mint, we’re on the same page brother!

              Capitalism looks AMAAAAZING by today’s standards, but then so does Victorian England. Hell, so does East Germany!

              The truth is, so-called laissez-faire was just one of the earlier manifestations of revolutionary Rousseauvian egalitarianism.
              The idea that the economy was genuinely unplanned was just a (((bankster))) lie all along and the results, while involving great technological leaps in *efficiency* (not to be confused with value or health), were hugely wasteful and utterly degenerate.

              The Victorian myth of female piety didn’t emerge out of nowhere: the capitalists were angling for the inclusion of women in the labour ‘market’ from day one.

              No, capitalism’s just another huge mass of bad ideas about algorithmic societies, self-stabilising anarchy and the wisdom of crowds.

              It’s Whig bs and needs to be completely overturned in the reboot back to sanity.

              • peppermint says:

                I justify investment banking and all you can think is this is another thing wrong with caterpillars?

                Why would an individual caterpillar have an incentive to hire a worm-man except for a job that a worm-man can do?

                The real communists were right that worm-men have always worked, except for bitches of rich men and farmers who worked exclusively and informally for their husbands.

                If you want to damn caterpillars, you need to find a way that an individual caterpillar has an incentive to do something anti-social without birds creating that incentive.

                The Iowa farmer who hired the migrant who murdered Mollie had an obvious incentive to hire migrants, but more than that, the bluebirds in Colorado lost a court case in which they tried to argue that the bluebirds aren’t required to hire illegal cuckoos.

                It’s astounding to hear you blame caterpillars for hiring worm-men when Caliphornia, which already banned drinking straws just like you want so why not go there and pray to Allah five times a day, just imposed a legal requirement that companies need a slut on the board of directors.

                Your problem is that you think in terms of ideologies as if everyone is as locked in to taking their ideology all the way as you are. Men respond to incentives and moral arguments. Only sperglords and academics have the incentive to truly follow an ideology, and since caterpillars must have an ideology somewhere for you to interpret, you implicitly assume that the stated ideology of the caterpillars is not only the ideology of caterpillar kind but the ideology of the platonic caterpillar. This is known by normalfags as not getting the joke.

                Shouldn’t you be burying yourself under an acorn to save the hwales?

                • X says:

                  My guess is that CR hates technology and capitalism because presumably he is not competent at either. So he would prefer some fantasy delusion to shelter himself from the reality of his incompetence.

                  This is the problem with large-scale society such as a State. We have to carry around that dead weight and try to keep in line. Eventually that dead weight finds an ally such as the Zionists and the purity ideological crisis ensues destroying all of us. These Zionists are really into their role in maximizing universal entropy by maximizing disorder and entropic decay. So anything we can attempt organize, they’ll attempt to profit on by disorganizing it.

                  This is the reality of the natural laws (physics and entropic human nature) we must contend with.

    • javier says:

      Oh look another topic from someone who left.

      “Blah blah ban gluten blah blah blah I’m a commie.”

      Judicial overreach and zealousness comes from allowing priests to appoint judges, and all the dumb discrimination laws and bad tort precedents.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        I keep getting drawn back in, my fellow white friend.
        I’m getting better at resisting the bait however, and the irony of writing that in response to your nonsense isn’t lost on me and will make it easier.

        I just heard the latest Strike&Mike;basically a book review of Caroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” and a discussion of the Lysenko science culture (in particular Lisa Littman’s unpersoning). The last little shred of capitalist sympathy fell away, and since this is essentially a pro-capitalist blog, there’s nothing constructive for me to contribute.

    • TBeholder says:

      The obvious question #1 here is: what definition of “capitalism” do you use?

      Capitalism in a healthy society, such as the 18th century in England, looks to a naive observer *as if* it’s a force for good.

      This depends on where this observer stands, doesn’t it?
      Because it may so happen that it won’t be naive for long. Or healthy.

      Evil as the government is, it’s not the government that’s doing this.

      Really? Then where do you classify the Courts?

      ‘Nazi’ comic books will be cut off from payment processors, advertising channels and economic partnerships while the press unites in vilifying them, for basically the same reason: the newspaper that dissents gets branded as a Nazi White Supremacist rag, advertising gets pulled and partners ‘express their concern’.

      Yet reality consistently shows the opposite: the general rule is “dog barks, caravan walks“, as folk of Central Asia used to observe. Or in these days, “get woke, go broke“.

  3. The Cominator says:

    “is for human investment in equities to be banned outright”

    1st you want to take away my swimming pool now you want to take away the chance for me to get rich at all.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      You can buy ‘shares’ in the automated algorithms but what you cannot be permitted to do is to have a ‘vote’ in where capital gets allocated.
      There are two basic vulnerabilities to laissez-faire equity investment:

      1. You will inevitably take advice, including from the press
      2. You will inevitably allocate capital according to your prejudices, not to where it’s needed

      It follows from Austrian Economics that the proper role of the capital market is to direct resources to their most urgent need. This is done through Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ – your capital is allocated according to what will profit you the most, or so you think.
      This can be entirely automated and will eliminate the above two vulnerabilities.

      Personally I wouldn’t care if the whole thing were just abandoned in favour of outright private ownership, with intervention to prevent the undue concentration of capital, but this seems like a rather capitalism-friendly community so the above sketch is a way to keep your Misesian system while purifying it and protecting it from ‘activist investors’.

      The problem with comic-books is that if they DON’T do what Jim just described and kow-tow to every SJW demand, they’ll be punished not by government but in fact by the market. Advertising will be pulled, influential sponsors will ‘protest’, investors will pull capital any which way they can, and even banks and payment processors will ban them for their SJ-infractions.

      Come to think of it, my ‘patch’ for capitalism STILL wouldn’t 100% prevent this, because consumers could still boycott companies. Democracy’s very difficult to get rid of!

      The only way is to utterly dominate the culture, and that begins with censors that like of which would turn Metternich’s stomach.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        The problem with comic-books is that if they DON’T do what Jim just described and kow-tow to every SJW demand, they’ll be punished not by government but in fact by the market. Advertising will be pulled, influential sponsors will ‘protest’, investors will pull capital any which way they can, and even banks and payment processors will ban them for their SJ-infractions.

        Total blindness.

        Why would *payment processors* ever want to ban customers from their platforms? Oh, I know – because that maximizes profits.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Google it (irony intended).

          The capitalists aren’t on your side. What happens to Andrew Anglin today will happen to Jordan Peterson tomorrow.

          • Piers says:

            Jordan Peterson is a puppet of the elite. He used to work for the UN. His whole purpose is to be controlled opposition and encourage disaffected young to men waste their energy cleaning their room instead of helping to overthrow the system

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Absolutely, and even he will eventually be shoah’d in the holiness spiral.

              Steve doesn’t believe payment processors will ban Jordan Peterson or John Cleese or Ben Elton on ideological grounds, but only because government is forcing them to act against their bottom line, which would be their normal guiding force.

              In the real world, beyond a certain point, rich people barely care about money at all.

              • SoC says:

                Which is essentially what’s wrong with all of Austrian economics. The belief that humans are primarily motivated by profit and use of their own labour is so incorrect you’d have to be a libertarian to believe it. Humans are motivated by status, and status is a zero sum game. Hence Austrian economics falls apart.

                I don’t believe that trying to prevent people from competing for status is necessary. Just get rid of the state religion that makes me a criminal for defending myself against the losers.

                It is also ever amusing to see the libertarians flounder away when confronted with unlimited immigration to anywhere and the idea that everyone is a replaceable cog. Would be nice if one of the more intelligent then I folks would write Human Action part two, post libertarian.

                • AE should be seen as a limited tool for limited purposes, but for that purpose useful. First, putting a theoretical explanation behind the empirically observerd marginal utility and supply-demand curves. Second, the whole ABCT thing which sounds weird as fuck to be honest, and not at all intuitive, but better than the alternatives I found so far.

                  Status > profit is absolutely true, but does not affect these limited uses, because these limited uses come from profit and cost calculations. Even when we buy status goods, the marginal utility theory and its explanation of the supply-demand curve works well enough. Even when expanding the money supply results in investing in status goods producing businesses, it does not affect ABCT.

                  I am not a huge enthusiasist for AE, clearly mises.org is stretching it far beyond its use, but show me any other school that understands that 1) capital is things, with specific uses, not a number 2) understands money is not neutral.

                  I am not a libertarian anymore but I am still grateful for Lachmann’s Capital And Its Structure. https://mises.org/library/capital-and-its-structure

                • SoC says:

                  I would appreciate it if the AE folks would finish ABCT by adding that the only reason to create a “business cycle” is so that banksters can purchase capital created by capitalists during the downturn at cut rate prices (and with fake money to boot).

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “Which is essentially what’s wrong with all of Austrian economics. The belief that humans are primarily motivated by profit and use of their own labour is so incorrect you’d have to be a libertarian to believe it. ”

                  You could just write ‘economics’.

                  “It is also ever amusing to see the libertarians flounder away when confronted with unlimited immigration to anywhere and the idea that everyone is a replaceable cog. ”

                  But libertarians do seem to proudly believe precisely that. Those who don’t, turn alt-right. Furthermore, economics considers the optimally efficient state to be when everyone is a replaceable cog, known as perfect competition.

                  (There are of course some who try to work with more complex models. But just modelling, ahem, persistently different human capital does for example not appear to be under consideration.)

                  I would furthermore say that the global economy today is better modelled as oligopolistic competition (between hundreds of financial intermediaries of widely varying sizes) than perfect competition between an unlimited number of cogs. Yet I don’t think we have a good grasp of what that means.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s really nothing much wrong with AE, or just ‘economics’ as it was before the mathematical models started coming out of logical positivism.

                  It just doesn’t follow from AE that libertarianism is right: they just claim that it does.

                  ABCT is pretty right overall: if you send false signals to industry about what the savings rate is, they can be misled into believing there’s money waiting to be snapped up by increasing supply, and going ahead when there aren’t in fact any savings around tends, in modern societies with big governments, to create havoc because there can’t be freely operating deflation to offset new production without savings.

                  Where AE goes wrong is it assumes technical rationality (agents seeking ends) to be largely of a rational nature (reasonably sound/fit decision-making) and this is not a little bit wrong, it’s totally wrong, and the sicker the society, the wronger it is.
                  Right now for example, people ARE taking out credit card debt at 17%APR and even payday loans at 1%-per-day+fee. They shouldn’t, according to AE, but they are doing.

                  At a deeper level of analysis, AE is a description of the laissez-faire world: there’s little need for economics of any kind when people have jobs for life and industrial progress is very very slow. Economics is entirely fitted to a world filled with creative destruction, the ebb and flow of ideas and technologies, and the free movement and allocation of labour in an open market, as a commodity.

                  Carlyle:

                  “Servantship, like all solid contracts between men (like wedlock itself, which was once nomadic enough, temporary enough!), must become a contract of permanency, not easy to dissolve, but difficult extremely, — a “contract for life,” if you can manage it (which you cannot, without many wise laws and regulations, and a great deal of earnest thought and anxious experience), will evidently be the best of all. And this was already the Nigger’s essential position. Mischief, irregularities, injustices, did probably abound between Nigger and Buckra; but the poisonous taproot of all mischief, and impossibility of fairness, humanity, or well-doing in the contract, never had been there! Of all else the remedy was easy in comparison; vitally important to every just man concerned in it; and, under all obstructions (which in the American case, begirt with frantic “Abolitionists,” fire-breathing like the old Chimæra, were immense), was gradually getting itself done.”

                  – Shooting Niagara, 1867

                • Indeed AE is a description of, and not the prescription for laissez-faire. What bothered me from the very beginning that it can predict the result of the first intervention of an entirely intervention-free and evenly rotating economy (two conditions that were never tue), so in the ideal “all other things are equal” laboratory / thought experiment enviroment. But it can predict nearly nothing in the real world. It can say in which direction an intervention pushes things, but cannot tell how far.

                  To me ABCT seems good precisely because it is something sort of an exception. Fiat money creation is yuuuuge, it is not like a minor minimum wage hike or yet another environmental regulation.

                  The link to libertarianism is mostly personal, IMHO. Von Mises was far more libertarian than his colleagues in Vienna. Then he came to the US, Rothbard became his primary disciple, who himself was a nearly fanatical libertarian, and got quite famous, von Mises died, Rothbard founded the LvMI, Rothbard died, Lew Rockewell took over the insitute, and despite his own website being kind of primitive, somehow he managed to hire people who had the LvMI website really well done, good looking, lots of articles, and lots of free ebooks, well accessible, and all that, really an ideal one stop shop for the would be autodidact armchair economic student who can learn a lot about this thing from his computer. So of course lots of mini-Rothbards educated themselves there and had spread the word all over the internet.

                  Meanwhile, the LvMI website, mises.org hardly even mentions other AEconomists who did not participate in the libertarian crusade or not radically enough. Or differ from their single-minded rationalist methodology. They even purged Hayek who was a more moderate libertarian and was not in favor of the rationalist method at all, considering himself an empiricist. In fact the founder of AE, Carl Menger also criticized the rationalist approach, but mises.org absolutely downplays that. So it seems Rothbard-Rockwell more or less managed to “hijack” the AE brand. But I admit it was a deserved hijacking, mostly due to building a really excellent, usable and information-rich website.

                  If there is such a thing as a “purity spiral”, a sort of a subset of holiness spirals, a competition in being dogmatic, LvMI ran something like that, in the direction of ever purer libertarianism and in the direction of ever purer rationalist methodology.

            • X says:

              Jordan Peterson is a puppet of the elite. He used to work for the UN. His whole purpose is to be controlled opposition and encourage disaffected young to men waste their energy cleaning their room instead of helping to overthrow the system

              +1. Bravo.

              But do you think Jordan Peterson knows this or is he duped by his own beliefs?

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Here, I saved you the trouble. This isn’t the Daily Stormer. It’s not even Morgoth’s Review. It’s Breitbart – milder and more moderate than this blog.

          www breitbart dot com/tech/2018/07/24/stripe-paypal-patreon-the-right-is-being-banned-from-online-fundraising/

          But it gets worse: as soon as you try to go full NRx and create parallel institutions, they go after those institutions, even when they’re completely neutral like Gab.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            You’re missing the point – we all know that payment processors are cutting off customers.

            For some reason you think this is because the payment processors are following the market rather than trying to please the government.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              I’m not aware of the government doing anything at all to give them that impression.
              I am however entirely too aware of private companies applying this ‘heat’ that Jim’s talking about.

              What is it, precisely, that you think the government is going to do to Facebook if it fails to ban someone for saying “trannies”?

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Then explain how *payment processors* profit from cutting off customers who are not leftist approved.

                I’ve explained in the past exactly which tools government has to pressure nominally private companies which you (of course) simply ignored. So let’s just have you explain how *payment processors* benefit from cutting off customers.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It suits their religious agenda.
                  NRx is 100% correct about the Cathedral.

                  The point is, I’m arguing *for* NRx and *against* libertarianism.

                  Payment processors are as partisan as the Luggenpresse.

                  What we need is a ruler. As Moldbug put it, we’re suffering from chronic kinglessness.

                  We need a ruler who will impose his will on the payment processors and stop them misbehaving. It’s not only the payment processors who are misbehaving and we need a ruler to stop all of it, in order to *change* the culture that the Cathedral has created.

                  Libertarians saying “you can’t touch industry X because property rights and freedom of choice” are part of the problem, not the solution.

                • jim says:

                  > The point is, I’m arguing *for* NRx and *against* libertarianism.

                  You are arguing for standard issue academic progressive Maxism. You are telling us that reaction, rightly understood, is progressivism. In a short while you will be on a Christian blog telling them that Christianity, rightly understood, is progressivism, and then on a Muslim blog, telling them that Islam, rightly understood, is progressivism.

                  You are part of the same organization, and perhaps the same person, as the Right Wing Reactionary Catholic I am arguing with in another place who is telling me that Catholic Reaction, rightly understood, consists of decrying global warming while having sodomy in a big bed with four naked priests.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  It suits their religious agenda.
                  NRx is 100% correct about the Cathedral.

                  What you’re missing is that libertarian critiques of the left are 100% correct – the market wouldn’t let firms pursue a religious agenda because they’ll simply be out competed by a firm with the policy of “we don’t care who you are, we just process payments in exchange for a cut”.

                  In fact, you argue sort of along those same lines when it suits you – why else do you need to ban pizza if not that capitalists will sell people things unless stopped from doing it? Payment processors work the same way – they’ll deal with anyone who makes them money unless restrained.

                  For some reason you think the king will have to intervene in every facet of the market but that the market will freely follow the Progressive state religion – because you’re a leftist entryist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s a very funny progressivism that wants to take away poor and/or stupid people’s right to choose how to live their lives.
                  It’s a very funny progressivism that insists there can be NO assumption of equality under any circumstances.
                  It’s a very funny progressivism that endows a tiny aristocratic élite with the power to decide who may and may not do business.

                  This is just a lazy dismissal designed to evoke sympathetic responses. It’s basically a rallying cry.

                  Reaction, rightly understood, is a desire for order and civilisation. Laissez-faire, rightly understood, is anarchy.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  ” the market wouldn’t let firms pursue a religious agenda because they’ll simply be out competed by a firm with the policy of “we don’t care who you are, we just process payments in exchange for a cut”.”

                  You’d think!

                  Look I used to be a Walter Blockian libertarian myself. I honestly believed what you’ve said there, but reality does not confirm that assumption at all.

                  When you see firms losing money hand over fist, the libertarian assumption is that they’re doing something that pleases government because they’re more scared of government than they are of customers. It’s plausible, but again the evidence doesn’t support it.

                  Patreon and Paypal are banning right-wingers because they themselves despise what right-wingers have to say, and actively WANT to stop them from saying it.
                  It definitely hurts their bottom line. How much money do you think YouTube made from Alex Jones? It must be many millions of dollars.
                  They don’t care about that. Humans have interests and values beyond the economic.

                  I hate to break it to you, but the same’s true of Domino’s Pizza. They’re *not* doing what they do in the interests of maximising revenue: they’re doing it out of sheer hatred.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  This is just a lazy dismissal designed to evoke sympathetic responses. It’s basically a rallying cry.

                  Good. You noticed.

                  Insiders get argument, infiltrators get mocking dismissal.

                  Before the mask slipped you got argument – that won’t be happening any longer.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Well you could’ve saved a lot of time by just typing “leftist” in the first place.
                  Heck why not make the rallying cry more inclusive and just say “feminist”?

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Look I used to be a Walter Blockian libertarian myself. I honestly believed what you’ve said there, but reality does not confirm that assumption at all.

                  Patreon and Paypal are banning right-wingers because they themselves despise what right-wingers have to say, and actively WANT to stop them from saying it.
                  It definitely hurts their bottom line.

                  You were never a libertarian because if you were you would understand the libertarian argument. It’s not that any firm can’t be irrational – firms are made up of people so obviously they can be irrational – it’s that irrational firms attract competition. Paypal and banking don’t attract competition – there’s 100% a thumb on the scale. NRx explains the nature of the thumb on the scale. You, being an entryist, don’t see it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s just no way of persuading a libertarian that they’re wrong. Whatever businesses do, no matter how entirely private and non-governmental, no matter how co-ordinated and conspiratorial, there must always be some government action somewhere that’s behind it.

                  What, specifically, are you proposing as the governmental cause of, say, Alex Jones’ ban?

                  You say you understand that NRx explanation but all you’re doing is citing the *libertarian* explanation: government thumb on the scale.

                  The NRx explanation is that normal people were trained by the universities and the media and became Cathedral people. The ones that Cathedralled better than the competition gained positions of power and influence, including but not limited to government and business, from which they promote Cathedral ideology, especially the status of the universities and the need for them to be well funded.

                  That is precisely what Paypal does when it bans Alex Jones. It has nothing to do with government regulation forcing capitalists to behave contrary to their own wishes. Their wishes are 100% aligned.

                  Does that mean no such government interference exists? I’m sure it does and I’m sure much or even most of it is thoroughly evil.

                  In the specific case though of payment processors banning right-wingers, it is simply not the case that they were reluctantly bowing to judicial pressure. That’s not the case *at all*.

                • jim says:

                  > What, specifically, are you proposing as the governmental cause of, say, Alex Jones’ ban?

                  I don’t know the specific governmental cause of Alex Jones ban, but there obviously was a governmental cause because a multitude of corporations made the same decision at the same moment, so someone in authority sent out a memo to all them, similar to infamous memo to John Steward rehabilitating a formerly vaporized government official in mid narration.

                  I do know the specific governmental cause of Damore’s ban. Human Resources prepared legal grounds to sue Google and Google executives for hostile work environment if they failed to fire Damore.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Let’s add NRx worldview to the libertarian view on the list of things you don’t understand because you’re an academic communist entryist.

                  The NRx explanation is that normal people were trained by the universities and the media and became Cathedral people. The ones that Cathedralled better than the competition gained positions of power and influence, including but not limited to government and business, from which they promote Cathedral ideology, especially the status of the universities and the need for them to be well funded.

                  The point is that the more Cathedral connected don’t *just happen* to rise up in organizations – in fact – much the opposite. They rise in organizations because *state power* is used constantly in the market and within firms to ensure that Cathedral loyalists rise. This happens because (to quote Moldbug):

                  https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/04/america-zombie-nation/

                  To put it succinctly, America is a zombie nation because it is no longer possible to imagine her without zombie finance. It was quite some time ago that we stepped across that black stream, from whose far bank none return. No, landscaping did not just put those asphodels in.

                  What is zombie finance? Zombie finance is the financing of zombies. To be more exact: you commit an act of zombie finance when you lend money to a zombie.

                  A zombie is an insolvent institution that continues to operate. An institution is insolvent if it is clearly unable to meet its present or future obligations. This definition is slightly trickier than it looks.The devil is seldom absent from the details, and we will indeed grapple with him there. But basically, the analogy of the living dead is quite accurate.

                  For example, a zombie bank is a zombie because the total market price of its assets is less than the sum of its promises to pay. Thus, it has no way to meet its obligations, even by selling all the things it owns

                  Let’s take a closer look at these zombie loans.

                  More generally, zombies act with ulterior motives. In reality, a zombie lender may have a perfectly good reason for lending to a zombie borrower. It’s just that this cannot be a financial reason. It must be some other kind of reason—generally an aromatic one.

                  For example, a common zombie structure is that of patronage. In a patronage hierarchy, money flows downward and power flows upward. A stream of uneconomic loans is an excellent way to cement a patronage structure, perhaps the best there is. While it is going too far to say that all zombies represent cases of patronage, it is certainly the structure to expect.

                  To count the mass of the client as part of his pyramid of power, the patron must own him body and soul, heart and mind. Gifts will win your client’s heart, but loans will win his mind as well. In a word, uneconomic loans create systematic dependency. When the client is an individual, this relationship is sometimes described as debt slavery. While one may disapprove of debt slavery for moral reasons (I do), there is no denying that it works like a charm.

                  Moldbug makes this point over and over again.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Oh, and a quote just for you from that piece Carl:

                  It is not at all surprising that progressives hate corporations and the profit system. It is a natural consequence of the antipathy to order, the anarchism, the lust for entropic destruction, which is the foundation of their creed.

                • peppermint says:

                  Being reactionary means being willing to call Jim, Yara, even Alrenous sir if it means Carl never gets a scrap of power.

                  Trying communism here was an insult to our host, should have studied more.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR writes “It’s a very funny progressivism that wants to take away poor and/or stupid people’s right to choose how to live their lives.”

                  Bwahahahahahahahahahah that was textbook pre 1960s progressivism.

                  The progressives in their Woodrow Wilson heyday argued that scientific experts had to micromanage nearly everything, especially the lives of stupider people. They differed from outright commies in supporting some limited role for private property.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “similar to infamous memo to John Steward”

                  That was to Colbert in reference to Comey. The left considered Comey to be a bad guy until Trump fired him then the party line was that he was good because his firing represented obstruction re muh Russia.

                • jim says:

                  I stand corrected.

                  Yes, Colbert, not John Stewart.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Carlylean Restorationist: Yes, laissez-faire is a dangerous crypto-anarchist and subversive doctrine, but the mania to govern everything is simply the other side of the Modernist coin, as is is borne out by the universal tendency of the Liberal State to regulate every aspect of life while tolerating and encouraging degeneracy and the corruption of manners and morals. Tormenting the working man and taking the food off his plate, or telling legitimate businessmen what kind of contracts they can and cannot make among themselves, is what the Cathedral does and incessantly proposes to do more of. I should hope that under Restoration, the King will have more urgent items of business to attend to than prohibiting activities not illicit in themselves: restoring the rightful dignity and authority of religion and the family; putting the University back into order and reviving intellectual, cultural, and scientific life; eradicating every last trace of the false and subversive Liberal doctrines, and ferreting out the remaining subversives; and prohibiting that which is already prohibited by Divine and Natural law, and has no licit use (porn, pot and other psychedelic drugs, etc.).

                • peppermint says:

                  Porn, pot, psychedelics are great. R movies used to have 30s of random boobies before people could find boobies whenever they wanted.

                  Did you mean to include booze, fapping, cigarettes, or are you at the ban porn permit fapping and movies with random boobies stage?

                  Whores should be tolerated.

                  Porn and whores are banned by feminists.

                  Pot, booze, cigarettes by stupid jerks.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Just clearing up loose ends. There was a reply that went in the wrong place, entirely my fault, but it was to the claim that authoritarian paternalism was pre-1960s Progressivism. In brief, yes that’s true and laissez-faire was pre-1860s Progressivism: so what? Cthulhu swims slowly left. We all know that.

                  Also, to Doug Smythe’s interesting point:

                  “the mania to govern everything is simply the other side of the Modernist coin”

                  This is what I’m talking about. This community has a lot of libertarian prejudices that it hasn’t yet re-examined since moving rightward. It’s good that you moved rightward, Doug, but there’s further to go than you might expect.

                  What you’re saying, in essence, is that since bloated government regulation, which can often seem utterly stupid, and often IS, is harmful, wasteful and retarded, therefore the answer is to just step back and let people do whatever they want so long as it’s lawful, and by lawful what you ultimately assume is that it does no harm to others. As a lolberg would put it, “whatever does not violate the natural rights of others”, or less neutrally and more explicitly tribally, “so long as it doesn’t violate the NAP”.

                  This is sometimes true, but other times it prevents you from seeing, or even desiring, solutions to very real problems.

                  I’m sure you’d agree that Arnold Schoenberg wreaked a lot of havoc in classical music, leaving us in a position where nobody who’s any good has written anything that’s epic and monumental since the war. (Yes I’m sure people will have their pet examples, but a milder version of the claim would perhaps be the period 1945 to 2018 was not as interesting for art music as the period 1845 to 1918 or the period 1745 to 1818.) (I said I was going to put it mildly lol)

                  So should the attitude to music be more like Nazi Germany, or more like Hong Kong?

                  As with music, so with food, film and furniture.

                • jim says:

                  > This community has a lot of libertarian prejudices that it hasn’t yet re-examined since moving rightward.

                  You are an alien and an outsider. You don’t speak our language, and do not comprehend our language. So you map our thinking and our speech into left wing categories that fail to fit, one of those categories being libertarianism.

                  You don’t understand our shibboleths. You don’t understand what we are saying because you think and speak in turns of left wing academic Marxist shibboleths like class conflict and class war. You have not grasped the concepts of “anarcho tyranny”, “stationary bandit”, “state religion”, “ethnogenesis” and “tribalism”. You are still blue pilled on women, and do not see that male cooperation is intimately linked with sexuality, family formation, and reproduction.

                  Solomon’s book of Proverbs was as far from libertarian as it is possible to be (death to men who sleep with men, death to men who sleep with other men’s wives, death to women who make their own sexual choices) Charles the second burned an excessively holy heretic at the stake. Solomon and Charles the Second were not men who suffered from Libertarian prejudices. Libertarianism did not exist in their time.

                  A movement that favors a return to the institutions and social organization of King Charles the Second and King Solomon is not a movement that suffers from unexamined libertarian prejudices, and both of these men favored and enforced thoroughly capitalist form of organization: The restoration was the foundation of modern corporate capitalism.

                  Charles the Second instituted modern corporate capitalism for the same reason Deng Xiaoping reinstituted modern corporate capitalism. CEOs get stuff done.

                  Libertarianism appeared because the left was ascendant, and libertarians were capitalists who wanted to forge an alliance with the left. Bad idea, like a sheep forging an alliance with wolves. Libertarianism appeared after king George the Fourth screwed the pooch, and capitalists saw that Kings and Aristocrats would not and could not defend them.

                  Predictably, the alliance failed horribly, was a one way alliance from the beginning, and has been failing horribly ever since. CEOs got their start by being useful to Kings, and that is what CEOs have to do. History since 1860 tells us that capitalism needs the monarchism of Solomon and Charles the Second. If a capitalist finds he has a crap King like King George the Fourth, alliance with the left is not a workable alternative. He just has to go underground.

                • Roberto says:

                  If you ban porn, you’re going to have to penalize pretty much 99% of men. Do you want to be penalized for possessing an erotic image of your girlfriend/wife? That’s “porn.”

                  Moreover, there are good reasons to legalize *all* drugs. I want the crack factory to be built right in the center of the “bad neighborhood.”

                  At any rate, after the Restoration there will probably be many Kings, not just a single King, and presumably their legal regimes will much differ. So there’s that.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > What you’re saying, in essence, is that since bloated government regulation, which can often seem utterly stupid, and often IS, is harmful, wasteful and retarded, therefore the answer is to just step back and let people do whatever they want so long as it’s lawful, and by lawful what you ultimately assume is that it does no harm to others.

                  To clarify, what I’m saying goes *far beyond* the principle of doing no immediate harm to others, and encompasses everything prohibited by Divine and Natural law including: blasphemy and lese-majeste; gross sexual indecency; public speech, writing, and/or artistic productions designed to poison the sentiments of men against the Natural and Divine order of things; miscegenation and the inversion of statuses and roles between castes; etc. etc. It is the proper business of the Sovereign, and of the Sovereign alone, to make the legal judgement call concerning the concrete interpretation and enforcement of these and other rules, as he alone sees fit- which isn’t the same thing as the unlimited legislative power claimed by the Liberal State, which the good Kings of our forefathers neither claimed nor had the administrative wherewithal to exercise.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Well that sounds very good, Doug!

                  I don’t like that you’re deriving it from supposed transcendent laws but who cares, the content’s wonderful!

                  I’d tack on to that list treacherous foreign holidaying and unnecessary foreign trade, as well as harmful entertainments including but not limited to night clubs, cam-girls, online gambling, offline gambling, most restaurants, take-aways, etc.

                  But to be honest I’d settled for your speech and conduct codes, which would probably eventually solve the other problems on their own.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >blasphemy and lese-majeste; gross sexual indecency; public speech, writing, and/or artistic productions designed to poison the sentiments of men against the Natural and Divine order of things; miscegenation and the inversion of statuses and roles between castes; etc.

                  This! Why does it have to be either Luddite Bolshevism (muh true reaction™) or classical liberalism, why can’t we simply have… sane policy? Funny how you can ban porn without starving millions to death, huh?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Well fifty-somethings singing the birthday song, living paycheck to paycheck while paying 4 hours’ gross labour for a meal that’ll give them heart disease and make them fat and disgusting is much of a muchness with the stuff you’d like to ban, Michael.
                  For that matter, why’s it socially permitted to take your annual disposable income, fly to a foreign country and just give it all to foreigners? That crap needs to be taxed like ‘remittances’.

                  But welcome to sanity: anyone who’s for huge Draconian censorship of the media is pretty good.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >It’s a very funny progressivism that wants to take away poor and/or stupid people’s right to choose how to live their lives.

                  Remember soda size regulations etc. progressives would like nothing better than take away the right to choose how to live their lives from EVERYONE (they might give you the list of genders to choose from, but you’re not free to choose to reject that crap, oh no, we don’t tolerate intolerance comrade). But the elephant in the room is inflationary money that cumulatively increases time-preference of all, and is thus demonstrated to be a leading factor in the process of decivilization. Yet I don’t hear you demanding a return to gold which was money in the olden days…

                  Bah, luddite communists like yourself deserve to be treated worse than the regular commies.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  CR,
                  you deserve a lifetime imprisonment in a worst gulag there is.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  lol what?

                  The left has no interest whatsoever in stopping people getting fat. Those stupid regulations help the big corporations drive out their competition. It’s very easy for Coca-Cola to comply with size regulations, and they’re entirely relaxed that their larger customers will have to buy more units of the drink now that they’re smaller. Gosh, how awful for Coca-Cola!
                  The little independent soda guy? He’s gonna get slaughtered if he has to ditch a couple of thousand wrong-size bottles.

                  Don’t be so damn naive.

                  I was at the gym one time laughing at the ads on the radio and two came on in succession. No actually I can remember TWO combination moments at the gym so I’ll share them both:

                  Example 1:

                  Ad 1: Some gambling website, ending of course in the prog message “gamble responsibly”
                  Ad 2: Payday lender

                  ROFL

                  Example 2:

                  Ad 1: Alco-pops (I think it was a mix of cider and vodka and they were talking about flavour and bubbliness), ending of course “drink responsibly”
                  Ad 2: Get tested online for STDs here

                  Yeah those progs, micro-managing people’s lives in the interests of good order and discipline, gotta love it baby.

                  Seriously, grow up. Blasphemy’s a good start but these corporations are blaspheming materially.

                • jim says:

                  > The left has no interest whatsoever in stopping people getting fat.

                  And neither do you. The reaction and the pua/traditionalist/theonomist community has identified what causes people to get fat, and has found the cure, has discovered how the individual can stop being fat. You are unaware of our answers, or you just don’t care.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim I’m well aware of your answers and I never ever counter-signal paleo or neo-paleo types.

                  For me, I lost four stone on high carb low fat mostly vegetable diet, often consuming above 2500 calories a day, combined with running and very simple gym stuff.

                  For you, bacon is better than potatoes and that’s fine too.

                  Hell for many people it’s “syns” and for many other people it’s drinking milkshakes instead of eating food. That’s all fine too.

                  Fat is very simple: if you burn more calories than you consume, on average and over time, then on average and over time you’ll tend to shed body mass, and for vice versa the opposite’s true. In the long run, even tiny changes can have large effects.

                  None of this is rocket science and I’m most certainly NOT buying into some insane deterministic/fatalistic conspiracy theory about Franky&Benny’s.

                  What I’m saying is just that people like Franky&Benny’s are offering things that our people are taking up – who knows why! I have no idea: to me it’s madness but I’m NOT a pleb with an IQ of 90. If I were, it might make perfect sense to me.

                  What I’m saying is that I know plenty of people – indeed the majority of the people I know – who live paycheck to paycheck but who would not be so vulnerable were it not for voluntarily handing over four hours’ gross pay per person for one single meal. That’s not good for their long-term future: they’re wasting probably half a million dollars *ON FOOD* throughout their adult life that they needn’t be spending at all.

                  To add insult to injury, the food they’re bankrupting themselves to buy is HARMFUL to them.

                  What I’m saying is that if we had a proper leader, like Trump after he claims real power, then it’s reasonable for such a leader to look at a company like Franky&Benny’s, see the harm they’re doing, and say

                  “y’know what guys: I don’t really think I’m gonna let you DO that any more”

                • jim says:

                  > For me, I lost four stone on high carb low fat mostly vegetable diet,

                  I am reminded of people telling me how tranquil, friendly, and productive their diverse workplace and neighborhood is, and how engineers are neglecting the contributions of women.

                  This program, low fat, high carb, has been prescribed to everyone, for the last fifty years, with the results that we can see. It has been the subject of the most massive experiment in history.

                  Academia has been searching for evidence to support it, has been coming up empty. If you lost four stone on that program, why are you not on a poster?

                • Roberto says:

                  >ban all restaurants because the 90 IQ types have no self control

                  The parody version is that everything should be banned because the 90 IQ folks self destructively fail at everything; but in your case it’s no parody, since that is literally what you believe.

                  Reminder:

                  “Is NRx in fact fascist? Not remotely. It is probably, in reality rather than self-estimation, the least fascistic current of political philosophy presently in existence, although this requires a minimal comprehension of what fascism actually is, which the word itself in its contemporary usage is designed to obstruct. Is NRx racist? Probably. The term is so entirely plastic in the service of those who utilize it that it is difficult, with any real clarity, to say.

                  What NRx most definitely is, at least in the firm opinion of this blog, is Social Darwinist. When this term is hurled at NRx as a negative epithet, it is nor a cause for stoic resignation, stiffened by humor, but rather for grim delight. Of course, this term is culturally processed — thought through — no more competently than those previously noted. It is our task to do this.

                  If ‘Social Darwinism’ is in any way an unfortunate term, it is only because it is merely Darwinism, and more exactly consistent Darwinism. It is equivalent to the proposition that Darwinian processes have no limits relevant to us. Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion.

                  This is easy to say. As far as this blog is concerned, it is also — beyond all reasonable question — true. While very far from a dominant global opinion, it is not uncommonly held — if only nominally — by a considerable fraction of those among the educated segment of the world’s high-IQ populations. It is also, however, scarcely bearable to think.

                  The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.

                  It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)”

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The basic ‘procedural’ issue here, if you will, is that you’re spending major energy concerning yourself with marginal issues.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You may think that, and I have tried just quitting, and will doubtless eventually succeed.

                  Nevertheless I think it’s important to remind NRxers that they’re not libertarians so they’re not bound by the NAP to let corporations do whatever they want.

                  They MAY decide that letting corporations do whatever they want is good policy, but that seems anachronous given the accepted need for censorship and patriarchy, about which we can all definitely agree.

                  I don’t want government regulatory bloat, I don’t want egalitarianism and I don’t want welfarism.

                  What I want is a leader who sees bad people doing bad things and takes action to stop them from doing bad things any longer.

                  The fact that you guys are pushing back against that signifies to me that you still harbour libertarian reluctance to stomp on corporate interests.

                  This may very well be your undoing and I have a responsibility to point it out to you.

                  Wow, is CR really channelling Anita Sarkeesian? I guess he IS a left-wing entryist after all.

                • jim says:

                  > Nevertheless I think it’s important to remind NRxers that they’re not libertarians so they’re not bound by the NAP to let corporations do whatever they want.

                  This is a good example of you failing to grasp the shibboleths of the group you are attempting to infiltrate. Read up on “Stationary Bandit” and “anarcho tyranny”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “This program [high carb low fat whole foods] has been prescribed to everyone, for the last fifty years, with the results that we can see. It has been the subject of the most massive experiment in history.”

                  That’s simply not true. I tried to be conciliatory by accepting that many people do well on high fat low carb, and a variety of other options but you shunned it. Fine.

                  Standard American Diet plus ‘low fat options’ is poisonous. If you eat a pie that has reduced fat then you’re going to DIE.

                  Eating whole foods though is a completely different proposition. A typical meal for a HCLF vegan is either cooked potatoes plus cooked pulses, or else a smoothie made with a banana base plus berries, often of one type only.

                  These ‘monomeals’, involving no more than two ingredients (a base and a ‘seasoning’), are incredibly healthy.

                  They’re evolutionarily compatible with our bodies, and they provide very poor energy per bite, which in the context of modern living is very very good.

                  They also have the advantage that they’re not subject to Jewish interference in the food supply: they come out of the ground, they get picked and they get ate!

                  Remember there’s nine times the energy in fat as there is in natural sugar such as raw fructose by weight.

                  Now let me re-conciliate: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a bacon and egg diet if it works for you. It works for many people. Me? If I tried that shit I’d be 20 stone, because I can eat like crazy.
                  I regularly have twelve bananas and two punnets of strawberries for one meal, and lose weight. That stuff amounts to maybe 1200 calories.
                  I can do that twice in a day, and lose weight.

                  If I ate a plate full of bacon and eggs for 900 calories, I’d want three more plates.

                  Each to his own.

                  Either way, I am emphatically NOT saying Franky&Benny’s needs to be banned in order to help poor/stupid people lose weight.

                  What I’m saying is Franky&Benny’s is successfully killing millions of good white people and bankrupting millions more, and this antisocial, hostile behaviour gives God-Emperor Trump an option: to let it carry on and try regulatory/educational ‘initiatives’, or to shut them TF down.

                  I think you know what a manly man would do.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim writes:

                  “Read up on “Stationary Bandit” and “anarcho tyranny””

                  I’m well aware. Stationary Bandit is an excellent concept. It clarifies all the important factors in absolute rule.
                  Anarcho-tyranny is a kind of libertarian-ish meme but I like it: everything’s illegal except crime under globohomo.

                  I agree entirely.

                  The question remains unanswered: why, exactly, should God-Emperor Trump, post-self-coup (see?), not deal with corporations responsible for bankrupting and killing millions of average people?

                  Muh property rights by any chance?

                • jim says:

                  Because the doctrine that these corporations are doing these evil deeds is indefensible and absurd cultural marxist nonsense that absolutely no one you are talking to, except troofer’s, believes.

                  You plan to force me to eat a low carbon footprint diet, resembling the diet that made me fat, you plan to force me to eat low status food while high status food is reserved for clerical elite.

                  Your program is that the clerical purity commandments be imposed on us mere commoners, among them academia’s equivalent of eating kosher.

                  But we are inclined to doubt that academia is holier than we are, and see academics in much the way academia sees Christians who handle snakes and speak in tongues.

                  The least ignorant, stupid, and crazy part of academia is computer science, and you know what Moldbug had to say about computer science.

                  Where I have first person expertise on a topic (weight loss and computer science) I know that Academia’s take on that topic is at best clever silly, and at wost evil, crazy, and stupid.

                  By forcing everyone to eat the academic equivalent of kosher food, (low carbon footprint, low animal fats) you raise the status of those holy men who loudly advocate the academic equivalent of eating kosher (Coke Zero in a Prius) which group does not have a whole lot of overlap with those men who actually do eat the academic equivalent of kosher.

                • peppermint says:

                  deal with the corporations? sloppy thinking, again. corporations are given fines. executives are given execution, jail time, fines, forced retirement.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Come on Minty that was beneath you; just because others pretend not to understand doesn’t make it a good thing to do.

                  You know what I meant by ‘deal with’, and it wasn’t “pass benign regulations that oversee and quality-assure corporations”. I meant shut them down, eradicate them, run them out of the country, send them back to bongo bongo land.

                  Yes the executives need to be punished, and yes physical punishment is on the table, but the main objective is to stop firms like Franky&Benny’s from killing and bankrupting our people.

                  It simply will not do for our people to go, *in the millions*, to spend four hours of gross pay per person, on food that makes them fat, hideous and sick, so that some foreign corporation can get rich off the back of minimum wage teenage labour.

                  A sane leader would tell them to GTFO of the country and never come back.

                  If a few needed to be made examples of, well that’s life.

                • jim says:

                  This is repetitious. Your program is irrelevant and stupid, and reveals total ignorance of what reaction is about. If you keep posting the same thing over and over I will delete on the grounds that you are wasting reader bandwidth through repetition.

                  Do try to understand where the people you are arguing with are coming from instead of mapping us into the nearest left wing category, or the evil obverse of the nearest left wing category. It is irritating to be lectured at by someone who refuses to listen.

                • peppermint says:

                  ps whole grains and beans are absolute garbage that no one likes for good reason. meat, high fat or leafy vegetables, dairy, white grains, is what people ate when they were healthy, and what healthy people eat. this isn’t up for debate, the record stands for itself.

                • peppermint says:

                  category error numbnuts

                  a corporation is a group of people

                  change the people

                  no need to burn down the building

                • Koanic says:

                  Carry has spoken, and the reaction is negative.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  CR:

                  You know what I meant by ‘deal with’, and it wasn’t “pass benign regulations that oversee and quality-assure corporations”. I meant shut them down, eradicate them, run them out of the country, send them back to bongo bongo land.

                  Moldbug:

                  It is not at all surprising that progressives hate corporations and the profit system. It is a natural consequence of the antipathy to order, the anarchism, the lust for entropic destruction, which is the foundation of their creed.

                • Roberto says:

                  CR, you should start your own blog wherein you’ll explain that banning everything completely to protect 90 IQ people from themselves is the heart, the soul, the brain, and the spirit of True Neo-Reaction.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Because the doctrine that these corporations are doing these evil deeds is indefensible and absurd cultural marxist nonsense”

                  Millions of people are obese, thousands morbidly obese, and life expectancy is falling.
                  The people who are suffering these outcomes are taking what little pay they have in this ‘service economy’ and handing it to a handful of corporations who are employing only the lowest paid staff and pushing a cultural Marxist agenda. Indeed the mere presence of Chiquito’s (and Mexican-sounding music on the radio) is a glitch in the globohomo matrix that lets us see the face of evil in the UK: we do not HAVE a Mexican problem and we’re NOT trying to build a wall on ‘the’ Mexican border, yet somehow our economic leaders are spontaneously all deciding we need to love Mexico a LOT more.

                  The ONLY reason you refuse to see these people as your enemy is that their name badges say “ltd”, “inc” and “plc” instead of “ministry”, “department” and “agency”.

                  IF we’re to have a leader with the power and autonomy to lead, this is one of the many tasks he needs to address.

                  “You plan to force me to eat a low carbon footprint diet”

                  Nobody mentioned carbon footprints and I don’t care what you eat. I care what corporations are doing to poor workers in my country.

                  “Your program is that the clerical purity commandments be imposed on us mere commoners, among them academia’s equivalent of eating kosher.”

                  That’s already the case. I always seem to find myself repeating what I’ve actually said rather than what I’m being accused of having said, exactly as if this were The Guardian.
                  This is not about regulators auditing the ingredients of restaurant food. This is far simpler: the corporations everybody knows are bankrupting and poisoning workers need to be denied the right to do business, regardless of any promises they pretend to make.

                  “academia” – nobody mentioned it and it will have no role in telling Franky&Benny’s to FO.

                  “forcing everyone to eat low carbon footprint, low animal fats”

                  Misrepresentation, which at this point has to be deliberate. Nobody mentioned low carbon footprint and I couldn’t have BEEN any more explicit about dietary choice having nothing to do with any of this.
                  This is about corporations selling obviously sick food to people who are obviously getting sick, and who can’t afford to pay the usurious prices but are doing it anyway. This is about people who need guidance getting guidance – not by academics *regulating* these corporations, but by the law simply saying to these corporations “you had your chance and you blew it – good bye”.

                  Speaking of which lol

                • jim says:

                  > > “Because the doctrine that these corporations are doing these evil deeds is indefensible and absurd cultural marxist nonsense”

                  > Millions of people are obese, thousands morbidly obese, and life expectancy is falling.

                  I know what is causing obesity. The reaction knows what is causing obesity. It is the same thing as is causing falling sperm counts, chinless men, and manjawed women. I have explained what is causing the obesity epidemic, and it is not corporations. It is academia – it is you and people like you. The cure is to take power away from people like you – send the tanks into Harvard, not the tanks into McDonalds.

                  The cure is a re-run of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, not a re-run of Cuba and Venezuela.

                  Feminism is causing obesity, both directly, in that low testosterone in males makes males fat, and high testosterone in women makes women fat, and indirectly, in that the destruction of the family and its replacement with child support has resulted in food no longer being supplied through the family. With women out of the kitchen, we have replaced the kitchen with the cafetaria, with the result that we now have food available 24/7, and eating is no longer contained within social rituals.

                  And it is not capitalism or capitalists that are causing feminism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In case any reader is in any doubt about the intersection (lol) of toxic food and high fat food, let’s be very clear:

                  There’s tons of evidence that for people who aren’t in the habit of eating vast *amounts* of food, and for some who are but are just genetically predisposed, paleo-type diets are highly effective.

                  These will typically involve bacon, steak, eggs and even dairy.

                  They will not typically involve Franky&Benny’s oil-drenched pizzas with deep fried potato chips and deep fried onion rings, and they certainly won’t involve 900 calorie slices of cake that don’t fill you up.
                  The typical high fat diet strategy is not generally to cover everything with salt, or to stir in three tablespoons of sugar to everything.

                  It’s just a bait&switch to say “I’m for high fat low carb diets” and then use it to defend the Chiquito’s menu.

                • jim says:

                  > They will not typically involve Franky&Benny’s oil-drenched pizzas with deep fried potato chips and deep fried onion rings, and they certainly won’t involve 900 calorie slices of cake that don’t fill you up.

                  > The typical high fat diet strategy is not generally to cover everything with salt, or to stir in three tablespoons of sugar to everything.

                  > It’s just a bait&switch to say “I’m for high fat low carb diets” and then use it to defend the Chiquito’s menu.

                  I observe Coca Cola Corporaton enthusiastically promoting Coke Zero, Coke with zero sugar, and I also observe that everyone who drinks diet drinks, who drinks Coke Zero, is fat.

                  Corporations are promoting the Academic equivalent of kosher food, and it is not working, and if academia got the power to enforce Academic Kosher, drinking Coke Zero while driving a Prius, it would fail even more so.

                  Oil drenched pizza is a whole lot better for you than bread and cake. What is bad about pizza is the flour and sugar, that it is high carbs and low fat, not that it is high fat. My normal diet on which I have ceased to be fat, contains massive amounts of salt, and a lot more fat than the fattiest pizza.

                  Coke Zero in a Prius is not bad for you. But the frame of mind that leads one to drink Coke Zero is bad for you, the frame “How can I engage in sloth and gluttony and not get fat”

                  By blaming evil corporations, you are selling us the Coke Zero in a Prius frame of mind. And it is those legally and socially enforced academic memes, not evil corporations, that are killing us, depressing sperm counts, and giving us chinless men and big jawed strutting women.

                  Chiquito’s menu is not killing us. Coke Zero in a Prius is closer to what is killing us, but it is not what is killing us. What is killing us is the laws and social system that smashed the family and replaced it with child support, and what is giving us those laws is the academic ideology that gave us both those laws and also Coke Zero in a Prius.

                  Coke Zero in a Prius does not itself make you fat and chinless, but it is worship at the altar of a religion that makes you fat and chinless.

                • The Cominator says:

                  People would eat better if they weren’t single and wives could be spanked for not prepping good meals most days a week. People are not fat because of resteraunts but because the corn syrup industry bribed the bureaucrats (an aspect of anarcho tyranny) and because of feminism.

                  Also people should eat out socially once and a while.

                • Roberto says:

                  >the corporations everybody knows are bankrupting and poisoning workers need to be denied the right to do business

                  Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Junk-Food Poisoning Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Restaurant Like Nigga Close Your Mouth Haha

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > Blasphemy’s a good start but these corporations are blaspheming *materially*. (emph. mine).

                  Thank you for confirming what I had suspected. You are a materialist, and thus conceive of the problems facing our civilization in epidemiological terms of various metrics of individual productivity, health-care costs, and quality-adjusted years of life. Reaction by contrast sees the great pathologies of our age as primarily moral, social, and spiritual. The problem, as we see it, is less that people are too fat and at elevated risk of chronic illness nowadays than that they think that women should be allowed to do whatever they want, that a man is a defective woman and that masculinity is a pathology for which the therapeutic indication is castration, all as mass audiences fill their heads with cable news trash instead of reading old books while their youth are indoctrinated into atheism, anarchism, and sexual debauchery by Cultural Maoist professors. Meanwhile, you go on about calorie counts and so on, and come across as less of a Restorationist than a garden-variety public-health crusader who, like many such crusaders, wants to abolish Liberalism mainly in order get rid of perceived barriers to remaking society as something like a cross between a giant hospital and a livestock farm.

                • peppermint says:

                  Faggot, if people ate protein and fat instead of carbs, they would get full and stop eating.

                  Ironically, you have the same problem with the rest of the reactionaey programme. Your bizarre programme will fail because it gets incentives and signals wrong, from the grandest scale to the internal bodily functions scale.

                  Corporations that create externalities and accidents need fines. Corporations that commit treason, sedition, insourcing and outsourcing need their decision-makers punished individually. Ironically, you’re the corporate elitist when you say the corporare veil should protect traitors using corporate assets to commit treason.

                  You will suffer from this muddy thinking, and I will call you a retard, until you take signals and incentives seriously.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Corporations that create externalities and accidents need fines.”

                  Peppermint I have a bit of a quibble with this. Fining corporations requires a large bureaucratic structure which presumably a restoration state won’t have much of.

                  As much as I may hate trial lawyers this kind of thing is probably best settled with lawsuits rather then bureaucratic fines.

                  Jim how would you have the state handle corporations creating externalities (while not being outright treasonous, if outright treasonous the CEO is beheaded or worse).

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The cure is a re-run of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, not a re-run of Cuba and Venezuela.”

                  To be fair to CR Venezuela has solved obesity pretty effectively…

                  Snicker.

                • X says:

                  The point is that the more Cathedral connected don’t *just happen* to rise up in organizations – in fact – much the opposite. They rise in organizations because *state power* is used constantly in the market and within firms to ensure that Cathedral loyalists rise. This happens because (to quote Moldbug):

                  +1. Bravo.

                  CR thinks we need regulation to prevent the free market from annealing. We think we need to replace State centralized edicts with a decentralized religion that enables the free market of information flow to optimize the outcomes.

                  Our problem is we haven’t figured out how to organize ourselves around this decentralized religion such that we will stop economically holding up with the Zionists and their Marxist minions who enslave us.

                  My challenge to all NXers is instead of talking about what we want, present a viable plan for achieving it!

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Very weak.
                Yes patriarchal authoritarian attitudes toward poor and/or stupid people prior to 1960s were indeed considered part of the Progressive programme.
                Well spotted.

                So was laissez-faire economics prior to 1870s.

                You should probably read about a thing called the Dark Enlightenment. It posits that the Overton Window tends to move slowly leftward as time passes.

                It’s a mostly reasonable take on history, albeit worryingly similar to Whig history in some fairly important, if understandable, ways.

                The crux of the imperium vs anarchy question at the heart of classical NRx is whether the state has the right to do certain limited things or whether the state has a primary property right in its territory and hence the right to do any&all things it sees fit.

                Classical NRx says it’s the latter, and I agree.

                If a genuine leader, as opposed to a sham leader like Donald Trump (and any other US President as currently understood), saw fit to put a stop to some of the ills afflicting our society, NRx says we will fight to defend that leader.

                Libertarians say it’s unconstitutional.

                • Roberto says:

                  In the previous thread, I told you:

                  “The King who listens to your advice will be universally despised, and will never manage to stabilize his throne.”

                  Explanation: Westerners, especially individualist intra-Hajnal Line whites, especially those of British (or Dutch) descent, don’t want every single minute aspect of their lives to be regulated by a centralized bureaucracy.

                  Your extreme despotism might be hip with Chinamen, but will never be acceptable to men of the West, as is evidenced by it never having been acceptable to men of the West at any point in history.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Yes patriarchal authoritarian attitudes toward poor and/or stupid people prior to 1960s were indeed considered part of the Progressive programme.
                  Well spotted.

                  So was laissez-faire economics prior to 1870s.

                  You should probably read about a thing called the Dark Enlightenment. It posits that the Overton Window tends to move slowly leftward as time passes.”

                  I’ve read Moldbug, I’ve read Jim. I confess to not being so up on Nick Land.

                  Your programme is not reactionary but progressive.

                  You not only try to redefine reaction as slightly older progressivism but try to redefine libertarianism as progressivism (libertarianism has some pozzed aspects but the dark enlightenment generally agrees with libertarianism on economics just not on politics).

                  So please stop this “how do we do fellow reactionaries” stuff, we’re not dumb stormfags and you aren’t fooling anyone.

                • jim says:

                  If the King attempts to personally control everything, will be overwhelmed.

                  The King should have the power to decide the exception, the King should decide how the rules are to be interpreted, but there is a limit to how many exceptions he can deal with, case by case.

                  So, should take the approach of King Solomon: Issue a book of proverbs in which he tells the public that the rules are such that there are private incentives for good behavior, incentives that are in large part privately enforced – if you don’t work, you starve, if you sleep with someone else’s wife, the husband may kill you. If you work and produce value, you get to keep that value, or most of it, and similarly if you save and invest.

                  If the King attempts to enforce everything, decide everything, he finds he needs a huge bureaucracy, dangerously close to the palace. He gets the infamous Soviet and Washington bureaucracy, which strangles itself in red tape. We need the corporations of Charles the Second, which conquered the world and industrialized England, and the privately enforced social order of King Solomon.

                  Coverture was in substantial part the restoration of the family law of King Solomon – should go the whole hog, with the family law of King Solomon, with the Book of Proverbs, and with the coverture and the corporations of Charles the Second.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Voluntary absolute monarchy, I’ve now officially heard it all.

                  The public will swallow virtually anything frankly. I still laugh every time I hear a car restart its engine after it auto-shuts down at the traffic lights. I know *I* wouldn’t tolerate that, but millions do.
                  I’m not exempt or immune though: I’m perfectly willing to tolerate verbally telling the post office clerk what’s in the package and I’ve shown my passport to someone who knows me and has been in my house, so that they know I’m who I say I am. Not know in the merely epistemic sense but h’officially know, you understand.

                  Bear in mind that whites have been tolerating affirmative action for decades, and that’s before we even go near women’s liberation lol

                  No, if the law of the land says that nice tasty junk food restaurant closed its doors and you can’t log on betyourhouse dot com any more, let alone blacked dot com, people will grumble, but as Bismarck said, they say what they want and I *do* what I want.

                  The reason regulation takes the form of anarcho-tyranny in the current year is that the state’s agents are bound by appeals processes and all manner of independent checks and balances. Nobody actually has any power.

                • jim says:

                  No, you get anarcho tyranny if you try to regulate everything, because you cannot in fact regulate everything. Stalin had absolute power, and still got anarcho tyranny. Anarcho tyranny is not lack of Kingly power, it is far too many people exercising Kingly power.

                  Anarcho tyranny is when you have a thousand despots, and wish you had only one despot.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “I’ve read Moldbug, I’ve read Jim. I confess to not being so up on Nick Land.”

                  Nick Land’s an over-rated pseud. I despise him. Almost gave up the whole NRx thing in the early days on account of his jargon-drenched obscurantist drivel.

                  “(libertarianism has some pozzed aspects but the dark enlightenment generally agrees with libertarianism on economics just not on politics).”

                  I fail to see who or why. Land’s accelerationist garbage is just the same tired old post-scarcity algorithmic society nonsense we’ve heard about for decades, but Moldbug may have started out as post-ancap Lew Rockwellite with his neo-cameralist claptrap, but by the end he was way Trumpier than Trump.

                  He got red-pilled by Carlyle, as did I. I cried when I read “Chartism” the first time because I knew it was all true: people just like me, applying egalitarianism in the context of the assumed competence of rational actors in the free market, were the root cause of envy-socialism.

                  Let that sink in. You ask for labour-as-market-good and you get working tax credits – based on Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, I might add! Why is it that Friedman and Hayek were so welfare statey? That’s a topic for another time but the core principle’s correct: pace Roberto, the general public in white societies WILL NOT watch people starve in the gutter.

                  You might not like that (I’m actually blissfully happy about it because I don’t WANT to kill my own people in the name of improved efficiency in the global interchange of goods and services) but history ran the experiment many times and the answer’s always the same.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  By the way, legalising crack whore TV stations with consenting (and parent-consenting) child actresses up to and including contractually legitimate ritual human sacrifice is……. “a BIT pozzed”? ROFL

                  What the hell does Sodom&Gomorrah look like to you Comey?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim:

                  “you get anarcho tyranny if you try to regulate everything”

                  Well this isn’t about trying to regulate everything. It’s about trying, and succeeding, to shut down businesses that have been allowed to try and have shown that they’re there to do great harm.

                  I know anyone who wants the government to do anything sounds to libertarians like globohomo regulatory bloat, but that doesn’t follow at all: it’s just a libertarian prejudice. It’s an excellent tactical stance for libertarians because NOBODY likes globohomo regulatory bloat!

                  There’s no need for armies of regulators. There’s a need for **tariffs**, and one of the great strengths of this blog in particular is that you’ve embraced Trumpist protectionism and identified what’s so great about it. Many others have failed to do so.

                  Once the ‘international’ part of free trade’s been dealt with, all that remains is to see who’s killing our people and stop them from doing it.

                  Simples.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Well this isn’t about trying to regulate everything. It’s about trying, and succeeding, to shut down businesses that have been allowed to try and have shown that they’re there to do great harm.”

                  Its for the children, its to protect working families etc etc.

                  You have ceased sounding like an old fashioned prog and now sound like an outright shitlib one. Its not overregulation and its because we care blah blah.

                  Regulating mass media is different then regulating commerce, the king should have mass media overseen with a generally LIGHT hand to ensure that progressive egalitarian and otherwise subversive ideas aren’t promoted. The mass media should also glorify loyalty and honesty as the highest virtues. Women should not be glorified for following their feelings (there should be female characters who do this but they should all be evil or cause great evil) but for selfless duty to others especially to family. Mass media is always controlled by SOMEONE or some body of people with the real power so the king should regulate it.

                  As has been mentioned whoever gave the order to Colbert was transmitting the order from one of the actual powerbrokers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “the general public in white societies WILL NOT watch people starve in the gutter.”

                  Only those who deserve to starve will generally starve under a deregulated libertarian type market. His Majesty Donald Trump (by the Grace of God Emperor of the West) has proved that in the United States. Once he started axing regs millions of people who didn’t have jobs before now have them all the sudden.

                  The job shortage was created by the incompetent cathedral state trying to regulate everything.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  As I said before when someone played that card, “it’s a funny type of shitlib that wants to end all manifestations of equality&diversity, do away with appeals processes and ban (or at least heavily tax) foreign travel”.

                  “Its for the children, its to protect working families etc etc.”

                  Again the libertarian prejudice: if globohomo regulatory bloat says X then we need to say NOT-X.
                  Non sequitur. Globohomo does not protect the children – quite the contrary. I strongly recommend Weimerica Weekly’s episode “Drag Queen Story Hour” if you don’t mind weeping and gnashing your teeth a bit.

                  Yes indeed, the state should promote the health and wellbeing of children AND working families, and before you say it disabled people, people with intellectual impairment of all kinds, people isolated from society, vulnerable people, etc. etc. etc.

                  I’m not afraid of saying that, but your libertarian prejudices make you unwilling to say it, but perfectly happy to say

                  “Only those who deserve to starve will generally starve under a deregulated libertarian type market.”

                  You can keep on asserting that as often as you want, but it’s been tried and the result was the welfare state and it would be again.

                  “Regulating mass media is different then regulating commerce, the king should have mass media overseen with a generally LIGHT hand to ensure that progressive egalitarian and otherwise subversive ideas aren’t promoted.”

                  With the emphasis on LIGHT: we set LIGHT to “Horrible Histories” and that book that claims Elizabeth I was a queer, and we do it GENTLY lest the parafin make a mess on our robes.

                  “The mass media should also glorify loyalty and honesty as the highest virtues. Women should not be glorified for following their feelings (there should be female characters who do this but they should all be evil or cause great evil) but for selfless duty to others especially to family. Mass media is always controlled by SOMEONE or some body of people with the real power so the king should regulate it.”

                  Your solution’s slightly more regulator-ey than mine, but I’m all for it. Of course we need to tailor the message, but that’s not a LIGHT touch: a LIGHT touch is occasionally seeing if they’re doing kiddie-porn again and if they are, give them a warning not to do it again.

                  Yes we need to get HEAVY with the media. We want Aesop’s Fables, He-Man, Genoveva, The Wife Of Pilate.

                  “His Majesty Donald Trump (by the Grace of God Emperor of the West) has proved that in the United States. Once he started axing regs millions of people who didn’t have jobs before now have them all the sudden.”

                  Agreed, and to a lesser extent Iain Duncan Smith, and hoorah for that.
                  The ones that slipped through the net should not remain on welfare however: they should be put to work whether they like it or not. Having a choice in one’s profession is a luxury not a right.

                  “The job shortage was created by the incompetent cathedral state trying to regulate everything.”

                  Negative: it was the incompetent cathedral state trying to place scroungers and numpties above captains of industry, and it needs to stop.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Non sequitur. Globohomo does not protect the children”

                  Well of course not but you probably wouldn’t do much better.

                  “Yes indeed, the state should promote the health and wellbeing of children AND working families, and before you say it disabled people, people with intellectual impairment of all kinds, people isolated from society, vulnerable people, etc. etc. etc.”

                  The state should promote eugenic breeding so these things are gone within a generation. Eugenics is an area the state should intervene in just not the retarded way Hitler did it.

                  The state should not go overboard keeping people from destroying themselves as it inevitably involves restricting the liberty of responsible men who wouldn’t destroy themselves and creating a vast regulatory and enforcement apparatus and puts you on the road to anarcho tyranny.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Of course, and yes Hitler is not the template for us in 2018.
                  Many of those issues are beside the point now.

                  Eugenics is perfectly practicable so long as it’s done right. Child benefits for whites only would be a start, and if the IQ bell curve didn’t sufficiently resemble a snail rather than a bell, with great lumpiness at the top end and a sudden drop-off at the lower end, then additional incentive-driven measures should of course be considered.

                  All good stuff.

                  So why not apply the fix of banning Franky&Benny’s? I’m still a bit bewildered…. or is this a nature vs nurture thing?
                  Nature’s hugely important and useful, but nurture’s pretty important and useful too. It’s all well and good having a genetic predisposition to drink alcohol, but if you’re living in Iran you have a better chance of transcending it than if you’re living in Ireland.

                  (Please don’t say “let the afflicted just die in the street” because I don’t want to have to keep pointing to history for proof of the impossibility of this, or to have to keep reminding you that if you’re loyal to your people then it’s also highly unethical. Remember the Baldwin Effect will be your friend when it comes to environmental outcome-shaping measures if you’re a genetics-heavy thinker.)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Actually let me walk that back a bit. I don’t want to throw the German model national socialists under the bus, there’s a lot we can learn from Hitlerian economics.
                  What I meant was we have new problems now that wouldn’t be instantly solved by copying&pasting from “Mein Kampf”, mostly because he said if we don’t do X then Y will happen, we did not do X and Y happened.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “there’s a lot we can learn from Hitlerian economics.”

                  Hlamar Schadt’s economics did well but it wasn’t all that socialist except in the matter of foreign exchange (which initially desperately needed to be rationed for food and vital raw materials because Germany was so short of them).

                  Hitlerian economics post Schadt was socialist it failed fast it failed hard and failed utterly so that the war had to be started very soon after Schadt was gone.

                  In terms of getting rid of undesirable traits I’m not talking so much incentives. A lot of people need to be sterilized.

                  High IQ couples can get subsidies though.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Comey you’re probably the sanest of these goons.
                  Peppermint’s too autistic to be of genuine use. I knew as soon as Jim turned the topic to the *content of diets* that no number of ‘laissez-faire’ statements would suffice: nothing short of PALEO ONLY PALEO NOW AND NOTHING BUT PALEO EVER, FAGGOTS would be enough for some people, and Minty’s one of them.
                  This was, I expect, a tactic move and it worked. Quite *why* there would be tactical moves going on is another question.

                  I don’t particularly like the sterilisation thing but if it was done carefully, on a mostly voluntary basis, with the exception of offenders, then it could form a part of the eugenics programme. Incentives are better (call me a libertarian by all means).

                  Anyway this is all getting a bit tired now.

                  There’s an excellent YouTube discussion between Chris Cantwell and Eric Striker on “Heel Turn” and I’m going to listen to it. Anyone who wants to continue this initially interesting digression into the economics of a restoration society will probably get more from those guys than anything I can offer, but by all means carry on among yourselves; you just won’t have much to argue about because you’re all basically libertarians with a little bit of fash and a little bit of trad.

                  That’s all good, I’m all for it.

                  I expect I’m going to disagree with 100% of Chris Cantwell’s economic points in this discussion but I’m still 100% a fan of his and I’m still 100% a fan of Jim’s.

                  Economics is interesting and everything, but the top priority is surviving what’s coming down the line, ideally winning, and securing the existence of our people and a future for white children.

                  The rest can be sorted out when it’s only grown-ups in the room and no whining entitled lefties.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I wasn’t talking about voluntary sterilizations…

                  I was talking about forcibly sterilizing low IQ people and antisocials. You say we need to regulate everything because low IQ people fail in a free market even under good conditions and the failure creates externalities which drag down others.

                  The solution is similar to that of feral women creating externalities but more even more (in time) easily solved. You sterilize low IQ people especially ones who end up as wards of the state in the long term, and voluntary has nothing to do with it. In the long term there will be no low iq people.

                  This should be the end of accusing me of being a doctrinaire libertarian btw.

                • peppermint says:

                  You said if people want to eat a particular mass/volume of food, they should eat it as carbs.

                  I said people stop being hungry when they get enough fat and protein.

                  Then you said I said paleopaleopaleo.

                  From which everyone but you deduces
                  (1) you have reading comprehension problems
                  (2) you have no idea what a signal is
                  (3) and yet you call me too autistic to be useful

  4. Doug Smythe says:

    The profession of law should come to an end. The principle should be that if you’re together enough to prosecute a beef then you’re together enough to speak for yourself without an advocate. Also, most civil laws and rules of procedure should be State secrets communicated only on a need-to-know basis to officers of the Crown such as judges. You would thus have to go before the court and plead your case in a straightforward way, without the ability to exploit loopholes or use other shysterist tactics to game the rules.

    • Doug Smythe says:

      Judge Judy TV show models how such a justice system would work.

      • pyrrhus says:

        That’s the way it worked in medieval times. You went before the local lord, got a few minutes to explain your complaint, he listened to both sides and made a decision.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          It’s how it still works!
          The only difference today is it’s a democratic vote by a jury of your peers.

          When they’re all white and middle-class, it looks a lot like justice, because they’ll come down like a ton of bricks on the guy that’s obviously some disgusting scrote, but they’ll take a more nuanced view of the guy who seems to have gotten himself into some complicated bother.

          When they’re diverse, it doesn’t look much like justice at all, as we’ve seen in the States with cases like Kate Steinle.

          One person with clear, unaccountable power was better than a panel of judges (so long as that person had an incentive to prefer something close to what he saw as justice).

          As always, equality and inclusivity are toxins.

    • Abolishing the easily oldest legal tradition of the West? Even Cicero started his career as an advocate. Roman law is the basis of the Continental tradition and and made important inroads into the Anglo common law tradition precisely because professional lawyers (juris consulti) in Rome spent a long time thinking about how to write it in a precise and effective way.

      I get it that it sucks when the system is easily gamed on technicalities and justice disappears, but the solution to bad food is not abolishing professional cooks.

      BTW I am not exactly sure common law is such a good thing. Sure, binding precedents make the system predictable, and that is very important, to know that if a former judge allowed someone to do X then you are allowed to do X. Sure, it can be said that common law was good at approximating natural law.

      But a well written and not much changed Roman law system is not any less predictable, and Cicero, a professional lawyer, figured out much of natural law by simply comparing the laws of different nations. I think the popularity of common law in conservative circles is similar to the popularity of libertarianism: when and if the government and legislation absolutely sucks then it sounds like a good idea to try to take parts of it away from them.

      • jim says:

        We have a solution: William the Conqueror’s “Forms of Action”.

        A very similar system has been implemented in Australia to deal with illegal immigrants and visa violators. Works great.

        You simply do not have to give judges Kingly powers.

        • I went through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_action but can’t really make head or tails of it. Also:

          “Secondly, the common law had strict rules of evidence. For example, a deed was conclusive proof of a defendant’s liability to pay. If a plaintiff brought a writ of debt sur obligation against the defendant, but the defendant had already paid the debt, the defendant would still be held liable to pay unless he could produce a deed of acquittance.”

          Does that sound like a good system?

          • jim says:

            > the defendant would still be held liable to pay unless he could produce a deed of acquittance.”

            > Does that sound like a good system?

            It sounds like a very good system.

            Obviously, if you consistently enforce that rule in a mechanical and robotic fashion, even when it produces ridiculous and flagrantly unjust outcomes, then no one pays without getting a deed of acquittance in exchange and such unjust outcomes almost never happen.

            If, on the other hand, you don’t consistently enforce that rule, then you are trusting judges to be angels, and you will be sadly disappointed. I personally have observed, and actively participated in, massive and flagrant judicial corruption, and you will get unjust outcomes most of the time.

            • X says:

              And let’s put it all on the blockchain. And then automate the judgment. No more need for judges nor lawyers except in cases that can’t be encoded into a smart contract.

              Blockchains are probably our only chance of getting organized against these Zionists who have so deep control over our State, mass media, and society.

              So what religion can be encode on a blockchain?

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            This just means you have to get the other guy to sign off on the completed contract. Its not particularly onerous

            The only real problem with it is when people refuse to pay. In a rooted and reputation based society its countered by the fact that you’ll be known far and wide ans a liar and a thief and people will avoid doing business with you.

            It also works well enough when your kin kill people who cheat you, This creates an incentive to play fairly and honestly .

            However as the article notes there was a lot of cheating on the margins which suggests that while the system persisted for a long while it gave increasingly bad results

            Form over function is fairly stupid.

            Truth is if you want a high trust economy with a low trust population don’t do business with strangers if you can help it. This less prosperous but an ideal situation if you want a small state is to be a wealthy clan too powerful to mess with. Dune style family atomics anyone?

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Jim: “You simply do not have to give judges Kingly powers.”

          It’s important not to confuse The Rule Of Law (ie. the rule of judges) and there mere existence of law.
          We can have law, and judges, without having The Rule Of Law. We had that for a long time in the West.

          Right now it’s probably not safe to try to reform the legal system: far better to just have one of Trump’s men act as Lord in the matter without too much fuss at all.

          Then when the blue check-marks have long gone away, we can get a bit more fancy with it and have a bit more of what philosophers would call justice.

          For now what matters is ending The Rule Of Law and restoring actual rule. Once that’s done, a period of good old-fashioned martial law can ensue until peace and stability’s restored.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        Dividualist: It’s my understanding that in Cicero’s time and place not just anybody could plead a legal case due to how the social structure worked, but had to do it through an advocate who was a member of the State, hence the conditions of emergence for a dedicated legal profession. Re: Conservative mistrust for Roman law, apparently a lot of that had to do with how revived Roman law became synonymous with rationalist excess and the written legal codes that destroyed traditional and local rights and brought down the traditional social order.

  5. Dave says:

    In unrelated news, another long-serving white incumbent in a safely Democratic district just lost his primary to a woman of color, this time in Massachusetts. Hooray for diversity!

    In twenty years, white Democrats will be relegated to the ranks of fluffers and spooge-moppers at Party headquarters.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Holy cow!

      From CNN:

      “Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley did not argue that Capuano was too moderate. In fact, she said, the two would vote the same way. Instead, the 44-year-old Pressley — already a rising star in Democratic politics — cast the race as about Democrats’ need for a new, more assertive style in the Donald Trump era.”

      “She’d argued on the campaign trail that systemic inequalities had worsened in a district that was once represented by John F. Kennedy and where the majority of voters are nonwhite.”

      This confirms the Jim theory that the spiral’s now out of control even for Democrats.
      It also confirms my theory that people care about things other than economic interests. The amount of gibs offered was not the deciding factor here: identity politics were. The Massholes would rather have a black woman (I assume that’s not a tranny, right? Suspicious looking but then they often are) even if it means losing someone with a long proven track record of successful gibs giving.

      • Simon says:

        Superb insight m8.

      • SoC says:

        They were motivated by increasing their status.

        • X says:

          They were motivated by increasing their status.

          In a meritorious systems such as Forms of Action as smart contracts on a blockchain, that illusory status will be irrelevant and non-existent.

          This confirms the Jim theory that the spiral’s now out of control even for Democrats.

          Indeed and if you Westerners don’t realize what time it is, then you better fix your stuck clock pronto because the Zionists are moving their plans forward quite rapidly now.

          It also confirms my theory that people care about things other than economic interests.

          In a meritocracy it will not matter what they care about, only what they can produce of value to those who produce.

          See this is the part where you are confused CR. You mistake “wants” with “worth”. And analogously you mistake “debt-based defection following by collapse and mega-death” with “free market”.

          • X says:

            They were motivated by increasing their status.

            In a meritorious systems such as Forms of Action as smart contracts on a blockchain, that illusory status will be irrelevant and non-existent.

            This confirms the Jim theory that the spiral’s now out of control even for Democrats.

            Indeed and if you Westerners don’t realize what time it is, then you better fix your stuck clock pronto because the Zionists are moving their plans forward quite rapidly now.

            It also confirms my theory that people care about things other than economic interests.

            In a meritocracy it will not matter what they care about, only what they can produce of value to those who produce.

            See this is the part where you are confused CR. You mistake “wants” with “worth”. And analogously you mistake “debt-based defection following by collapse and mega-death” with “free market”.

  6. Rule of law i.e. rule of judges sounds like a good idea until you realize that judges are the products of universities, and can be subverted towards a political cause by subverting what they are being taught at the universities. It doesn’t work quickly – a student won’t be an judge of any importance for another 30 years. But thereafter it works.

    And I think this is the absolutely core weakness of every modern state, as they are all rule of law states, Rechtsstaat, état de droit. It rests at absolute confidence in the judges. Let’s imagine a simpler model, not even political subversion, just simple corruptibility, bribability of judges. Every rule of law state rests on the widespread belief that it cannot happen. Because if people believe, right or wrong, that judges can be bought, they will not use them but settle their differences by private violence and there goes the whole system. Political subversion is akin to that, just less obvious.

    This is why I strongly support Poland in getting rid of old Communist judges by means that were perhaps questionably constitutional and drew the ire of the EU, but unreliable judges shielding their old comrades is something a rule of law state simply cannot have, it upends the whole system.

    Judges are really the closest thing all modern states have to sovereigns. I would gladly accept the trade of getting a hundred reactionary judges in high positions for getting five hundred Communist politicians, bureaucrats or journalists. We would still win. However, I would not even take ten Communist professors of law, for the above reason…

    • jim says:

      I know for sure judges are bribable, and are routinely bribed. You don’t bribe the judge directly, you pay the man who has the right connections, the bagman. This is done absolutely routinely in tenancy cases and domestic violence cases. Other cases, I don’t know.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Of course, the purpose of modern law is to make attorneys rich and powerful, hence immunity for everyone involved, and maximum complexity…I speak as an experienced business lawyer.

    • peppermint says:

      what incentive does a judge have to make pro-social decisions?

      consequently, we get virtue-signally decisions.

      the only thing that controls women is men of higher status.

      men are controlled by incentives and their moral sense.

      • This is a truly good question. Yet, all rule of law systems are based on a blind faith in the honesty of the judges, without such faith – even if completely wrong – things would quickly descend into private violence.

        To give you an example, there were parts of Eastern Europe where lawsuits simply took too long. As in, 5 years to get money you loaned back. People regularly did not bother to sue but threatened the debtors with sending enforcers on them. An occasionally did.

        This is actually the origin and the meaning of mafia. It was a form of private justice enforcement system in Sicily and if you actually read the Godfather books, far better than the films, to a certain extent used the same way withing the Sicilian community in the US.

        I think within recent memory most Western judges were honest. Part of the reason that those who really liked money would have an easier way as becoming a partner in a law firm than becoming a judge and taking bribes. Part of the reason was that judges were very high status, very respected. Part of the reason was that their education was far less poisoned.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      This is exactly right, chronic kinglessness. The idea of the rule of law is so pervasive it even crops up here from time to time.
      It has to be eradicated and rooted out from the culture in its entirety, along with all forms of human equality and all claims to decision-making by the whole of society.

      We just need the job done. The job itself couldn’t be simpler: do what’s good for society with confidence, and refrain from doing what’s ill for society – then be judged by the results.

      It worked for a thousand years.

      • jim says:

        If judges can judge on equity, each judge has the full power of a King. Which is a problem. It is not Kinglessness, so much as far too many Kings.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          That’s the same thing.

          The bureaucrat who informs you your ceiling’s 0.1cm too high is beholden to his independent quality assurance consultant, who in turn is beholden to his appeals process overseer who in turn is beholden to the Parliamentary investigations Czar, etc. ad infinitum, or rather ad people lose interest and give up.

          It’s not judges that need to get the job done: they DO, in that they need to do their job; but in order to get the job done, we need clarity of command. We need people so utterly beholden to the King (which as I’m sure you can guess is a token word interchangeable with ‘President for life’, ‘Fuhrer’, ‘General secretary’ or whatEVER) they just do their job without even considering any shenanigans.

          No appeals, no Talmudic legal wrangling:

          No “rule of law” and no “governed by the people for the people”.

          No Whiggery of any kind at all. Just good old-fashioned stable rule by someone who has a vested interest (his own) in the nation doing well (so that he can stationary-bandit it).

          Does this need to have strong monarchical elements? Not necessarily: in fact the European monarchs had more in common with each other than their people, which is bad for nations and good for subversion and entropy.

          Does it need the CORE monarchical element, ie. absolute power?
          Yes, unquestionably and without the slightest hope of negotiation or mitigation.

          • jim says:

            > The bureaucrat who informs you your ceiling’s 0.1cm too high is beholden to his independent quality assurance consultant, who in turn is beholden to his appeals process overseer who in turn is beholden to the Parliamentary investigations

            Bullshit.

            Each bureaucrat is a little emperor. I personally have paid off far too many judges and bureaucrats. That is what anarcho tyranny is: Ten thousand Stalins instead of one Stalin.

            The reason the system grinds to a halt is that for any project, there are a thousand little emperors who can say no because their wife did not lay them this morning, and no single emperor who can say yes, and tell the other nine hundred and ninety nine emperors to butt out.

            • Mike in Boston says:

              In Russia, I suppose one’s krysha serves as that one single emperor.

              • TBeholder says:

                Those were just larger protection rackets acting as crude feudals in absence of anything more capable.
                Then after the centralized power got fully reanimated and awake, and of course stuck in the endless process of culling and reforming the most cancerous parts of its own bureaucracy one by one.

            • The Cominator says:

              I like to phrase it as many tyrants but no true king.

              The true king has the power to restrain, fire or behead the petty tyrants.

              A many tyrant situation is still “chronic kingless” because generally nobody has the authority to deal with any of them.

              The role of a good king is among others to horde power and be very jealous about delegating it.

              • X says:

                The true king has the power to restrain, fire or behead the petty tyrants.

                All of you including CR and Jim, really want a blockchain with smart contracts which objectively has that power. Can’t be corrupted. It’s algorithmic.

                CR instead believes in magic to attain his fantasy. But what he really needs is the objectivity and algorithmic automation of a blockchain with smart contracts enforcing Jim’s Forms of Action.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s not magic, it’s good rule.

                  The reason you see it as magic is you crave a cast-iron guarantee: a Constitution, or a Rule Of Law, or a Bill Of Rights.

                  That crap’s Whiggery. History’s made by great men.

                  Sometimes history sucks because sucky men are in charge. Right now we’re ruled by millions of sucky men, and the cast-iron guarantee of the Constitution and the Rule Of Law incentivises them to BE sucky.

                  As for blockchain, it gets slower the more you use it, like all peer-to-peer networks. It’s fine, at first, for a few geeks and enthusiasts to LARP ancapistan, but it’s no good for trillions of micro-transactions an hour.

                  Blockchain’s just another Rule Of Law: we won’t inflate because we CAN’T inflate because we delegated power to an algorithm.

                  Whiggery.

  7. pyrrhus says:

    I see no indication on Vox Day’s website that a suit has been filed…EVS is probably just blowing hot air…

    • jim says:

      Likely, but whether he actually takes it to court or not, he is pissing inside the tent

      • pyrrhus says:

        Definitely no lawsuit, and EVS has apparently fled the field of battle…I think the tent for EVS, who admits going to Obama rallies, is anything that offers momentary advantage…But you can’t play a guy like Vox Day.

  8. pyrrhus says:

    No doubt that EVS is a double talking cuck, or worse, but such a meritless lawsuit would go nowhere fast, and VD is wealthy.

  9. Neoreaction says:

    “Whosoever pisses inside the tent is my enemy, for if he sues Vox Day, likely will sue me.”

    LOLOL

  10. Barnie says:

    Hey, if Vox can piss in the tent and sue Gab…

    • jim says:

      I criticized Vox Day for pissing in the tent, and I criticized Sciver for pissing in the tent.

      But I criticized Sciver more prominantly than I criticized Vox Day, because Vox Day gave Sciver a friendly and supportive shout out for Sciver and his competing product the day before Sciver threatened to sue him.

    • X says:

      Hey, if Vox can piss in the tent and sue Gab…

      He won’t be able to sue a blockchain. When we put Gab.ai on a blockchain soon (with a different name).

  11. glosoli says:

    New blog post for your enjoyment:

    http://watchman-westandwales.blogspot.com/2018/09/jehovah-is-waiting-for-you-part-2.html

    Jim, tell me to stop doing this if you don’t like it.
    Part 3 gets around to reactionary stuff.

    PS, no one has mentioned that Vox has now released the comic logo thing again. Weird.

    • jim says:

      You can generate links to your material, provided you actually do get to reactionary theology sooner or later.

      The Church has a mission for the next world, and a mission for this world, and its mission for this world is fundamentally reactionary and necessarily at war with progressivism. There can be no peace between progressivism and the Church, no convergence, that does not end with the Church preaching progressivism to rapidly emptying pews.

      Christians who piously emphasize their mission for the next world to abandon their mission for this world are cuckolds who are burning incense to Caesar.

    • X says:

      Regarding your mention of (formerly?) being an atheist, Jim have you seen my blog my link to the chart that shows atheism is negentropic? The bell curve (i.e. the normal distribution) is maximally entropic. Note Wikipedia incorrectly claims that the uniform distribution is maximally entropic, but that is from irrelevant mathematical frame-of-reference. Would you like to explain?

  12. Mister Grumpus says:

    (off topic…)

    Press “1” if you think NYTAnon is Don Himself.

    1.

  13. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    The law giver transcends the law by necessity; an expression of him, but not the totality of him. Elsewise, it is rather a repetition of law internalized from elsewhere (feedback/validation), or rationalization of an impulse written into its own design, law set by some previous architect.

    Consider; to calculate for instance the projected trajectory of the moon under relativity is (relatively) trivial. But how to obtain a knowledge of the moons future states, in actual fact? Certainly, this would inevitably have to involve also anything *beings* might possibly do to it (perhaps the secret nsdap moon base is discovered and is nuked by the cathedral before the second coming).

    As is known, information gained from analysis changes outcomes (to the constant consternation of neo-classical econs), and with every passing instant the context of the game also changes. In a sense, we could say that changes to the universe also change the rules of the universe, by one degree or another. Could we not also say that this too is following a more fundamental principle? The nature of how nature might change. It may be well.

    As we note, to fully ‘calculate’ the universe in a systematic, *automatic* manner, would mean one is fully transcending the universe, would mean being Divine. Hence one might dare say, it is not a fact that there is ever a man that is ever a truly *absolute* sovereign, but ever is there also sovereignty and hierarchy. Hence also, we see trust, once again, as a prior to living… to trust rulers, subjects, neighbors, and all variations thereof, to operate beyond the pale, as they inevitably will.

    A man who cannot not trust his neighbor (you might possibly live next to mystery meat, but they are not your neighbors) to handle his affairs as generally adroitly as he himself might… is a man who is *projecting his own sublimated lack of confidence*; a man who in a less conscious corner of his mind, imagines himself in a same similar sort of situation, and in great irony, quite rightly *finds himself wanting*. A man who does not trust his neighbor, then, is the *bureaucratist*, the *managerialist*, the *socialismus*. A man who does not, *cannot*, take that leap of faith (for indeed, at one point or another, a radical leap there is), is a man who cannot rationally, productively, *eucivilizationally*, conduct himself in a social fabric.

    That is to say, a man who does not trust his neighbor is a man who becomes a communist.

    (What unknown pleasures there are in appreciating the fantastic ironies furnished by modernity, scarcely imagined or available heretofore.)

    It is a man who likes to say things like ‘our group sucks’, and when he says things like ‘our group sucks’, in his heart he means to say ‘everyone but me sucks and i would gladly kill them all before killing myself’.

    He feels the pain of his deformity acutely, and yearns for something to deliver him from it; yet it is by that same deformity that the very answers he attempts to produce by himself, in fact exacerbate it. A man cannot lift himself into the air by tugging at his own boot straps.

    What then could be said for instance, about a man who does not signal his acknowledgement of the most divine Power, which supervene the motion all lesser (and more easilly understood) Powers that shape being participate in, which all derive from and each all are ultimately component of? In the first and more prosaic case, it speaks of a man who simply lacks the capacity to grasp teleologies far beyond the parochial. More pertinent here however, faithlessness with regards to his religio signals a tendency towards faithlessness, tout court… signals a tendency towards *lack of faith in his neighbor*.

    So, what matter is there in having systems, at all then? A system can be useful because it can be used, how to say, naively. Consider money, that ever useful shorthand demonstration for the transcendent nature of value. Certainly we could perhaps speak of a quantitative framework of say, dollars (ie, what action will definitely result in more dollars). But obviously, this framework is also subject to revision, (and indeed, is under constant revision). What action that might result in what dollars, itself, an object subject to a degree of artifaction, more or less artful. And what then would inform the artificer? Not dollars, themselves. It cannot be so, simply as a matter of arthimatical identity.

    For any given metric, inevitably, requires something beyond the metric to inform it. All forms of valuation inevitably imply something beyond itself. That is to say, to proffer a certain form of valuation, *requires* one that is able to grasp something beyond it. The persual of any given vocation, to greater limits of aretic excellence, increasingly, and at a given point or another exponentially, starts involving the concern of influences that increasingly transcend beyond it’s particular context. Oh yes, can one find God at the end of economics? Oh yes indeed, and in many more besides.

    Adepts (autists) at *systematic* approaches to value (or anything else, really) are functioning essentially as meaty difference engines, cogs in some more transcendent leaders machine (not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that). The solipsist does not (cannot) understand the tradition the same way as the brahmins they follow, but without the tradition, they (ie, society), are undone.

    • jim says:

      I understand you as arguing that men have spiritual need for God, that without God, there is a God shaped hole in our world, which hole is likely to be filled by something bad – most likely something Moloch shaped.

      • TBeholder says:

        Hence the prohibition on use of the “legitimate” power for suppression or establishment of any religion.
        Otherwise either
        A. the hole will be created artificially, for this very purpose, or
        B. the non-competitive established religion as institution will rot until it becomes indistinguishable from a “Moloch-shaped” thing itself (which back in those times was a lesson still remembered).

        The only fatal flaw was the definition of religion, of course.
        Thus enforcing the letter, but not spirit of this principle means both that it’s prohibited to suppress any scam that pretends to be a religion, and that it’s okay to lend “legitimate” support to any ridiculous idolatry that pretends to be something other than a religion.
        Which is why.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Theocratic Military Dictatorship is the finest State there is friend!

          Which is to say, all States are theocratic military dictatorships, that are better or worse at being theocratic military dictatorships.

          TMD
          EV ER EF
          MAG

    • jim says:

      Science has been hiv positive since Harvard got the upper hand over the royal society as a result of world war two.

      Peer review is the method of theological consensus in place of the scientific method.

      • pyrrhus says:

        This rather simple paper, surveying and evaluating the literature regarding the greater standard deviation of male intelligence, had passed peer review and been approved for publication, twice. Then the feminist shrieking began, perhaps because it had unwittingly strayed too close to the basic fact that men are 4+ points more intelligent than women, almost all in math. The feminist shriekers, one of whom is a Professor at the University of Chicago (???), managed to intimidate both the publications and the NSF….so nothing is ever final.

        • TBeholder says:

          They thought it mucks around with 3rd tier (i.e. inconsequential, and inconsistent anyway) points of The Narrative in unapproved ways and thus is “edgy” and “controversial” (slightly off-center of the Overton Window).
          Then someone figured out it indirectly undermines the 1st tier point The Narrative.
          Then a Commissar heard about this, the shrieking started and other Commissars got involved.
          This little incident illustrates why tech companies tend to have Commissars capable of understanding what the hell the others are talking about (like “Coraline”, as Jim pointed out).

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Lisa Littman’s case was even worse because it didn’t deter them that the implications basically pointed to mass extreme child abuse.

      At this point, and at risk of it being a ‘black pill’, it’s time for anyone remotely vulnerable to just take maximum precautions to avoid the coming pogroms.
      It’s also entirely possible that this will simply not be possible.

      Tragic times.

      • jim says:

        Bottom line: Children are being pressured into irreversible sexual mutilation, sacrificed to Moloch, and you are not allowed to notice.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          Greg Cochrane opines in one of his more recent blog posts that this is really backdoor negative eugenics. Sterilizing the mentally ill.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Greg Cochrane opines in one of his more recent blog posts that this is really backdoor negative eugenics. Sterilizing the mentally ill.”

            So wait should we be in favor of trannyism then?

            • jim says:

              Nah.

              The children are being sacrificed to Moloch are not mentally ill, but are trusting elders who are sacrificing them for holiness points.

              Those transexuals that are making their own decisions are in parteffeminate gays, who are not going to reproduce whether they get their tools chopped off or not, and the rest are autogynophiles, who have already reproduced.

              • Roberto says:

                >The children are being sacrificed to Moloch are not mentally ill

                I don’t know. Surely a lot of child trannies really are girly boys or boyish girls, in other words faggots, dykes, and spergs, and cutting them off the gene pool is not the worst thing. They do carry their leftist parents’ inferior genes, after all.

                Then again, eliminating the leftist parents themselves is also not the worst thing.

                • jim says:

                  No, reading between the lines of Lisa Littman’s paper they cut children before their sexuality can properly form, otherwise the children would resist. These are, for the most part, entirely sane healthy children being deceived by their adults, like the children sacrificed to Moloch.

                  Hence “Early Onset Gender disphoria”. Earlier than puberty.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jesus Christ, I thought it’d be safe on a neutral subject on which everyone from Ann Coulter to Andrew Anglin could agree lol

                  There’s such a clamouring for eugenics among some of you!

                  Littman’s paper (and no, she’s not), shows kids asking their parents if they can ‘transition’ were going to trendy tranny websites, which is I suppose a neutralish finding because it *could* be that they were doing research…. but, much more damning, the outbreaks were happening in CLUSTERS: the kids asking to ‘transition’ were much more likely to have friends – lots of friends – who were also identifying as ‘trans’.

                  So it seems it can be transmitted culturally, like furbies or the Rubik Cube.

                  And then…….. they’ve got demon drag queens reading stories to them, and they can see that any parent who complains gets cast as a moron and a throwback.

                  This is a deliberate attempt to stop us breeding by making it impossible in early childhood.

                  The genocide just got more murderous. They’re still trying to find ways to make it happen that don’t involve slitting our throats, but they’re also impatient that importation and mixing is taking way too long.

                  Will 50 years be quick enough? It’d only take five to do it the traditional way.

                  Pray for the best, prepare for the worst. This is not a new problem but it is a rapidly deteriorating one.

                • Roberto says:

                  Nobody here “supports” demon kid trannies, CR; we all want the people ((())) pushing this agenda to get gassed.

                  What we point out is that you don’t have that s**t among red-blooded traditional Americans; you have it among shitlib cucks and catladies with BPD. Stay away from shitlibs, and your kid won’t get trannied.

                • Roberto says:

                  (The joke, for those who don’t get it, is that CR can’t stay away from shitlibs; they make for his entire milieu)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Yeah those TRS and Stormer shitlibs, right up there with Morgoth, Cantwell and Albion Radio.

                  “Stay away from shitlibs, and your kid won’t get trannied.”

                  Any specific plan as to how anyone can do that?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m drunk. It’s stupid and degenerate and I shouldn’t even be here.

                  Anyhow, I’m a big fan of Judith Rich Harris. If you haven’t read “The Nurture Assumption”, you should. Even mainstream developmental psychologists like Eleanor Maccaby have been converted.
                  The central thesis is that ‘parenting’ is nonsense (that’ll trigger all you Moly fans, I know! Well unless he’s stopped with the parental determinism ‘spanking gives you brain damage and makes you a statist’ stuff now that he also believes ‘everything comes from the genes you can be r or K’…… silly me, of course not) and that ‘environment’ is best understood in the broadest possible context.

                  She’s right, too. She’s supported by twin studies evidence: genetically identical twins separated at birth are not only as similar as genetically identical twins raised together, but, more damningly for the tabula rasa crowd, genetically identical twins raised together DIFFER AS MUCH as genetically identical twins raised apart.

                  The parental environment contributes virtually nothing to adult outcomes of interest, from personality to criminality to IQ to material success to gregariousness to neuroticism. Nothing is ‘determined’ or even strongly influenced by parenting.

                  So……. assuming this is true (and I’m sure Roberto et al will just baldly deny it), how exactly can we avoid our kids getting trannied?

                  I’m not a father personally, and I know many of you tradtards hate me for that, probably with some justification if I’m honest. The idea of the prog machine bombarding my kids and making them hate me is very frightening: another success for white genocide.

                  Anyway putting this in the broader context, what actually IS the tactic for having kids that survive globohomo indoctrination, given that if you tell them and they believe you, they’ll be persecuted, if you tell them and they don’t believe you, you’ll be a dysfunctional family, and if you don’t tell them and they find out later, they’ll hate you (whether they believe it or not).

                  By the way, while Judith Rich Harris has much to teach us, we have much to teach HER too: one of her pieces of evidence for peer-socialisation is that immigrant children speak with the accent of their new homeland, not with the accent of their parents. I’m sure that was mostly true when “The Nurture Assumption” came out in 1998.

                  It’s not true any more. On the contrary, white British children born in London now talk in a West Indian Paki African pidgin drawl.

                  She was right but her liberal ‘no need to panic’ message was (predictably) wrong.

                  So how DO we avoid our kids getting trannied into sterility?

                • jim says:

                  Kids are trannied by the fake social environment, by manipulating their social environment – they are gaslighted. Parents can prevent this – or cause it. Looks to me that the majority of children sacrificed to Moloch are adoptees or fatherless, which is to say, unprotected by someone who cares about their welfare and is capable of kicking ass, which contradicts “The Nurture Assumption”.

                  It is absolutely clear that fatherlessness has an effect, contrary to the nurture assumption: The effect being that in the ancestral environment, more likely to be eaten by sabre tooth tigers. In today’s environment, more likely to be used as human sacrifices by the social worker priesthood.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  With the greatest respect, those are just your personal biases. I share those instincts of course, as does everyone: we’ve all been told that ‘the environment’ is code for ‘what parents do and say to their children’, but the truth is it’s not so.
                  Now I’m not saying that parents count for zero: they’re very important for shaping the whole-environment of a child.

                  Fatherlessness for example has implications about which peers the child will socialise with, which schools they’ll attend, which out-of-school clubs they’ll be in, and so on, which is a long way from a zero effect…. but the idea that fathers exert this immense shaping force on their offspring is simply false.

                  Do you have any concrete steps that reduce the effectiveness of Poz propaganda? I don’t honestly think that it can be avoided, but maybe it can be counter-acted: but how?
                  ‘Deprogramming’ your child after every day at school is risky, given that peers are SO much more powerful than parents.

                  Think about it from a ‘Just So Story’ perspective: do daughters expect to MATE with their father? Do sons expect to RULE their father? Freud says yes but Freud’s a liar and a charlatan.
                  Daughters expect to MATE with some lad from the local area, so gaining status in her peer-group is going to matter, as is learning to be around the males in that peer-group. Her father is not on the menu.
                  Sons expect to RULE their peer-group, so gaining status in his peer-group is going to matter, as is learning to be around the females in that peer-group. The father is already on side and doesn’t need to be dominated, pace Freud.

                • jim says:

                  > Fatherlessness for example has implications about which peers the child will socialise with, which schools they’ll attend, which out-of-school clubs they’ll be in, and so on, which is a long way from a zero effect…. but the idea that fathers exert this immense shaping force on their offspring is simply false.

                  You will notice that almost every girl enslaved by Rotherham Muslims was fatherless.

                  Saber tooth tigers had an immense shaping force on human offspring, and today social workers exert similar force. Fathers continue to have immense force on saber tooth tigers social workers.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Yeah those TRS and Stormer shitlibs, right up there with Morgoth, Cantwell and Albion Radio.

                  I was referring to your IRL milieu, not your internet one. It is obvious that you are surrounded by shitlibs, hence you’re so afraid of being victimized by them. Your writing style is that of someone who does not go on Tumblr and Reddit himself, but who interacts a lot with people who go on Tumblr and Reddit.

                  >>Stay away from shitlibs, and your kid won’t get trannied.
                  >Any specific plan as to how anyone can do that?

                  You have given up on religion because you don’t want to lose your social standing among the respectable shitlibs. Yet, as pozzed as much of Christianity has become, it’s still less pozzed than outright shitlibbery, thus if you want to raise your kids away from the “social worker priesthood,” need to find an alternative priesthood.

                  It’s unseemly to inquire too much into the personal lives of one’s internet interlocutors, but I think that if both you and your girlfriend are not progs, you’ll be able to raise children without them getting trannied. As Jim pointed out, it’s usually fatherless adoptees who are sacrificed to Moloch, not children from intact and conservative households.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Clearly America isn’t quite as far along as its satellites, and I’m very glad for you.

                  Jim:

                  “Fathers continue to have immense force on social workers.”

                  I don’t want to come over all Carlos Morales: in the world we actually inhabit, CPS/Social-Services are depressingly necessary.
                  Nevertheless, the process set in motion by your child saying the N-word at school generally ends with them being placed into ‘protective’ custody, at which point a new process begins, often ending in victimisation of various kinds, as well as what euphemistic liberals might call ‘adverse life outcomes’.

                  “Saying the N-word” is now a very broad church, which includes doubting that sex-transition is a real thing, refusing to write essays about the glory of redistribution and the evil of inheritance, or just insufficiently hating Iain Duncan Smith for apparently genociding the old and infirm.

                  Roberto:

                  “you are surrounded by shitlibs, hence you’re so afraid of being victimized by them. ”

                  Jacob Goodwin’s doing eight years in prison for defending himself against a nigger with a flame thrower.
                  British towns are being raped on an industrial scale.

                  Jim:

                  “You will notice that almost every girl enslaved by Rotherham Muslims was fatherless.”

                  If you were any other man……..

                  Here’s the perspective of an anti-racist normie victim. She makes it fairly clear that “Daddy turning up and threatening to punch them” isn’t massively effective when your city council’s bought&paid for by the invaders.

                  http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rotherham-grooming-gang-sexual-abuse-muslim-islamist-racism-white-girls-religious-extremism-a8261831.html

                  The genocide is full spectrum, from promoting self-mutilation and childlessness, to unavoidable pathological altruism enshrined into law, to plans to diversify every last hamlet (hundreds sent to the Isle of Bute being the most obvious and extreme example), to affirmative action and outright colour-bars, to white shame in the education system.

                  Sud Afrika style expropriation is next and mass murder has been ongoing for a long time and can only worsen.

                  Our CAPITAL CITY has already been ethnically cleansed.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  While we’re at it, and I realise I’m proving laughably ineffective at just buggering off :D, a small philosophical point:

                  We don’t want nationalism *because* blacks are violent, unintelligent savages unsuited to living in cities as whites tend to make them. We *understand* those things and see their explanatory power as a very good alternative to *disliking black people*, which is good and healthy.
                  We want nationalism because these are OUR lands and while they certainly do function best when WE control them, we’re GOING to control them in any case because they’re OUR lands.

                  Similarly, whatever you think of developmental psychological controversies, the re-establishment of normal families just IS something we want as an end in itself. We’re not pinning it to this or that view of development, socialisation or genetic/epigenetic potentials. We want a return to traditionalism sure for sound, rational reasons, but we want it as a good in and of itself, and even if it turned out that patriarchal trad societies were BAD for children’s emotional development it wouldn’t change that.

                  So the reasoning behind these goals, while interesting and important, is really not the be all and end all of the matter. We want these things because they’re things we *want*.

                • peppermint says:

                  I know a single woman with a daughter the single woman wants to signal with.

                  The daughter is nonplussed and doesn’t want anything to do with her mother’s religious and political views.

                  With a more pliable daughter and a different situation, she might well be a transsignaldoll.

                  CR, that’s a good point. The peer group is why the kids are all right now. Educators and parents can’t arbitrarily program them.

                  Boomers, each of them, thought they were beating the system by getting a mortgage payment tax writeoff, and that was all they demanded in exchange for turning from 1990 Homer Simpson into 2010 Homer Simpson.

                • peppermint says:

                  Our capital is overrun to the extent that you identify with the government.

                  CR, to get a sense of where we are, how we have resisted in the past, and what victories we’ve had, check out Revilo Oliver’s book erica’s Decline, and also Lothrop Stoddard and Bob Whitaker.

                  You’ll be less strident when you put our struggle in its 150 and 250 year context.

              • Alrenous says:

                The excessively holy are cutting off their own line of descent. This is not a bad thing.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              Speaking of Cochran, he published a blurb on his blog today mocking Ron Unz for his long essay summarizing the history and current state of “Holocaust denial”. Tellingly, he does not provide a link to the essay.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        > (Harris’) central thesis is that ‘parenting’ is nonsense

        So peer-reviewed science has used science to scientifically prove with the latest peer-reviewed scientific methods what the decidedly extra-scientific agenda of the Cathedral and the gynocracy was saying already, viz. that, contra the traditional wisdom and experience of every race, age, and civilization of Man hitherto, patriarchy, the family, and upbringing have no indispensable social function. It could be that the Cathedral is an emanation of pure Reason staffed by luminous beings after all, and that we Reactionaries are insane and depraved for ever questioning Feminist and Communist dogma. Alternately, it could be that the science is a stinking pantload of shitlib propaganda.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          Scientifically peer-reviewed science has also scientifically proven that banning the ownership of guns by people who don’t commit crimes reduces crime, that there are no biological differences between men and women or between the races of Man, that looking at fatty food will cause you to have five heart attacks and three strokes before your thirtieth birthday, and that real Communism has never been tried and the noble Cuban and Russian experiments were tragically subverted by capitalist entryists.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          You make it sound very complicated but good science is like good (Austrian) economics.

          The way we tell how big the effect of so-called ‘parenting’ really is is to look at identical twins, so that genes are controlled out.

          Well, the results are in: genetically identical twins, raised in the parentally identical home at the exact same time, turn out *as different* as genetically identical twins raised separately by totally different care-givers.

          I realise it isn’t what you’d expect. It isn’t what ANYONE expected lol

          Most traits worth caring about (take your pick, this applies to them all) are heritable, with around 50% (and sometimes much more) of the variation between people coming from genetic transmission.

          Now stop there a second: if genes are THAT important, that means *parents* are THAT important! But their importance is exerted at conception, not through Jeremy Kyle Stefan Molyneux ‘parenting’ strategies.

          It gets even more interesting: genetically unrelated siblings (adoptees, etc.) raised together are *no more similar* than any two random people picked at random from the general population.

          You can go on about peer-review, etc. blah blah blah and that’s all well and good, but this is a replicable, and oft-replicated experiment that shows very clear results:

          The impact of ‘parenting’ on any of the outcomes you care about is basically nil.

          So does that mean lesbian single mothers, trans poly-collectives and otherkin nests are all sound environments for a child to grow up in?
          JRH would say “yes” but we don’t have to go with that: we’re against those things in and of themselves, and insofar as we fall back on reasons, we have plenty more than just the impact on children immediately affected. There are all manner of societal considerations to take into account, and we’re under no obligation to have reasons in the first place.

          Why do we eat Christmas Pudding in December but not in July? No reason at all, it’s just how we do it and anyone trying to change it needs to be resisted fiercely.

          That’s how it is with otherkin nests.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            I’d be interested to know what differences in outcomes obtain when a twin separated at birth from a well-adjusted married couple with no manifest behavioural problems or risk factors for such problems is placed with a fatherless or otherwise defective otherkin-type family. Fortunately no such data exists, since even in the current year adoption doesn’t quite work that way.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Doug JRH is really careful and emphatic that abuse (and I’d put degeneracy in that category) is something separate. In principle, so long as the chaos in the household was avoidable by the child, their natural greatness would work around it, and once they were able to separate, they would and that would be that.
              It’s an interesting, if morbid, question: how powerful ARE Satanic influences?

              JRH is a white pill, really, in saying “not very, it’s mostly genes but there needs to exist some healthy community in which they can be expressed fully”.

              Basically if we by some fluke WIN and kick out the bums, things will be ok pretty quickly.

          • jim says:

            > The way we tell how big the effect of so-called ‘parenting’ really is is to look at identical twins, so that genes are controlled out.

            Casual observation indicates that fatherlessness makes a huge difference, as for example the children of a divorce of parents of high socioeconomic status tend to have bad life outcomes.

            Another indication that parenting makes a big difference is that the life outcomes of adoptees tend to be similar to the life outcomes of their adopted sisters and brothers. If a child is adopted by rich parents or poor parents makes no difference to his adult socioeconomic status – but some families, rich and poor, consistently raise children who become rich or become poor, consistently raise children who become high socioeconomic status or low economic status. Wealth is not inherited from rich parents to an extent sufficient to show up statistically – but it is “inherited” from sisters and brothers to an extent obvious to casual observation, and which does show up statistically.

            Psychometric measures may show no difference, but income levels, marriage, and jail time does show a difference. Either your sisters and brothers are exercising a great deal of influence, or your shared upbringing is exercising a great deal of infuence.

            I also observe that adopted children are generally well treated, but are nonetheless treated as pets, while real children are treated as children. There is a big difference in treatment, but it may not necessarily make a huge difference to the child. Casual observation suggests it may well make a substantial difference, but the evidence is less compelling than the glaringly obvious difference with fatherlessness.

            The evidence on identical twins raised together may be obfuscated by a conscious effort by identical twins raised together to differentiate. They are apt to toss a coin and say “OK, you try this path, and I try that path, and we will see what works”

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              You can’t have your cake and eat it Jim.

              Either you rail against peer review as unscientific and stand as champion of the scientific method proper, or else you just dismiss everything and fall back on anecdotal evidence.

              What you describe there is that children of people who aren’t chaotic are often not chaotic, but this is largely genetic.

              If you want to declare the social sciences unscientific per se, I must confess to some considerable sympathy. After all, if we’re, with Mises, to reject logical positivism, then we have to reject statistical transformation root and branch, including right-wing shibboleths like IQ.

              Actually when you come to think about it, the premise of an IQ test is that answers are interchangeable, and what matters is how many you get right, not which ones.
              Or take the measure of ‘standard deviation’: traditionally we put a lot of faith in this but in reality it’s premised on treating positive and negative as interchangeable. (No I’m not kidding: why do you think they square and unsquare? It cancels signs so that the sizes can be normalised. Yes really.)
              The real clue here is that the God of the statisticic social sciences is none other than Mr Keynesian himself, Ronald Fisher!

              So if you want to just explain away social science as witchcraft, that’s a pretty reasonable stance to take.

              But you can’t embrace Fisherian stochastic-as-qualitative modelling of human action and *then* fall back on actual real world human action when it suits.

              Sorry, don’t mean to be a nihilist. Just found a wonderful piece of musical modernism that I’ve been after for literally twenty-five years. Henze changed the title of his “Choral Fantasy” to “Songs for an Insel” (whatever that is, but funny in the current year)….

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf3kM6B7IFQ

              • jim says:

                We have adequate statistical and scientific evidence that life outcomes for adopted children tend to resemble those of their adoptive siblings, and the evidence from casual observation of the damaging effects of fatherlessness is so overwhelming that any scientific evidence to the contrary must be dimissed as fraud.

                It may well be that the damaging effect of fatherlessness is not so much the lack of father as the presence of an ever changing parade of low lifes strolling through mum’s bedroom to have a quickie, beat her up, beat up her children, take the housekeeping money, and empty the fridge, but that there is damage is plain to see.

                You are citing scientific evidence of psychometric testing of identical twins raised apart, which is irrelevant to the big questions of interest.

                Rearing does not affect IQ, and parental socioeconomic status does not affect the socioeconomic status of grown children, but only leftists ever imagined that it did.

                You invoke evidence falsifying leftists’ religious beliefs, and piously pronounce it to be evidence against the facts that leftists find embarrassing and inconvenient.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re just basically cherry-picking.

                  I’ve got every sympathy for the austere Misesian view that the social sciences as currently understood are just witchcraft, but that’s not good enough for you: you want to say that we should ignore twin studies in favour of anecdotal evidence and *then* go on to nail your colours to muh social sciences.

                  You can’t have your cake and eat it.

                  I’m absolutely not making a leftist argument here. I’m saying we want and need ALL the things conservatives, paleos and NRxers want, but that none of it hinges on muh social sciences. It wouldn’t matter if a million perfectly replicated social studies informed us that children are brighter, happier and better adapted as adults if they’re placed into pedo-pens for the first seven years so demon trannies can bring some vibrancy into their little lives.

                  A sane leader wouldn’t listen, they’d just send the authors where they belong.

                  We don’t want the traditional family and traditional sex roles in society because scientific data points that way this year, and if it changes in the future we’ll bend like a reed in the wind: NO! We want those things because they’re good for society, social science be damned.

                • >It may well be that the damaging effect of fatherlessness is not so much the lack of father as the presence of an ever changing parade of low lifes strolling through mum’s bedroom to have a quickie, beat her up, beat up her children, take the housekeeping money, and empty the fridge, but that there is damage is plain to see.

                  That is my bet. Glad you’ve read Dalrymple. In the past war casualties often led to fatherlessness and mothers often did not remarry, but not behaving like whores and not fucking random assholes, their kids did not get nearly as screwed up. Establishment conservatives tend to say that fatherless kids have no male role models so they adopt the street corner gangster as the role model. No. The gangster is fucking their mom and doing the rest you wrote and the bad role model is right inside their homes, even though frequently changing. Even in the worst ghetto, the street corner gangster is not the only possible, nor necessarily the most attractive role model outside the home. But if he is fucking mom inside the house, they get a very strong lesson in what kind of behavior leads to getting pussy.

              • 7817 says:

                CR, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Lurk moar.

                If everyone is an idiot but you, then it’s quite possible you’re the idiot.

                I wouldn’t try to school Jim on anything at this point as he is my intellectual better. Suggest you do the same.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*This comment deleted because unresponsive and repetitious, simply restating points already made in the previous comment and already answered, as if they had not been answered*]

              • jim says:

                Repeating yourself is not an argument. Try responding to the points that I made. Yes, I heard you the first time. Identical twins raised together differ by about as much as identical twins raised apart. But that is not evidence against anything right wingers believe, nor evidence for any of the claims you have made. Telling me this irrelevant and entirely unsurprising factoid over and over again, as if anyone doubted it, is not an argument, it is a waste of space, a waste of reader bandwidth. That factoid fails to support your position, or contradict my position.

                Only a leftist would find this factoid interesting, and only a far leftist would draw the conclusions from it that you draw from it.

                To draw the conclusions that you wish to draw you need to compare children where one twin or sibling was raised by his biological parents, and the other by a single mother, and you need to compare life outcomes, like socioeconomic status and jail time, not psychometric data like IQ.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [* Deleted for undending repetition of irrelevancy. We heard you the first time. We agreed that it was obviously true the first time

                  You waste reader bandwidth for repeating the same thing over and over again, as if there was anyone who disagreed with it.*]

                • jim says:

                  You keep pointing out that identical twins raised together in the same biological family are as similar as identical twins adopted out to separate families. Over and over and over again. Big yawn. No one disputes this. No one doubts this. No one disagrees with this. Stop repeating it.

                  Suppose single every pair of identical twins raised in their biological family grew up into healthy normal adults and died of old age wealthy and successful and surrounded by numerous children and grandchildren, and every single pair of identical twins adopted out into separate families died in the gutter of alcholism, knife wounds, and sexually transmitted diseases at the age of sixteen.

                  Then it would still be the case that identical twins raised together were as similar as identical twins raised apart.

                • Roberto says:

                  >the effect of the parental home is NIL.

                  Girls raised by biological fathers start puberty later than girls raised by adoptive fathers.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  This is why I’m still here. I still intend to disappear and it’ll probably be today, but this right here is why I’m still here.

                  This is Stefan Molyneux talk, and it’s deeply embedded in this part of the Reactosphere.

                  Jim says he stands for a kind of Georgian restoration, with modern features. I believe he’s being sincere.

                  If that’s so, the LAST thing anyone here should have any truck with is the American Revolution, and the SECOND last thing anyone here should have any truck with is Victorian values.

                  Let’s say you’re right and Molyneux’s claims about ‘strong epigenetics’ aren’t in fact low grade horse manure.

                  Let’s assume it’s all true: parenting matters and we want the traditional family reinstated because *for the children*.

                  OK let’s assume that.

                  The following things follow, and this is not an exhaustive list:

                  1. Boarding schools should be immediately banned because they stand in the way of parenting
                  2. Fathers should engage closely with their children: none of this “father’s in his study, leave him be, children”
                  3. Whatever rubbish the government schools are pushing is completely irrelevant because ‘the environment’ is synonymous with ‘the parental home’ so what happens in school is just a meaningless temporary interruption before the parenting resumes
                  4. It doesn’t matter if a hundred negroes move into your neighbourhood because peers don’t matter
                  5. Paternity leave should indeed be a statutory right, for the children
                  6. It doesn’t matter what garbage comes out of the media because children aren’t affected by it: if something harmful’s being observed, parents will put a stop to it and that will be that
                  7. There’s no point in reading books in adulthood because your brain’s already been shaped epigenetically by parenting so you’re either r or K by the time you’re 21

                  I can’t speak for any neo-Georgians and I don’t even consider myself NRx any more (just a fascist these days quite honestly), but I certainly don’t agree with any of the above, whether it’s ‘for the children’ or not.

                • jim says:

                  No, these conclusions absolutely do not follow. You are not making sense.

                  In order to deduce these astonishing conclusions from wildly contrary premises, you need a whole pile of unstated, and distinctly left wing, premises, that turn the overtly stated premises on their heads.

                  For example, one of the unstated premises in your argument is that the male role in parenting is equivalent to and interchangeable with the female role in parenting, and if it is not, your socialist state should whack parents until it is.

                • carlylean restorationist says:

                  i assume you must be strategically inverting my meaning. this has been a good learning opportunity. i thought only the envy socialists did these things. now i see marketfags love the same tricks.

                • Roberto says:

                  “Marketfags” argue from muh GDP, which no one here did. NRx has libertarian origins, but is not libertarian itself, as Jim established here:

                  https://blog.jim.com/economics/cladistic-analysis-of-neoreaction/

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  OK Roberto, did it strike you that Jim was responding to my actual claim?
                  How about you, do you want to respond?

                  I’ll repeat the first part, in case it was genuine stupidity rather than calculated dishonesty:

                  IF PARENTING IS AS POWERFUL AS YOU’RE CLAIMING,

                  THEN

                  IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE SHITLIBS SHOVE DOWN YOUR CHILDREN’S THROATS BUT BOARDING SCHOOLS SHOULD BE FORCED TO CLOSE

                  George III certainly didn’t think it was, and neither do I, but even if it was, I want traditional families because they’re good for society, not because ‘for the children’.

                • Roberto says:

                  Patriarchy is good for civilization, and abolishing mass mandatory schooling is good for civilization. I’m pretty sure that those two things are also good for the long-term prosperity of “the children.”

                  Without patriarchy, and with mass mandatory schooling, we can see both civilization stagnating and regressing, and the children having broken existences. And I can see with my own eyes that those raised in stable heterosexual families where the father is the primary breadwinner fare better than those “raised” by the streets and by their slutmoms.

                  None of that cancels out the importance of filtering out the metaphorical water supply of metaphorical estrogen; on the contrary, we want people to grow up in patriarchal households rather than “grow up” (exist in arrested development) in the kid-prisons called “schools,” which is why government-sanctioned leftist social engineering needs to end.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Am I just grammatically unclear, or are you all a bit stupid in the head, or what’s going on here?

                  I type “IF, THEN, BAD-OUTCOME” and you read “he wants outcome X”.

                  IF parental determinism is true THEN we might as well ignore government schools and furthermore it’s crucial that we close boarding schools for interfering with parenting…. BAD-OUTCOME

                  Do you understand yet?

                  I’m not saying I like that outcome, I’m saying that outcome *follows* if what you’re claiming is true.

                  If what you’re claiming is true, it doesn’t MATTER what government schools are pushing.

                  If what you’re claiming is true, we should close boarding schools because they prevent parental determinism from working its magic.

                  Now I don’t think what you’re claiming IS true. I’m not flippantly dismissing the twin studies: I think the twin studies are very very convincing – genetically identical, parental-environmentally identical people turn out just as different from one another as genetically identical, parental-environmentally different people, while genetically different, parental-environmentally identical people turn out just as different as any two randoms.

                  But IF what you’re claiming WERE true, THOSE things would follow……..

                  ………and I wouldn’t give a damn, because I favour a traditional society because it works FOR SOCIETY. If that’s sub-optimal for children, as you seem to be suggesting (though you resist the logic, for some bizarre reason) then I don’t give a damn. I want it anyway.

                  You claim that you only want it if the science supports it, which is a muddled way of thinking because either you’re just wrong about the science, or else you’re right about the science and wrong about the type of society you favour.

                  Jesus this takes forever, hammering home the most BASIC points of BASIC logic to you BASIC bitches!

                • peppermint says:

                  If government schooling does nothing, why does the left want it so badly?

                  Remember, CR, the left, like you, seeks power.

                • peppermint says:

                  Ps. if your so smart try using less words

                • Roberto says:

                  >IF parental determinism is true THEN

                  Low IQ strawman. We are not arguing for “parental determinism.”

                  *YOU* are arguing that, I quote, “The effect of the parental home is NIL.”

                  We argue that fathers have a very substantial positive influence on their children; whereas you argue, based on some studies by someone, that parents are totally irrelevant; that’s what you’ve been arguing this whole thread.

                  I will now repeat the point to you, because your IQ is lower.

                  The determinism is not ours. We don’t deny the importance of the extra-familial environment, but we recognize that fathers are crucial for healthy development.

                  *YOU* argue — another quote — “The impact of ‘parenting’ on any of the outcomes you care about is basically nil.”

                  *YOU* are the determinist: like all leftists, you argue that the only thing that matters is the environment outside the home, while absolutely denying the importance of the environment inside the home.

                  Since you’re quite dense, I’ll re-iterate the point one more time.

                  We argue that parents, especially fathers, are important – in and of themselves.

                  *YOU* said about that book, quote, “The central thesis is that ‘parenting’ is nonsense.” That means that you, Communist Revolutionist, are the determinist – not we. It is you who is arguing that parents are totally irrelevant, because according to you, based on some book, the extra-familial environment absolutely determines what a person would become. You are an absolute “social determinist,” like all progs; it’s comical how you project your own determinism onto us.

                  Don’t make me rap about you, CR.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto:

                  “*YOU* are arguing that, I quote, “The effect of the parental home is NIL.””

                  Yes. See, it’s not hard is it, getting behind your beliefs instead of obfuscating.

                  That’s precisely right: the effect of the parental *environment* on any adult outcome you care to consider, is effectively nil. (Bear in mind that this is not equivalent to claiming *parents* have no effect: they have a huge effect transmitted genetically.)

                  “We argue that fathers have a very substantial positive influence on their children; whereas you argue, based on some studies by someone, that parents are totally irrelevant; that’s what you’ve been arguing this whole thread.”

                  Correct.

                  “We don’t deny the importance of the extra-familial environment, but we recognize that fathers are crucial for healthy development.”

                  What kind of development? I assume you mean the emergence of a law-abiding, non-self-destructive, non-drug-using, non-promiscuous, non-shitlib personality free of obvious pathologies.
                  The parental *environment*, including fathers, is virtually irrelevant to this, but here’s the point:

                  Why should we care about any of that when structuring society? Are we to be ruled by the academy?

                  “*YOU* argue — another quote — “The impact of ‘parenting’ on any of the outcomes you care about is basically nil.””

                  You already said that and I’ve never been unclear in the slightest. That is indeed EXACTLY what I’m claiming.

                  Let that sink in: the impact of so-called ‘parenting’ on any outcome you care to consider: is essentially zero.

                  A boy and his genetically identical twin brother, raised together, in the same household, will differ one from the other *just as much* in whatever outcomes you care to consider as they would have done had they been raised by strangers in far-away lands!

                  “like all leftists, you argue that the only thing that matters is the environment outside the home, while absolutely denying the importance of the environment inside the home.”

                  I think you’ll find the overwhelming majority of leftists believe just as strongly as you do in the ‘parenting’ myth. Where they’d differ from you would be on the importance of genes and the plasticity of basic features common to all humans. For sex dimorphism they’d see greater plasticity than you would, and for racial diversity they’d see lesser plasticity than you would.

                  “We argue that parents, especially fathers, are important – in and of themselves.”

                  I know you have, and I’m flatly denying it. Isn’t it refreshing when someone doesn’t use weasel words to skirt around the issues!

                  “the extra-familial environment absolutely determines what a person would become.”

                  No, now you’re straw manning me. Most traits are heritable and the degree of genetic influence is usually at least 50%. That is to say if both your parents are gregarious, you stand a 50% chance of being gregarious yourself regardless of upbringing. If they’re both alcoholics, petty thieves, idlers, argumentative, rebellious, intelligent, open-minded, promiscuous, religious, whatever: you name it – then you stand around a 50% chance of being that thing yourself, irrespective of upbringing.

                  The other 50% chance you would say comes from parenting and I would say it comes from the totality of the social environment, and that furthermore the home environment is not heavily weighted – quite the contrary.

                  Twin studies are on my side, and many highly respected developmental psychologists have changed their mind to agree with this perspective as a result.

                  But none of this is my point!!!!!!!!

                  My point is that society should not be structured in order for it to conform to the findings of social scientists.
                  On the contrary, society should be structured by a healthy hierarchical order in order for it to conform to what’s best for a healthy society as a whole, and that means the ‘sexual socialism’ of the traditional monogamous family – not for the children but for the fathers!

                • jim says:

                  > That’s precisely right: the effect of the parental *environment* on any adult outcome you care to consider, is effectively nil.

                  This is not in fact what studies show. This is what you have unjustifiably and unreasonably deduced from what studies show.

                  And this is the last time I will let you repeat this claim without justification and explanation. You can repeat it if you fill in the missing steps between what studies show, and your conclusion, but this is the last time you can simply assert your conclusion without explanation or evidence. And simply repeating undisputed and uncontroversial study results without explaining how you get from undisputed and uncontroversial study results to disputed and controversial conclusions is not justification and explanation, and will be deleted without comment – except perhaps for a repetition of this warning.

                  > I assume you mean the emergence of a law-abiding, non-self-destructive, non-drug-using, non-promiscuous, non-shitlib personality free of obvious pathologies.

                  > The parental *environment*, including fathers, is virtually irrelevant to this,

                  In order to draw this conclusion, you need to compare children adopted into functional families, with children adopted into dysfunctional families. Also the appearance of a halfway decent stepfather into a formerly unstable household.

                  Casual observation: Badly behaved teenager; Latest fuck interest of badly behaved mother sticks around for a little while instead of ghosting after cleaning out the fridge and grabbing the child support money; Silently gives badly behaved teenager a chilling look when teenager misbehaves; Teenage misbehavior abruptly ceases. Tells teenager to respect his mother; Teenager respects mother. Instant, massive, and overwhelming effect.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint:

                  “If government schooling does nothing, why does the left want it so badly?”

                  The left thinks that government schools have a responsibility to correct the harm done by bad parenting. They think it’s a vast uphill battle that needs to take place throughout life, and that if left to their own devices, parents would completely control life outcomes of their children.
                  Secretly the left knows that they’re wrong about all the things they care about, and they’re worried the truth would out!

                  “Use fewer words”

                  Good idea. This whole digression boils down to thsi:

                  You lot think society should conform to your pet developmental psychology theories.
                  I think developmental psychology can jump in the lake, as Steven Pinker would put it.
                  We need the traditional family unit for the fathers, not for the children. Children should be seen but not heard, etc. etc.

                • peppermint says:

                  Right, that’s what they say, but they will say anything to get power.

                  What they actually think is that taking children from their parents means they have power over the children and their parents, which is flatly true. That that power is not unlimited is demonstrated by us.

                • Roberto says:

                  Come the fuck on: take away e.g. a white child from his well-to-do law-abiding biological parents and put him in the “care” of a 85 IQ crack-whore felonious ghetto negress; will his life outcomes not be influenced by that? Not influenced *at all*???

                  Should we make the example even more absurd, or are you willing to admit that “yes, parenting (or lack thereof) is not a totally meaningless thing”?

                  Your belief-system is kooky and deranged. There is a broad enough spectrum between “parenting always trumps everything else” (which nobody here argued) and “parenting is totally irrelevant” (your argument), which spectrum you indeed flatly deny with your binary ‘either-or’ logical fallacies and references to some twin studies.

                  Is this some kind of an exercise in counter-signalling or what?

              • Doug Smythe says:

                > Establishment conservatives tend to say that fatherless kids have no male role models so they adopt the street corner gangster as the role model.

                This does in fact happen as a direct and immediate consequence of fatherlessness (not an inevitable one, but it does happen esp. in socially disorganized communities); a boy will look up to older youths for the authoritative guidance his mom cannot provide, since women lack inherent authority.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  @Carlylean: Nobody’s saying that parenting has God-like abilities especially in a time and place where every effort is made to undermine the influence and authority of parents and especially fathers. The family is the Natural unit of a civilized society and that which is Natural must necessarily be good for society (conformity to Nature=the definition of health and weal). And what’s good for civilization is good for the individual as well, since the individual is the stuff of which a civilization is made. The idea that society can or should be indifferent to the health and weal of the individual is a Socialist fallacy to be avoided, and is nonsense in any case. Patriarchy is good for society in no small part because it is good for the children and vice-versa.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Actually that’s exactly what they’re saying.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > Jesus this takes forever, hammering home the most BASIC points of BASIC logic to you BASIC bitches!

                  The problem isn’t one of logic, but incommensurate premises; as Jim pointed out already, you don’t quite grasp the premises of Reactionary thought, but over and over again try to force-fit them into the Procrustean bed of basic-bitch Modernist thought. You try to articulate Reactionary concerns in a language not made for Reactionaries, but on the contrary to advance their destruction along with the destruction of the sort of civilization they favour. (N.B. I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally or with malice, but because you’re not used to the level of philosophical rigour that is the norm in NRx circles, and just haven’t thought some things all the way through).

                  -Where Reactionaries argue that individuals cannot be given free rein to do whatever they want, but only what is lawful for them, you understand this to mean that the working man ought to be tormented with a plague of nanny-State rules and regulations that aim exclusively at increasing his usefulness to the State as defined in the most crassly materialist terms of health-care expenditures and the like.

                  -Where Reactionaries argue that what’s good for society is by definition good for the individual, and that societal problems accordingly find immediate expression in individual-level mental/behavioural pathology you understand it to mean that the good of the individual should be sacrificed for the good of society- as though the two things were intrinsically opposed zero-sum quantities.

                  -Where Reactionaries, working from the necessary design and functional pre-requisites of any conceivably viable society, argue that patriarchy is *logically indispensable* to its reproduction and overall healthy functioning, you treat this as a merely empirical question- as though there could be more than one answer.

                  -Finally, you can only understand any objection to your philosophical mis-translation of Reactionary shibboleths to mean Austrofag utilitarianism/individualism. The latter, to be sure, is the only possible objection- as long as one remains trapped in the space of Modernist thought that is. Reactionary thought, however, has transcended the dilemmas Modernist thought creates for itself (individualism v. collectivism, liberty v. authority, etc.) because Reaction rejects the premises that give rise to them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re a sophist Doug.

                  I’ll repeat, for the millionth time:

                  If parenting has the power you believe it to have, then it really doesn’t matter WHAT the government schools are pushing because parenting will simply over-ride it.

                  Boarding schools on the other hand are to be considered completely toxic because they completely inhibit the ability of healthy families to transmit their values through parenting.

                  Those are (among) the consequences if your opinion of the power of parenting were in fact correct.

                  Do you want to disagree that those are the consequences? I’ll need you to explain why you think that.

                  But assuming you agree that those are the logical consequences, does that mean you’re going to endorse government schools and condemn boarding schools?

                  Why the hell would you do that? I know I wouldn’t, because I don’t CARE what social science shows about developmental psychology.

                  Now: if you agree with me that social science’s opinion is of no importance when structuring society, you no longer need to be defensive when considering JRH’s twin studies.

                  I repeat, for the millionth time, genetically identical twins raised together by the same parents in the same environment *differ as much from one another* as do genetically identical twins raised apart by different people in a different place.
                  At the same time, genetically unrelated children raised by the same people in the same place are *no more similar to one another* than any two people plucked at random from the population.

                  If you think that the structure of society depends on the opinion of social scientists then this is a problem because it suggests that parenting doesn’t matter as much as the peer environment and therefore (so would go their argument) society ought to be structured as a form of ‘anything goes’. That would be JRH’s opinion.

                  But see I DON’T think the structure of society depends on the opinion of social scientists, and THAT is the point I’m making here: the structure of society is determined so as to maximise the health *of society*, not in order to conform to the (sometimes changing) opinions of social scientists.

                  We should not be ruled by the academy.

                  Why, oh why, is this so controversial?

                  I’ll tell you why: because in spite of your rhetoric, every person here is not in fact a reactionary but rather a ‘racist sexist’ libertarian.

                • peppermint says:

                  I want to ban compulsory schooling on the reactionary grounds that the parents must have authority and the libertarian grounds that a market where the payer, the recipient, and the chooser are different will have high prices and poor quality.

                  The left wants compulsory schooling, for the left’s reason for everything.

                  Why the focus on boarding schools? Parents usually choose and pay for them.

                  You say the king may compel anything, indeed he may. But a pious king won’t compel very much, because every compulsion gives power to some bureaucrat, who promises the king glorification that his will will be done, but the bureaucrats will eventually use that power to undermine king and nation.

                  As an honest man can’t be conned, a pious aristocrat can’t be convinced to do leftism.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > I’ll tell you why: because in spite of your rhetoric, every person here is not in fact a reactionary but rather a ‘racist sexist’ libertarian.

                  Alright, I’m a Libertarian, in every respect except for the following:

                  a) I categorically reject the doctrine of social contract and all political arrangements that are premised on or conformable to it, as well as the corresponding idea of individual-private rights- especially the idea of a universal right of individual self-preservation.

                  b) I profess that:

                  -the idea of separation of legislative and executive powers is the mother of all errors, and of the undoing of European peoples along with others.

                  -That individuals are congenitally assigned membership into unequal castes by the grace of God and by the Nature of things, and must be made to stay in their place in the order of things no matter how much “merit” they may have individually.

                  -That the idea of “the invisible hand” according to which markets correct themselves by means of an unseen teleology, is a ridiculous Whig myth.

                  -That the lending of money at interest should be prohibited, most of the urban nightlife and economy shut down, and the urban population resettled to the land to the extent humanly possible w/out inducing mass starvation.

                  -That most technological innovation is an insult to one’s ancestors tantamount to treason and blasphemy, and ought to be not only prohibited, but *punished*.

                  -That there should be a rigorous regime of censorship of the written word and artistic productions.

                  -That all women and children, and most men, should be subject to the personal jurisdiction of a male superordinate on a cradle-to-grave basis, and also that a man’s filial duties do not magically vanish on his 18th birthday.

                  -That “consent” counts for absolutely nothing with respect to actions prohibited by Divine and Natural law, nor with respect to the duties those laws prescribe.

                  But in every other respect, yeah I’m a big ol’ Libertarian.

                • peppermint says:

                  * the current system is anti-meritocratic, and capable young men are very angry about it

                  * markets create price signals which are incredibly valuable

                  * to ban usury would be surprisingly possible, just instruct judges that without specified collateral there is nothing to be seized on default

                  * banning cities would be difficult and pointless, nightlife more so

                  * good luck militarily defending your primitivist state

                  * censorship would be difficult and pointless (sedition, on the other hand, is a crime of its own, and the king needs unlimited power to fight it)

                  * millennials and genz have no filial duties to the traitors who came before them

                • Roberto says:

                  >most technological innovation is an insult to one’s ancestors tantamount to treason and blasphemy, and ought to be not only prohibited, but *punished*.

                  https://imgur.com/a/uSvAu7B

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In spite of his sophist leanings, Doug’s the smartest here.

                  This capitalism crap’s one of the worst parts of the poison.

                  As for the rest of you skirting around the issues as if this is about the merits of your favoured dev-psych theories, you’re obviously just thick.

                • @Doug

                  Obviously, without lending for interest there is no lending, except between friends. Lending is primarily used for two things, consumption and investment into production or economic activity. Without interest, consumer credit disappears. That may be a very good thing in many aspects. Perhaps one big difference is houses. Mutualist building societies are a decent solution for housing (their customers are owners, people put their savings in there and receive interest, then take it out, also take out a loan, for a house, and pay interest to the others) if in such special cases you would allow interest it could be workable.

                  As for lending for production i.e. interest, it is not in itself usurious or bad. Aristotle had a kind of a blind sport here, saying that for money to have offspring like cattle is unnatural. But of course money can be lended to buy cattle, and it makes sense that the lender should get some of the offspring of the cattle, thereby accruing interest. As far as I can tell, the actually good criticism of lending for production is not about interest but about risk. The lender does not share the risk. Thus, it is better if instead of lending they purchase part of the firm, shares of the firm, participating in the risk.

                  So in sum, if you have no problems with the stock exchange as such, and joint-stock corporations, and accept interest in the special case of customer owned cooperatives like the building society, it could be workable.

                • jim says:

                  Zippy has written a whole pile of stuff on usury. The traditional Christian solution on mortgages is fine:

                  The traditional Christian solution is that you can lend someone real property, with an interest bearing debt on that property, but not an interest bearing debt on that person. Which means lender and borrower have to share the risk of bad things happening to that property. Good faith effort to protect and preserve that property, followed by return of the property, extinguishes the debt.

                  The bank, the mortgagor, owns the house, and the mortgagee has a right to ownership of the house conditional on paying his mortgage, which right he retains so long as he is up to date on his mortgage and house insurance. And if the price of the house falls so that he is underwater on the mortgage then he can tell the bank to bite it, and if the bank reclaims the house in good order and condition, he has honored his debt in full, and the mortgagee is free from debt or dishonor. The risk of the house price falling must be shared between mortgagee and mortgagor. It is usury only if the whole risk is placed upon the mortgagee.

                  The corporation counts as property. The corporation can borrow at interest, and if it cannot make the payments on its debt, the existing shareholders shares are extinguished, and the creditors become reluctant shareholders. The debt owed to them is replaced with shares, in proportion to the amounts owed. The company continues to own its property, unless the new Chief Executive Officer, appointed by the new board, appointed by the new shareholders, decides to sell off the property and cash out to the shareholders.

                  A government counts as a corporation, but in practice only a considerably more powerful government can foreclose. Which in practice means the Chinese hegemony.

                  The truly shared risk solution is the flexible interest rate mortgage, secured only by the house, not by the morgagee’s person. Bank bears some of the risk of a housing crash, mortgagee bears some of the risk of a liquidity crisis, banking panic. Trouble with the flexible interest rate solution is that bankers manipulate the index rate. This solution, assuming the banks do not manipulate the index rate, is economically efficient, morally just, and avoids the financial crises generated by term transformation of debt.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >Lending is primarily used for two things, consumption and investment into production or economic activity.

                  Three things; consumption, investment into production or economic activity, and creation of a Debt that formally or informally symbolizes the subordination of the debtor to the creditor.

                  See for instance gift economies, ‘big man’ systems, or our modern banking overlords.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Whoever-it-was:

                  “Obviously, without lending for interest there is no lending, except between friends. Lending is primarily used for two things, consumption and investment into production or economic activity. Without interest, consumer credit disappears. That may be a very good thing in many aspects.”

                  What are the downsides of ending it? You say “many aspects” – which ‘aspects’ of consumer debt are you glad about?

                  “Perhaps one big difference is houses. Mutualist building societies are a decent solution for housing (their customers are owners, people put their savings in there and receive interest, then take it out, also take out a loan, for a house, and pay interest to the others) if in such special cases you would allow interest it could be workable.”

                  Are you Jewish?

                  Why not go the whole hog and have a state monopsony with permanently fixed prices pegged to a basket consisting of the cost of living and the average wage?
                  Builders can innovate as much as they want but what we never want to see again is thirty-somethings living with their parents until two people can work enough hours to pay for a house that costs 5 years’ gross combined wages.

                  This is why a lay observer might mistake people like you for libertarians: nobody genuinely opposed to globohomo would make the slightest apology for that state of affairs – they’d just call for its end.

                  “As for lending for production i.e. interest, it is not in itself usurious or bad.”

                  Says who? Again this is just the capitalist/libertarian prejudice.
                  Bringing future production into the present *is as harmful* as bringing future consumption into the present: they’re both examples of unmitigated time preference indicative of a ‘YOLO’ mentality.

                  We want the Cathedral-builder mindset to replace the Cathedral mindset.

                • jim says:

                  > > “As for lending for production i.e. interest, it is not in itself usurious or bad.”

                  > Says who? Again this is just the capitalist/libertarian prejudice.

                  You are, as usual, arguing that the socialist anti economics of envy and covetousness, Venzuelan economics, are actually reactionary economics.

                  Nope they are not.

                  You are cultural marxist. Lending at interest for production in accordance with Christian doctrine is good, and very ancient, reactionary economics.

                  Zippy’s interpretation of the traditional Christian position on usury is reactionary. Your “reactionary” econonomics is cultural Marxism.

                  Lending at interest for production is fine by ancient Christian doctrine: The archetypical example of interest that is good and right under Christian doctrine is mortgage of a productive asset, secured by that productive asset. The debt can be extinguished by payment of debt and interest, or by return of the asset with good faith effort to preserve and protect the asset. The archetypical example of interest that is usury is that somebody borrows money to have a party, secured by his person.

                • pdimov says:

                  >But of course money can be lended to buy cattle, and it makes sense that the lender should get some of the offspring of the cattle, thereby accruing interest.

                  No, it doesn’t. Cattle offspring are already built into the initial price of cattle.

                • CR, you can get really annoying. The primary reasons people live with their parents is that houses are expensive, made expensive by

                  1) more and more places becoming “bad neighborhoods”, see Detroit, houses are surely not expensive there, but for “some reason” people prefer the companionship of their parents than murderous thugs

                  2) immigration, and in this case not even quality, but the quantity, such as how the UK went from 50M people in 1950 to 66M people today and NOT through having kids but through immigration

                  3) various factors driving urbanization, mostly political, you are very right that most people should be moved out of the cities, but not simply by ordering them out but by looking at the political and economic incentives (immigration itself tends to be mostly urban, and that and welfare clients are basically where your beloved “just order them around” method could be used, basically move them out and tell them to farm for a living)

                  4) yes, predatory lending did play a role, here risk-sharing is an excellent idea, so that people who try to refinance their houses at the top of a bubble and basically treating it as free money would be told by the bank “don’t be an idiot” out of the banks own economic incentives

                  Statesmanship requires diagnosing problems, not just ordering their symptoms away.

                • Koanic says:

                  Thanks for clarifying the correct position on usury, Jim.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > creation of a Debt that formally or informally symbolizes the subordination of the debtor to the creditor.

                  This brings up what I don’t like about finance: the possibility that the (((banker))) can become the legitimate superior of his superiors, or at the very least the legal equal of his superior, which is what in fact happened in our history.

                • peppermint says:

                  I know a guy who doesn’t have parents to live with and is homeless, and some other guys who barely can afford a place to live despite having what should be a good job.

                  Immigrants do three things, drive humans out of cheap areas with crime, drive up the prices simply with their presence, and absorb low wage jobs to keep millennials under or unemployed.

                  And all CR can think of as a solution is more aggressivee government intrusions into the lives of millennials, as if anyone actually wanted this life.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint:

                  “I know a guy who doesn’t have parents to live with and is homeless, and some other guys who barely can afford a place to live despite having what should be a good job.”

                  Libertarians and libertarian-leaning right-wingers don’t care. He should pull himself up by his bootstraps.

                  “Immigrants do three things, drive humans out of cheap areas with crime, drive up the prices simply with their presence, and absorb low wage jobs to keep millennials under or unemployed.”

                  They do more than that, but they do do those things.
                  Your friend is paying the nigger tax and it’s no joking matter.
                  We need radical change, and the question here is will the reactionaries be on the side of you, me and your friend, or will they start hand-waving about property rights and individual liberties?
                  I think a picture’s well on its way to emerging.

                  “And all CR can think of as a solution is more aggressivee government intrusions into the lives of millennials, as if anyone actually wanted this life.”

                  If your friend’s out dining at Franky&Benny’s then he does lose a lot of my empathy. I’m sorry but there is such a thing as personal responsibility. When the libertarians tell you that the crux of the matter is that Franky&Benny may not lawfully COMPEL you to dine there, they’re correct.
                  Sadly, this assertion rests upon an assumption of equality of all men when it comes to navigating the consumer/social world.

                  For what it’s worth, when the solution comes that’ll help your friend, I will not only not fight it but I’ll grit my teeth, ignore any left-seeming populism, and embrace the solution.

                  We need to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children FIRST. We can answer the restaurant question afterwards, and if you and I end up being painted as leftists because we don’t want to rush back to where we are today, well that’s something we’ll have to learn to accept.

                  We fundamentally know it is not so, but we know many things are not so and are held to be so. That’s life.

                  Dividualist:

                  “The primary reasons people live with their parents is that houses are expensive”

                  Of course. That’s why housing prices should be fixed, women should not be diluting the labour market and immigration needs to cease.

                  Society should be favouring multi-generational living, turning the ‘problem’ of people living with family into a strength for society. Meanwhile the population should gently fall to reflect native people’s reproductive preferences and immigration should completely cease. Moreover there should be voluntary incentives for aliens to leave.

                  As soon as it’s feasible to return to a ‘market in housing’, as if housing’s just another long-lasting durable consumer’s good (as Milton Friedman would have you believe), we can have the discussion as to whether it’s a good idea to allow it.

                  While good people are homeless (not drug-addicted bums and anti-social so-called psychotics) this is not a ‘freedom’ we should entertain.

    • TBeholder says:

      Climate and Diversity Committee

      🤮

    • TBeholder says:

      Amusingly, they don’t deem it pozzed enough.
      https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/776718289355628544

      The author argues that a regime of rationality still operates in the academy and is made evident when feminist course content is met with continual dismissal or disavowal.

      Then again, US Academia also suffers from several forms of cancer, including a bad case of Gleickemia.

  14. pdimov says:

    >That’s precisely right: the effect of the parental *environment* on any adult outcome you care to consider, is effectively nil.

    Studies (real ones) are going back and forth on this one. (We of course ignore the leftist “parents who read to their children make them smart” nonsense.)

    But yes, parenting was overrated (genes and peer environment > parental environment) and is now probably slightly underrated (parental environment > 0).

    >Come the fuck on: take away e.g. a white child from his well-to-do law-abiding biological parents and put him in the “care” of a 85 IQ crack-whore felonious ghetto negress; will his life outcomes not be influenced by that?

    The comparison is between white parents “helicopter parenting” their children vs the same white parents not paying overly much attention to their children.

    It’s known that if you raise children and (literal or figurative) monkeys together, you get monkeys.

  15. Zach says:

    CR – The influence of having a father shouldn’t be used interchangeably with parenting.

    • jim says:

      Quite so. The roles of the father and the mother are not interchangeable, any more than men and woman are interchangeable.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Sleight of hand deflection:

        “The roles of the father and the mother are not interchangeable, any more than men and woman are interchangeable”

        Neither father nor mother *have* any extra-genetic role in shaping the personalities and life outcomes of children.

        • jim says:

          Common sense and casual observation shows that this is nonsense, and your improbable conclusion does not logically follow from studies of identical twins reared apart, because both twins were comparably subject to respectable male authority, and because for political reasons, psychometry declines to measure the moral and civilizational characteristics most obviously and directly influenced by fathers.

          Obviously religion tends to follow the paternal religion (near zero genetic influence) and expected norms of behavior have much in common with religion. Perhaps propensity to follow those norms is genetic, but the norms themselves are substantially environmental, and by far the largest part of that environment is paternal authority.

          Children with weak or absent paternal authority clearly suffer from anomie and normlessness, are distressed by anomie, and are apt to attach themselves to distant or hostile paternal figures and receive their norms from those figures, Obama being an infamous case in point.

          Zimmerman is culturally white, having completely absorbed the norms of his white father with old fashioned white boy scout values, while Obama attached himself to an imagined anticolonialist freedom fighter, invented from Alinsky rather than absorbed from real life. These are big differences, they are environmental, and they are paternally mediated.

          Perhaps Zimmerman’s fidelity to his father’s norms is genetic, but the norms themselves are those of his father. Imagine that instead he had attached himself to the norms of whichever thug wandering through his mother’s bedroom had stayed the longest before ghosting with the child support money. Would have been a very different man.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Well what can anybody say to that?

            You’re just going to continue to flatly deny these findings no matter how many times the experimental result’s replicated by independent people trying to disprove it.

            I already told you, there’s a perfectly respectable praxeological argument to be made that the social sciences are nonsensical. I’m not going to flesh it out too much but a flavour is that test items are to be considered interchangeable, which is nonsensical, and that the statistical transformations are what computer scientists would call ‘lossy’ – for example standard deviations are non-prejudicial to *sign*, insane as that sounds.

            There’s also a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that optimising the life outcomes of children isn’t the only thing that has to be taken into account when structuring society. I’ll strengthen that argument: if parenting, and the constitution of the family home, is totally irrelevant then there’s NO HARM AT ALL in having the traditional family. There’s no reason to favour social laissez-faire at all based on JRH’s findings.

            But that’s not what you’re going to pin your philosophy on. Instead you’re going to go ‘lalala’ in the face of the science and just assert that your subjective common sense refutes mere reality.

            The irony is I’m the one being called a f@%ing leftist here!

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      “The influence of having a father shouldn’t be used interchangeably with parenting.”

      Better stated, the importance of the traditional family shouldn’t be pinned to empirical predictions about developmental psychology.

      We want the traditional family regardless, and if it so happens that life outcomes are better for children, all the better; but if they’re not, we’re not for turning.

      There are ways in which the traditional family is clearly good for children’s futures. Here are a few:

      1. They will not have to move geographical locations during their formative years when they’re trying out their skills in the social world
      2. They will not be operating in an environment in which most people assume relationships are transient
      3. They will not have to come to terms with a society that pushes values that make no sense to them instinctively
      4. They will not be required to behave in abnormal ways or to tolerate the intolerable

      Note that none of these have anything to do with the power of fathers to affect the life outcomes of children: they have no such power.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        It is from the father that the child primordially acquires the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Every other race, age, and civilization managed to figure this out. It’s not rocket science.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I’m sorry Doug but this is simply not the case.

          I realise completely that it *feels* that way, but that *isn’t* the case.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          If you’re remotely open-minded, give it a fair hearing:

          https://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_6.html#harris

          I’ll reiterate my point one more time and then I’m washing my hands of it because people just aren’t listening, they’re getting content-bound by the science.

          My point is this:

          We should not pin our philosophy to the empirical science coming out of developmental psychology.
          We want the traditional family, including curtailing most of the freedoms of womankind, irrespective of what developmental psychologists conclude.
          Strategically if we DO pin our philosophy to what looks very much like outright incorrect scientific claims then it follows, or appears to follow, that the disproof of our claims about developmental psychology can be leveraged to dismiss our social policies.

          Why take that rhetorical risk?

          • jim says:

            > If you’re remotely open-minded, give it a fair hearing:

            There is nothing to hear. Like you, she assumes the case has been made, therefore unnecessary for her to actually make it.

            Ask yourself what makes a suicide bomber. Is that a non family influence with zero paternal influence?

            Her very use of the word “parental” rather than “paternal” reveals a fanatical and stubborn ideological faith obstinately indifferent to external reality – and likely absorbed from paternal or in loco parentis male authority figures.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              She says she expected to be disproved and never has been.
              She says things were better when fathers were distant, emotional reinforcement was the exception not the rule, physical discipline was commonplace and children were seen but not heard.

              What a shitlib.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Reading through the Harris article, I think I see the cause of the failure to communicate.

            ” There are no indications that children today are happier, more self-confident, less aggressive, or in better mental health than they were sixty years ago, when I was a child — when homes were run by and for adults, when physical punishment was used routinely, when fathers were generally unavailable, when praise was a rare and precious commodity, and when explicit expressions of parental love were reserved for the deathbed.” -This is a serious proposition.

            “Zero parental influence”. -Not a serious proposition. Clickbait to generate controversy and peddle a book. It’s likely that a literary agent or publisher thought of it, not Harris herself.

  16. This is ridiculous. Carlylean Restorationist has hijacked the entire comment section lol

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Not any more. There’s a pattern of intellectual dishonesty here on a par with The Guardian.
      It’s enjoyable for a short time but before long the persistent straw manning, deliberate ‘misunderstanding’ and misrepresentation gets tired.

      I thought one of the goals of NRx was to create a parallel institution to replace academia at some future point.

      That seems like a doomed prospect quite honestly.

      • jim says:

        > There’s a pattern of intellectual dishonesty here on a par with The Guardian.

        We are “intellectually dishonest” because we refuse to accept an argument that you declare is so self evident that you do not need to actually make it.

        Instead of measuring the IQ of identical twins raised apart, try measuring their propensity to become suicide bombers.

        My influence on my sons is absolutely obvious, and any supposedly scientific results to the contrary are obvious nonsense. My words and example have had alarmingly huge effect on their lives.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          This is the exact opposite of reality. I’ve given plentiful – excessive even – details, which have been consistently misrepresented.
          You on the other hand have dismissed mere reality in favour of your gut instincts, and when I offered the supporting argument for your position that all social science is un-Austrian, you simply continued pinning your colours to empirical claims which have no support in reality.

          It’s literally the opposite of what you’re claiming, but you know what? I have one more red pill for the Reactosphere: free speech.

          This is your blog, Jim. You don’t need to engage with people critical of your world-view.

          You should, in my view, take the same approach as Jesse from TRS: any comment that isn’t supportive and complimentary has no place on your land.

          I’ve been promising to GTFO for a long time and been consistently drawn back in by silly attacks and misrepresentations. That time’s over. I’m done with NRx – it’s just libertarians LARPing as scientist-philosophers.

          Something smells very Stefan Molyneux about that idea.

          • jim says:

            > I’ve given plentiful – excessive even – detail

            Liar.

            Let us suppose that two identical twins are adopted out to different families, one to an Assyrian Christian father, one to an Assyrian Sunni Muslim father.

            Will you tell us they are identically likely to become suicide bombers?

            Fathers civilize children, mothers do not, and fathers civilize children in their own image, as is obvious when the father figure is in some respect uncivilized. Is the propensity to suicide bombing genetically transmitted from father to son?

            You have presented absolutely no evidence that would incline anyone to deny the reality that is in front of their faces, no evidence that actually bears on the question.

            How is the evidence you have presented remotely relevant to that question? How does it support your position in any way whatsoever?

            If Obama had had Zimmerman’s father, rather than his imagined revolutionary anticolonialist father, Obama would be a boy scout like Zimmerman, instead of a revolutionary anticolonialist like Obama. This is obvious, and to deny it is stubborn ideologically motivated madness, and it is ideologically motivated madness that you have repeatedly refused to present any case for.

            Fatherless children suffer from anomie as children and continue to suffer from anomie as adults. This is as plain as the nose on your face, and if psychometric testing failed to show a difference, it was not measuring anomie, nor measuring differences in civilizational values. Maybe they should have asked the twins what they think of suicide bombers and insulting the prophet. Better, they should have asked the twins what they think of ghosting with the child support money when it arrives on the first of the month, this being the major value system that kids are learning these days.

            A man whose father is an adherent of the prophet is likely to fly an airliner into the towers. A man raised by a man with Christian boy scout values is likely to have Christian boy scout values, and a man whose mother has a variety of thugs wandering through her bedroom is likely to ghost with the child support money on the first of the month.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “Let us suppose that two identical twins are adopted out to different families, one to an Assyrian Christian father, one to an Assyrian Sunni Muslim father.

              Will you tell us they are identically likely to become suicide bombers?”

              This is exactly what I’m talking about.

              This is an absolute misrepresentation of JRH.

              Adult outcomes and personality traits are partly the result of the totality of the social environment, which begins not long after birth and continues throughout life.
              Adult outcomes and personality traits are partly the result of the genes.

              You continually repeat the claim that genetically identical twins raised apart are surprisingly similar. This is trivially true and simply demonstrates the falsehood of Tabula Rasa.

              The pertinent claim, which I’ve made more times than I care to remember, and been utterly misrepresented every single time (this time will be no exception I’m sure) is that genetically identical twins raised together are *just as different* as genetically identical twins raised apart.

              “If Obama had had Zimmerman’s father, rather than his imagined revolutionary anticolonialist father, Obama would be a boy scout like Zimmerman, instead of a revolutionary anticolonialist like Obama. This is obvious, and to deny it is stubborn ideologically motivated madness, and it is ideologically motivated madness that you have repeatedly declined to present any case for.”

              That’s because I’ve not claimed that.

              What you’re saying, basically, is that I’m claiming the environment has zero effect on development, ie. I’m making the case for hard genetic determinism.

              I repeat: genetically identical twins raised together DIFFER, profoundly. They differ *as much* as genetically identical twins raised apart. The differences are the result of the totality of those people’s environment, *not* the parents.

              IF parenting had the effects that you claim it has, then the following complementary fact would not be true:

              Genetically unrelated children raised together are *no more similar* than any two individuals plucked at random from the population at large.

              Let that sink in: the effect of the parents on the adopted child is zero; the effect of the parents on their genetic offspring – aside from the genes of course, which is 50% of everything, at least – is zero.

              Some 50% (or possibly less but not dramatically less) of the variability in adult human outcomes and personality traits *does not come from the genes*.

              But it does not come from the parents either!

              • jim says:

                > The pertinent claim, which I’ve made more times than I care to remember, and been utterly misrepresented every single time (this time will be no exception I’m sure) is that genetically identical twins raised together are *just as different* as genetically identical twins raised apart.

                But genetically identical twins raised together are going to be a lot more similar in their attitudes towards insulting the prophet, or ghosting with the child support money on the first of the month, than genetically identical twins raised apart.

                And none of the evidence that you vaguely allude to contradicts this glaringly obvious fact, though you repeatedly lie that it does.

                If raised together by an Assyrian Muslim father, both will agree that those who insult the prophet deserve death. If raised together by an Assyrian Christian father, both will agree that those who insult the prophet do not deserve death. If one raised by an Assyrian Muslim father, and one raised by an Assyrian Christian father …

                If one raised by his biological father, and the other raised by a single mother, perhaps as a result of divorce where they divvy the children and the assets, the one raised by a father will view manliness and masculinity as exemplified by the words and deeds of his father, the one raised by a single mother will view manliness and masculinity as exemplified by smacking other people’s children around, torturing the cat, and ghosting with the child support money on the first of the month. I have personally demonstrated by experiment that torturing the cat of a fatherless girl impresses her with my masculinity. The less a girl has a father, the more I have to turn up the badness of the badboy. This sort of thing is a mighty large difference.

              • Roberto says:

                >Genetically unrelated children raised together are *no more similar* than any two individuals plucked at random from the population at large.

                In terms of IQ and other heritable traits? Sure. In terms of propensity to become a suicide bomber versus propensity to practice yoga? Fathers play a dramatic role in that, and to deny it is lunacy – in fact, even most run-of-the-mill leftists don’t completely deny the role of fathers; it’s only the most radical prog *social determinists* who do so.

                You may as well argue that consciousness is determined not by genes+culture, but by the economic “base” beneath the social “superstructure.” You may as well go full Marx.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto I’m not here any more, I’m sick to the back teeth of having to repeat everything a million times and still be misrepresented by people claiming I’ve said something that I have not said, or just declaring it ‘obvious’ that such and such a thing cannot possibly be so.

                  This is the last time I’m going to respond, so this is your opportunity to go full leftist and fully misrepresent me. You can claim I’m advocating for redistribution, the gender spectrum, sexual equality and kitten-eating competitions for all I care.

                  “In terms of propensity to become a suicide bomber versus propensity to practice yoga? Fathers play a dramatic role in that, and to deny it is lunacy – in fact, even most run-of-the-mill leftists don’t completely deny the role of fathers; it’s only the most radical prog *social determinists* who do so.”

                  Fathers play no role in that whatsoever and neither do mothers.
                  Your propensity to become a suicide bomber hinges on two things: genes and the environment.

                  The environment is not a synonym for parents.

                  Most run-of-the-mill leftists would agree with you and Jim one hundred percent about developmental psychology!!!!! One hundred percent! “Genes contribute quite a lot but the overwhelmingly crucial factor is parenting”. The only difference between you and a leftist is how you *finish* that sentence. A leftist would say “which is why the state has to very closely regulate how parents do their job, and intervene where necessary”, whereas you would say “which is why we have to jealously guard the rights of fathers to shape their children’s lives”.

                  You’re both wrong. We need the traditional family because it’s good for fathers and what’s good for fathers is good for civilisation. It’s not possible to promote wealth creation and responsible living while fathers stand to lose their house every time some slut decides to bang Jeremy Meeks instead of him.

                  I’ve said this a million times but I’ll say it one more because I’m out of here in five minutes:

                  If what you claim about developmental psychology is true – that parents strongly influence, to the point of near determinism, the personality and adult outcomes of their children – then we need to close down the boarding schools immediately because they prevent that process from taking place, and worse they prevent it in precisely those cases – the legitimate ruling class – where it’s most crucial for a healthy society.

                  If what you claim about developmental psychology is true then it doesn’t really matter if the demon tranny reads to your children because the demon tranny is neither genes nor ‘environment’ if ‘environment’ is defined as parents.

                  I assume you’re advocating for neither of these logical implications, yet strangely you still pin your social policies to your view of developmental psychology.

                  Exasperating is a gross under-statement.

                  I blame Molyneux and the residual influence of libertarian thinking on this community. “Liberty in an unfree world” indeed.

                  “it’s only the most radical prog *social determinists* who do so.”

                  I believe I mentioned the 50%+ heritability of traits through genetic transmission IN THE ACTUAL COMMENT YOU’RE RESPONDING TO lol

                  “You may as well argue that consciousness is determined not by genes+culture, but by the economic “base” beneath the social “superstructure.” You may as well go full Marx.”

                  Kosher Sandwich time. Either you deny the existence of social class or you embrace envy-redistribution to ‘correct’ it.
                  Social class is as real as race: zoom right in close and it evaporates and examples abound that ‘prove’ it doesn’t exist, but everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say “nigger” and everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say “bougie”.

                  If you think economics has no effect on civilisation then I can only suggest you go out from your ivory tower and visit people in the real world.

                • Roberto says:

                  You’re nuts. People are raised with certain values and usually adhere to those values their whole lives. Boys especially take after their fathers: if your dad’s a Christian, you’re likely to have affinity for Christianity, and if your dad’s a Muslim, likely to identify with Muslims.

                  Your father’s religion affects you more deeply than “peers” who may belong to altogether different religions. If your parents are militant atheists, going to a school full of Christians won’t influence you to become a Christian – probably the opposite: in face of adversity you’ll identify more strongly with the ways and values of your own family.

                  That doesn’t mean that the influence of the exrra-familial environment is “zero.” It’s more like:

                  Genes: 60%
                  Family: 30%
                  Peers: 10%

                  Your outcomes in life are primarily genetic, then there’s your familial environment, then lastly peers. (Honestly? I’m inclined to say “90% genetic,” but whatever)

                  Jim is correct: we need to have greater liberty in our unfree world. Even Moldbug wants government to be small and powerful. *Small* and powerful. You want it excessively big and excessively powerful, because you hate our freedoms.

                • pdimov says:

                  >If your parents are militant atheists, going to a school full of Christians won’t influence you to become a Christian – probably the opposite…

                  Questionable.

                • pdimov says:

                  Suppose there are two immigrant families in America. Both fathers and both mothers are immigrants, of the same nationality. Only their own language is spoken at both homes, as a rule (no English allowed). These families have kids, who go to school. Question: when the kids of the two families play together, in one of the homes, what language do they use to talk among themselves?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Pdimov’s right.

                  JRH actually pointed to the fact that an immigrant will tend to speak with the accent of the natives, irrespective of how much contact they have with their foreign-accented parents.

                  It’s worth noting that this is no longer true in the West: one of the most harmful effects of mass immigration.
                  What happens when there’s one Chinese or Indian or whatever is they end up talking like the English/French/whatever.

                  When there’s six, they band together and end up talking like each other, which means like their parents – but not because their parents determine accent: it’s because the effect of the majority-group is closed off by the banding together of the other.

                  As Pdimov points out, that’s true for all outcomes, not just accent.

                  Interestingly, Jihadis tend to be much more radical than their parents. Often the parents will be fully integrated, even if not fully Westernised, shopkeepers and the like.
                  The Jihadi youth has basically absorbed all manner of crap from his peers and other influences, including but not limited to books, Imams, podcasts, conversations with others in his community, etc. etc.

            • Rule Britannia says:

              “A man whose father is an adherent of the prophet is likely to fly an airliner into the towers.”

              http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                [*straw man attack deleted*]

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, my people will worship Trump as a god when they realize what He has done for them

                  A single man like you doesn’t need God, but other people’s confidence and dependence is a heavy burden men need God to help them bear.

                  You will never know what if feels like to have any single other person depend on you, because you have nothing to offer.

                  My people suffer from their jobs and houses taken, usurious student debt and the colossal waste of time between 16 aand 26 that is high school, college, and post-college.

                  Eating out doesn’t even make the list.

                  The only reason a man exists is to give to his nation and glorify his race. You just want to take. You will spend your entire life being held at arms length, exchanging services for money for services, barely tolerated, cursing your status as capitalism.

  17. calov says:

    So, does Curtis Yarvin read Jim’s blog? Or does he approve of where Hestia has taken NRx?

    Also, what does Urbit have to do with reaction? I can’t understand computer so I can’t figure it out.

    • jim says:

      Urbit is a technological solution to the threat to privacy and freedom posed by the cloud. Moldbug is an engineer, and I am an engineer, so we are both working on technological solutions, but really, need a prophet, not a technology. “Unqualified Reservations” was Moldbug’s go at prophecy. This blog is my go at prophecy. I am also working on a technological solution that confronts our enemies in a rather more direct and immediate way than Urbit does, but am not ready to go public with it, and when I do go public with it, will probably go public under another, ostensibly non political, identity, that is purely interested in making a profit from people who want to use the internet for purposes that are subject to repression.

      • What I would do if I had the time is to build something on the Twitter API that is as convenient for reading and posting to Twitter as Twitter itself (and there could be patent and lawsuit issues there), but users banned by Twitter can pay for going premium and their stuff will saved in a database and shown to people who use the same product. But it would be too vulnerable to lawsuits and besides Twitter can at any time close part or whole of their APIs. Too risky.

      • calov says:

        God apparently doesn’t want the prophets to be heard.

        Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

        Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, and the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

        • Alrenous says:

          Being a prophet is easy.
          Preaching the truth is impossible, if by ‘preach’ one implies that anyone listens.

          If you want to be a prophet, google ‘how do I know I’m in a cult’ and instead of a checklist, use it as a to-do list. They are what is effective. Lightly edit it to prevent major fallacies; don’t soak your followers for money or sex. (Right away.)

          These practices are directly opposed to spreading true ideas.

      • Tom X Hart says:

        Peterson is aware of your perspective on women and he might be the prophet you’re looking for.

        See C.G. Jung in Aion (1951):

        “Often the man has the feeling— and he is not altogether wrong— that only seduction or a beating or rape would have the necessary power of persuasion.”

        Jung is referring to a man dealing with a wife or potential wife, and it’s quite close to what you suggests in style.

        Peterson has mentioned Aion in one of his online interviews as a book that had a huge and disturbing influence on him.

        I’m not suggesting a straight line between Jung, Peterson, and your views. I don’t interpret what Jung says as being exactly the same (if you look up the quote in context on Internet Archive you’ll see), but this is as close as you’ll get in the contemporary world.

        As for starting a new religion, the numinous is an experiential matter. I don’t think people can be reasoned into it, at least as core believers. They have to feel it, and then the intellect follows. Meditation, prayer, music, chanting, rosaries, and so on are all designed to seperate thought and experience. These devices create a feeling of “oneness” that is the essence of a numinous experience (also stimulated by LSD).

        This aspect will be required to make a popular and real religion. It’s the sort of experience also feels very good, aside from anything else.

        The closest to an extant neoreactionary religion is the group founded by Rajneesh (Osho). He preached population control, eugenics by scientific committee, praised capitalism and getting rich, opposed democracy, loved technology, and told dirty and ethnic jokes*.

        He was into collective childcare, abolishing war, and abolishing nations, and a few other 1960s liberal shibboleths. Basically, he was almost an HG Wells-style socialist, except that he preferred capitalism and getting filthy rich to socialism. He retained Wells’s vision of a technocratic and scientific elite (and “air dictatorship”) leading society.

        He was correct in his experiential work and meditation, and clearly heavily influenced by Nietzsche in his thought about a “new man”.

        He practically attempted “exit” by setting up his own town in Oregon, taking on the USG and NGOs as he did so (with his own private militia).

        All in all not a bad model to follow. Note also, Cathedral-inspired propaganda films such as Wild, Wild Country demonise him. I suspect it’s because his message was anti-Cathedral.

        See also: https://medium.com/@TXHart/media-analysis-rajneesh-was-a-neoreactionary-da8ca5b38671

      • calov says:

        I just was listening to Elon Musk talking about a.i. If a.i. is as close as he seems to think it is, and it is somehow being programmed by people interacting with google and social media, it seems like it won’t matter much whether we have a technology that promotes privacy or a prophecy, will it?

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Moldbug’s alt right. His channels are open to lolbergs like Hans Hoppy but his own preference is for whatever works to restore order and put a stop to rampant crime in society.
      NRx existed pre-alt.right and was never a stable framework. People who continued to call themselves neo-reactionaries either drifted into mainstream ‘clean your room Bucko’ types like Hestia or else remained libertarians at heart like ‘freedom in an unfree world’.

      For most people this wasn’t satisfactory. As capitalism showed itself more and more to be siding enthusiastically with our worst enemies, some people simply ditched it. There comes a point when you just put your own people first without deference to any particular abstract theory.

      Moldbug openly stated later on in his blog that he was a Carlylean in the way a Marxist is a Marxist. People frequently misunderstand his having said “where Carlyle’s wrong, Mises explains why” – which is true!
      It doesn’t mean where Carlyle’s not parroting Mises Institute libertarian talking points, defer to the libertarians! Quite the contrary. It just means Austrian praxeology is correct and logical positivism is incorrect, so when Carlyle draws on non-Austrian explanations, there exist better Austrian explanations for the same phenomenon, with the same policy recommendation.

      As time went on, Moldbug became increasingly hostile to the principle of laissez-faire applied to labour, housing, education and so on: just like Carlyle!

      It’s just a shame Moldbug wasn’t more explicit, because what tends to happen is most people read about the stock-market-based neo-cameralist model, the Patchwork ‘many competing states’ model and so on, and leave it at that: libertarianism with sovereignty.

      But that’s not it at all. As time went by, Moldbug came to realise that more and more of the features of the modern world we take for granted were in fact Whig innovations, and whilst the old Tories no longer exist on Earth. the Tories were always right and the Whigs were always wrong.

      Urbit’s just another pointless peer-to-peer protocol. What’s true of the money supply is true of computing: put the right person in charge and we need neither cryptography nor a gold standard.

      • jim says:

        > Roberto I’m not here any more, I’m sick to the back teeth of having to repeat everything a million times

        You are repeating the same non argument a million times, despite the fact that you refuse to present evidence for your claims, and your claims run contrary to common sense and casual observation. You should present evidence and argument, rather repetitious assertion.

        Fathers matter, families matter, socialism fails, and the scientific method as practiced from 1660 to 1944 works. Reactionaries are not socialists. “Restoration” implies “Modeled on Charles the Second”, who instituted the Royal Society and modern corporate capitalism. If you want to do away with the family, do away with the scientific method, and do away with modern corporate capitalism, not a reactionary.

        You have told us that fathers have zero influence, and in response to real world evidence that they have major influence, straw manned us as saying that fathers are infinitely powerful. You denounce demands that you adhere to the scientific method as intellectually dishonest, intolerant of disagreement, and academically disgraceful, and tell us that true reactionaries support socialism, a socialism strikingly similar to that currently practiced in Venezuela.

        You deploy postmodernist methods of argument and Marxist dialectics, and insist that we go along with this. When we find such reasoning unpersuasive, you respond with repetition and insults. If we are unpersuaded by postmodernism and Marxist dialectics, we supposedly must be stupid and anti intellectual.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          More straw man nonsense.

          Jim wrote:

          “Fathers matter, families matter”

          Who said they didn’t? What I’ve said more times than I care to count is that identical twins raised together as just as different (in other words no more similar) as identical twins raised apart. This means we controlled for genes so any differences are not genetic. Since we also controlled for the shared parental environment, any differences in the separated twins cannot be due to parenting. Since the differences for the ones raised together are no smaller than for the ones raised apart, the SIZE of the effect of parenting in the ones raised *together* is extremely negligible.

          This is true for any adult outcome or personality trait you care to choose.

          These experiments have been robustly replicated in line with the Royal Society’s principles. I’ve always agreed with you that under conditions of peer review, modern science suffers from a replication problem.
          The twin studies literature is not an example of this very real phenomenon.

          “socialism fails”

          So does capitalism. I’ve not once advocated envy/redistribution socialism with equality as its goal. The only ‘socialism’ advocated has been to close the doors of misbehaving subversive corporations and prevent people from betraying their nation.
          This is literally the definition of a straw man argument: very easy to knock down the straw man of leftist socialism. It’s utter garbage from start to finish and the only people who believe in it are evil and self-deluded.

          ““Restoration” implies “Modeled on Charles the Second”, who instituted the Royal Society and modern corporate capitalism.”

          Carlyle would not have agreed with this. He identified, correctly, the fact that when capitalism’s applied to human beings, the result is calls for greater inclusive democracy and social programmes. Worse, it also swiftly becomes necessary to train the new electors, which means state education.
          Everywhere capitalism has been tried, the result has been the welfare state and mass franchise democracy, leading to redistribution and ‘gibs’.

          “If you want to do away with the family”

          Another literal straw man argument. I dread to think how many times I’ve typed “we want the traditional family because it’s good for fathers and good for society, not ‘for the children'”

          and

          “we should not pin our social policies to empirical social science theories because strategically if the theory’s found to be false, our policies seem unjustified when in fact they’re highly justified – just not on those grounds”.

          “do away with modern corporate capitalism”

          You are straw manning once again but I see your straw man and embrace it. Should the ownership of stocks be banned? Probably yes. In the age of globalism, massive leverage, algorithmic trading and politically motivated billionaires, it’s not safe to assume that treating capital allocation as a self-correcting mechanism will produce healthy results.
          It’s hard to say, today, what the difference really is between “modern corporate capitalism” and “globohomo gayplex”.

          As Mike Enoch observed recently, Nike doesn’t care if white people boycott their product on the back of the Caperneck scandal or whatever his name is: you’re not our target demographic goyim.

          “You have told us that fathers have zero influence, and in response to real world evidence that they have major influence, straw manned us as saying that fathers are infinitely powerful.”

          I’m yet to see any evidence whatsoever, just assertions that it must be so.
          As for ‘infinitely powerful’, that does seem to be the implication: remove the father from the home and adult outcomes suffer.
          This isn’t in fact true, so if the only reason we want the traditional family is that losing the traditional family will produce adverse outcomes in children, we’re wrong and we should lose.
          This is not the reason we should want the traditional family. We should want it because it’s better for MEN, and what’s better for men is better for society. We want stability because it produces the high trust society in which it’s safe to depend on certain certainties which otherwise evaporate into a mass of mistrust and selfish short-termism.

          Now, an important caveat: a society in which the traditional family has been destroyed DOES produce adverse adult outcomes in children, but not because there are no fathers or father-figures for them to model themselves on. No, children’s outcomes are worse because they’re surrounded by chaos amongst their peers, they live in a low trust society in which adults aren’t to be trusted, and they quickly receive the social signal that they should grab what they can while they can because tomorrow someone might take it off them.

          “a socialism strikingly similar to that currently practiced in Venezuela.”

          Venezuela outlawed air travel, private swimming pools, usury and junk food?
          Where do I sign up?

          I knew the Luggenpresse was smearing Venezuela but I didn’t realise they were exaggerating that much!

          • peppermint says:

            …so yeah, outlaw private property, agaib. Why? Because it gives you a career path.

            Obviously there should be as many multunational corporations as there are multinational people. But instead of addressing the actual problem, you reach for creating yourself a career path telling other people what to do with their stuff meaning it isn’t really their stuff.

            If you were made dish washer at a restaurant, you would try to find the most expensive type of soap and refuse to keep the plates warm and dry.

          • jim says:

            > identical twins raised together as just as different (in other words no more similar) as identical twins raised apart. This means we controlled for genes so any differences are not genetic. Since we also controlled for the shared parental environment, any differences in the separated twins cannot be due to parenting. Since the differences for the ones raised together are no smaller than for the ones raised apart, the SIZE of the effect of parenting in the ones raised *together* is extremely negligible.

            Allowing this, because you are making an argument.

            But your claimed data is false, for it did not measure socioeconomic success and marital status of twins raised apart, among many other salient characteristics. Did not measure civilizational characteristics, did not measure the characteristics most strongly affected by paternal influence. Measured stuff like IQ. Yes, adult IQ is unaffected by child raising within the normal range. Is anyone sane surprised by this?

            And if your claimed data did measure those things, which it did not, still would not be valid to conclude what you conclude, since it is likely that children adopted away from their fathers would be less successful than those remaining with their fathers, even if differences between adoptive families are insignificant, differences between adoptive and natural families are obviously enormous, and differences between intact families and broken families even bigger. It is uninformative to measure adopted twins raised apart, if in the great majority of cases both twins are adopted into comparably functional families.

            If both twins adopted into functional families, the data fails to tell us whether family function matters.

            And unless you respond to these points: That your data does not say what you claim it says, and that if it did say what you claim it says, could not conclude what you conclude, disallowing all further reiterations on the “identical twins raised apart” theme.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              > > “your claimed data is false, for it did not measure socioeconomic success and marital status of twins raised apart”

              > As a matter of fact, it did.

              Citation? Give me the actual numbers.

              The relevant data is the correlation between in socioeconomic status between adoptive siblings, controlled for socioeconomic status of adoptive parents – that the twin with successful adoptive siblings tends to be substantially more successful than the twin with unsuccessful adoptive siblings. Correlation with adoptive siblings directly measures the impact of variation in family quality.

              Since adoptive families are quality controlled, this range of family quality is going to be typically smaller than the difference between biological and adoptive, and the difference between intact and broken.

          • jim says:

            > Venezuela outlawed air travel, private swimming pools, usury and junk food?
            Where do I sign up?

            Air travel is allowed, but junk food and usury is suppressed. Not sure about private swimming pools.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              The suppression of usury would, ceteris paribus, be a force for societal health, given that the option to take on ‘a little bit of pay monthly’ would be off the table.

              The Austro-libertarian take on interest as the price of time sometimes makes sense in already very high trust, low time preference societies such as the America of the 1940s. Most of the time it doesn’t work.

              The idea the libertarians have is that the presence of usury is appealing for savers so that they can put something aside for the long-term future and even see it grow. Indeed the presence of interest on savings ought to, ceteris paribus, induce more people to save and for longer periods.

              In practice what happens is that things which were not previously affordable become affordable on hire purchase or outright credit. This tends to intensify time preference, and the effect is cumulative because those who fail to increase their consumption fail to compete on the status-bearing benefits of consumer behaviours.

              Most people do in fact end up taking the foreign holiday, buying the wide-screen TV and dining at the stupidly overpriced junk restaurants even though they don’t always enjoy the holiday, they barely use the television and they bemoan how fat and lethargic the poison makes them feel.

              They do it because they’re social animals.

              Capitalism is poz.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              See the truth is, individualism is false. We all depend on one another.

              When one corporation takes on debt measuring 30% of its tangible assets, if a competing one stays true to sound practice and keeps debt to near zero, it operates at a competitive disadvantage.

              Same with investors: if you’re not leveraging then you require much grander accuracy in your speculative predictions than someone who is leveraging heavily.

              And so on…….. we’re all affected by the decisions of every actor in a given situation. As a wise man said this week, one cannot simply opt out of the sexual revolution: we’re all living in it whether we like it or not.

            • pdimov says:

              >and the effect is cumulative because those who fail to increase their consumption fail to compete

              Right. The problem with banning usury, however, is that your society will then fail to compete economically with those that haven’t.

              So the trick is to somehow strike the Goldilocks balance. Which I think nobody’s figured out yet.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Well if you detach from the global market, it’s possible, but you will need certain types of resource from overseas. Some sort of ‘bloc’ sounds in order – Juche with European characteristics, so to speak.

              • peppermint says:

                …thus making the argument that usury is good.

                Usury isn’t interest, it’s unsecured credit that can’t be discharged by bankruptcy.

                The canonical example of usury is student loans.

                Interest and limited liabilty make your nation strong.

                Usury makes your nation into, well, us.

      • jim says:

        > For most people this wasn’t satisfactory. As capitalism showed itself more and more to be siding enthusiastically with our worst enemies, some people simply ditched it. There comes a point when you just put your own people first without deference to any particular abstract theory.

        Argument from fake consensus: “Everyone is going along with what I claim reaction to be. So you guys should come along also.”

        No they are not. No one is going along with your version of reaction, not even you, because you have not let go of Cultural Marxism.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Would you care to give one example of my Cultural Marxism?

          The only thing I can assume is you mean my refusal to grant *equality* to all created men, which is sort of what I’ve been saying all along: you and your followers stand basically for the American Revolution: all men created equal so if someone’s doing the wrong thing, that’s all on them and if someone falls behind, he should pull himself up by his bootstraps.

          You realise of course that this was a revolutionary Whig ideology.

          • jim says:

            > Would you care to give one example of my Cultural Marxism?

            Examples of Cultural Marxism:

            You use the word “parental” in contexts where the word “paternal” would be more appropriate.

            Your are triggered by “class treason”.

            You argue dialectically rather than using reason and evidence.

            Postmodernism:

            You use manipulative rather than logical methods of argument, arguing from false consensus and false authority, and arguing from evidence that stands beside your conclusion, rather than behind it. Thus, for example, you assume Moldbug and Carlyle are our prophets, and creatively and implausibly interpret them to have your desired positions, rather than presenting rational arguments for your positions. You make Moldbug a commie as you make Jesus a commie and Mohammed a feminist. Creative interpretation of the prophets is the old Marxist dialectics, fake consensus is the postmodern dialectic.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “You use the word “parental” in contexts where the word “paternal” would be more appropriate.”

              Depends how you want to define ‘appropriate’ (which is also a liberal Word). If I’m talking about how neither father nor mother affects outcomes in children, I’m going to use “parental” rather than “paternal” – bite me.

              “Your are triggered by “class treason”.”

              You know that’s not true. You claimed it once before and I clarified that I was talking about race treason, not class treason, and you replied to that reply. It’s simply not possible that you misunderstood: you just seem to have decided early on that playing the ‘leftist’ card is your best mode of attack when reason fails.
              Very Alinskyan if I may say so.

              “You argue dialectically rather than using reason and evidence.”

              If I repost my evidence again you’ll just delete the comment. Many of my arguments are deductive and Misesian. The empirical ones always come with caveats because at heart I’m an a priori kind of guy.
              I’m not entirely sure what you precisely mean by ‘argue dialectically’. I’d certainly argue that life IS a dialectic, which doesn’t make me a Cultural Marxist, just a Hegelian. I’m also guilty of Platonism. If this forum is Aristotelian and Kantian then yes indeed we’re at opposite poles. They don’t line up very well with left and right however.

              “You use manipulative rather than logical methods of argument, arguing from false consensus and false authority, and arguing from evidence that stands beside your conclusion, rather than behind it. ”

              Says the person who obviously deliberately misrepresents.
              I’ve not once relied on consensus, false or otherwise. What I said was that JRH’s experimental results have been replicated. It would be a bit of a stretch to conflate replication and science by consensus. In fact it’d defeat one of the more valuable insights you’ve produced over the years: that peer review IS science by consensus when not accompanied by rigorous replication.

              The last part of this comment is justified however. FINALLY someone understands that when I say parenting contributes nothing to adult outcomes in children, I’m not using that to argue against the traditional family (which would indeed be logical IF social policy were driven by dev.psych!) – on the contrary I’m arguing that we should NOT base our social policy on dev.psych!

              “you assume Moldbug and Carlyle are our prophets, and creatively and implausibly interpret them to have your desired positions, rather than presenting rational arguments for your positions”

              I’m surprised that Moldbug’s not held in high regard round these parts, but it doesn’t dismay me too much: the right is a broad church after all.
              You want a rational argument for Carlyle’s philosophy? Sure, I’ll give you a soundbite that over-simplifies:

              The Whig revolution that began with the progressive liberalisation of the economy led inexorably to the growth of mass franchise democracy and ultimately the gibs train because at its core laissez-faire applied to human labour (and indeed to housing) is inhumane. The entire project of the ‘labour market’ was a power grab by the bourgeoisie against the establishment of the day, which was the aristocracy. Responsibility for the welfare of the peasantry used to be a matter of noblesse oblige but under the ‘labour market’ no such responsibility exists: you sell me your time, I pay you for it, and if it’s no longer economical for me to buy, nobody has the right to force me to.
              Sounds great, if all men were created equal: just a matter of keeping your skills up to date – your steel works job got out-sourced to the third world? Tough luck buddy, better learn some Fortran!!!!!! (You’ll get that joke, others won’t – for their benefit, the victim of steel out-sourcing got screwed three times: they retrained in ‘I.T.’ when it was fashionable, then those jobs were out-sourced to India, so they took the remaining service sector jobs at bare subsistence pay: and third worlders were IN-sourced to displace them!)

              The first thing people will want when they’re starving from insecure employment is a seat at the table. The bosses, remember, argued that all men were equal hence no aristocratic ‘privilege’ (familiar demon-word? OHHHH YESSSSS) so it follows that when workers need laws to be passed, they’re going to demand their equal share…. and so they do, every time.

              And what do they do with that voice in Parliament? They arrange for the restoration (yes!!!) of their former security, but because history marches on, the option of simply restoring the Stuarts is little more than a rhetorical gesture: in practice the only way to bring back security in the context of a free market in labour is gibs of various kinds, and once gibs become a feature of the social environment, they lead to ever more gibs, and votes end up being bought by the willingness of political figures to promise (and sometimes deliver) the best gibs.

              The full spectrum cancer of modernity has its roots in Whig philosophy, and the reactionary alternative is not Whiggery 1.0: it’s Toryism.

              “You make Moldbug a commie”

              No, I make Moldbug a libertarian who moved further and further towards authoritarianism until he realised he was going to alienate his audience and put himself at risk in his career and personal life. He wisely buttoned his lip before being seen to go full fash. I would have done the same.

              • The Cominator says:

                Moldbug was NEVER even a little against capitalism. Not at all. He basically agreed with Mises and Rothbard on economics, just not on politics as we do. You are either dishonest or delusional claiming that Curtis Yarvin believes in any kind of socialist economics.

                https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1500096692647.jpg

                We are on the upper right and you are on the upper left, you do not understand economics.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “Moldbug was NEVER even a little against capitalism. Not at all. He basically agreed with Mises and Rothbard on economics, just not on politics as we do.”

                  I suggest you go back and re-read.

                  I’m not a Moldbuggomite but I agree with him when it comes to Mises. (Rothbard’s just an opportunist like Walter Block and Tom Woods. I don’t agree with Moldbug at all on the Rothbard charlatan. Mises however is right.)

                  Mises rejected logical positivism in all its forms and insisted that economics, as well as the potentially much wider discipline of praxeology, NEVER detach itself from human action.

                  (That rules out IQ tests by the way, but that’s a whole other discussion.)

                  There can be no ‘statistical transformations’ when it comes to humanity and there can be no ‘substitution’ of like-for-like when it comes to humanity.

                  I agree with Mises one hundred percent.

                  Libertarians claim that their classical ultra-liberal philosophy is implied directly by Austrian economics. That’s simply false.

                  Now what Moldbug said varies over the course of his output. In the early days he was a libertarian, and that includes “How Dawkins Got Pwned” and “Patchwork”.
                  Later on however he declared himself a Carlylean fundamentalist and pointed out that Carlyle had “no time for laissez-faire”.

                  As is typical with Moldbug, this is an ironic under-statement.

                  Either way, it doesn’t matter. I’m not pinning my philosophy to Curtis Yarvin and neither are you, so so what?

                  You believe libertarianism follows from Misesian economics, yet you reject parts of it because……. not sure.

                  I reject the entire idea. Libertarianism follows from the fundamental equality of Man: no Man has the right to violate the eternal natural rights of another, no matter how noble or healthful the goal or the outcome. The rights of the individual are universal and eternal.

                  That’s just nonsense.

                • jim says:

                  Classic leftism. Supposedly Mohammed was a leftist Jesus was a leftist, and now Moldbug and even Carlyle are supposedly leftists.

                  No way.

                  If it was true, it would not be persuasive. We are not cultists. We follow Moldbug on evidence and argument. But it is not true.

                • Roberto says:

                  To play the Devil’s Advocate here, Moldbug’s suggestions in his “A Letter to France” do resemble, somewhat, the political attitude of CR.

                  “All foreigners, including diplomats, are either deported or interned. Frenchmen stranded abroad, including diplomats, are either repatriated or expatriated. These measures will not be reversed until France is once again a nation, not a province of Globomerica…

                  “All French securities held outside France are cancelled. All external trade is settled in gold at a single entry point. No manufactured goods are imported. All Internet links are cut. Only the New State routes packets outside France, only to Washington, and for only three purposes: offering French products for sale; purchasing strategic minerals; and negotiating real planetary issues such as ocean rights, atmospheric contamination, migratory bird protection and asteroid defense…

                  “[A]ll philanthropic institutions, NGOs, foundations, etc, are transferred to the State for liquidation. Moreover, the ultimate power source of these pernicious institutions, the 20th-century financial oligarchy, cannot be allowed to survive.

                  “Many wealthy Frenchmen came by their money honestly, even under the corrupt rule of traitors. Many did not. Without inquiring into the affairs of the past, the personal wealth of the rich must be declared and capped at the maximum needed to ensure a luxurious lifespan. Assets above the cap, deserved or not, are exchanged for titles of nobility. Thieves and traitors are relieved to escape with this small sacrifice; honest, patriotic businessmen understand the need for it…

                  “To a degree consistent with the actual supply of labor, industrial production of food and clothing is banned. Since the New State has retired the whole government, many Frenchmen will need work. The only conceivable source of labor demand is artisanal production on pre-industrial patterns; honor and fulfillment can only be found in tasks equal to the worker’s human potential. Anyone can be a mason or a carpenter; no one should have to be a 19th-century industrial robot.”

                  https://www.socialmatter.net/2015/11/14/a-letter-to-france/

                  Well, that’s not as hardcore as CR’s “ban private swimming pools and air travel & eliminate capitalism completely” proposals, but I get the sense that Moldbug thinks along not altogether dissimilar lines.

                • jim says:

                  What Moldbug proposes, is Trumpism on steroids. What Carlylean Restorationist proposes, is Hugo Chávezism on steroids.

                  What Moldbug proposes, like what Trump proposes, is far indeed from laissez faire, but also far indeed from socialism: Moldbug proposes a drastic intervention in capitalism to cut off globalism, to make capitalism local and national. The intended effect is decentralization, not centralization, many small authorities organizing production, rather than one big authority. The problem that they are primarily intended to address is centralized capitalism whose centers are subject to control by an international bureaucracy outside the nation, the “international community”. The intended effect of the proposed massive expropriations is a capitalism of smaller capitalists such that businesses within the nation are run by nationals, not the ruler running businesses for the benefit of the proletariat, but nationals running businesses for the benefit of nationals.

                  This is analogous to Trump’s trade war with Canada. If Trump whacks Canada, a whole lot of capitalists are going to get burned, but no one is likely to mistake this for socialism and the central plan. It is national capitalism, rather than a rootless cosmopolitan “international community” of regulators and regulated in each other’s pockets.

                  Trump is not transferring power from the capitalists to the presidency. He is transferring power from the “international community” to Trump.

                  NAFTA is not free trade, but an international community of regulators and regulated, which protects Canadian and Mexican economic activity against outside competition at the expense of both the American worker and the American consumer. We buy protected cars from Canada. Dumping NAFTA, leaving Canada outside the tariff barrier which it is now inside, is not a move to greater central control, but rather a move towards locating that central control where to where Trump can get at it, and to where it is going to be exercised in favor of American workers and consumers. It is not an increase in tariff barriers, but a movement of tariff barriers to the border between Canada and the US, so that Canada will be on the outside, where formerly it was on the inside.

                  Moldbug proposes decentralization away from the international community, which is what Trump is doing by blowing up NAFTA. Hugo Chavez is centralizing the Venezuelan economy. Blowing up NAFTA is not centralization, but decentralization from the international community, to nations.

                • Roberto says:

                  I would also add the following to the Devil’s case:

                  “France must be restored culturally, architecturally, and industrially. Any buildings built in France, of a Modernist, communist, Islamic or other non-French character, are to be demolished and/or replaced in a French historical style.”

                  Nothing wrong with that, but practically that means that the Ruler — and not the forces of the free market — regulates the way in which buildings are built, telling the subjects, “This you can build because it conforms to the national style, and this you cannot build because it does not.” Perhaps that’s the point CR should have made rather than focusing on junk food.

                • peppermint says:

                  The French tried to regulate their national character.

                  I don’t know how to facilitate the construction of beautiful things other than by letting everyone know exactly who is responsible for everything.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s a beautiful piece. Used to love it when Social Matter / Hestia Society were reactionary rather than conservative.

                  That hits so many nails square on the head, and they’re right of course – rolling back industrial production of clothing and to a large extent food would be better than finding ever new ways for people to keep busy.

                  Imagine the beauty of a fully restored, fully French France, with French architecture, French home-cooked cuisine instead of beef-burgers, French artisanal wine for cheap, French street cafés full of FRENCH people who love being FRENCH!

                  We won’t get to visit but we can watch their films, and instead of ‘Baisse-moi’ it’ll be glorious, graceful French high culture.

                  One can dream.

                  (Whether the author is MM or not, I honestly don’t know but most people seem to think so. Whoever it was, they have a good grasp of WHY we’re against modernity, and it’s not because it’s bad for GDP!)

                  (For the remaining capitalists, consider the Nike question: they import foreigners and then suddenly you’re no longer the target demographic so boycott away, goyim.)

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >FRENCH people who love being FRENCH

                  This betrays a deep ignorance of history, but deep and thorough historical ignorance is a weak point of most reactionaries (ironically enough!). French nation, or any other nation for that matter, is Liberal project par excellence. The principle of nationality stands in direct contradiction to the principle of princely legitimacy, and historically, the nation states were born of liberal revolutions. Pre-revolutionary Europe was choke full of now-dead customs, languages, dialects and architectural styles, and even in the most centralized of European states, the French Monarchy, only 11 percent of population were pure French speakers, and 50 percent of population didn’t know any French at all (and this percentages are the optimistic assessment).

                • jim says:

                  Trump, and Moldbug, seek to move from the globo homo international community, to the community of nations. Making France French was centralization to Paris, would today be decentralization away from the globohomo international community. Much as Trump blowing up NAFTA is decentralization, not centralization.

                • Roberto says:

                  Jim, your recent comments suggest to me that perhaps Trump really does listen to Thiel, and that perhaps Thiel really does listen to Moldbug. Hmm.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Michael I hate to side with a detractor when it’d be so easy to embrace reactionary nationalism, but in actual fact you’re absolutely correct.

                  Nationalism was largely a 19th century phenomenon arising from the democratic sense of entitlement to self-rule.

                  Where you’re going wrong though is in assuming that reactionaries just want to turn the clock back to how things were.
                  We don’t: there are things in the past we want back because they were important, and we recognise that part of restoring those things involves reversing some of the ‘achievements’ of progressivism.

                  We’re absolutely not wedded to throwing everything out that’s currently in the bath. Jim for example loves the shared stock company and the right of the individual to consume his spare resources in any way he sees fit.
                  I disagree with that but it’s a perfectly respectable attitude and one that many reactionaries share. In point of fact it’s one that even a lot of alt-right people share, the obvious example being Christopher Cantwell.

                  I do want to throw that particular baby out with the filthy bathwater it’s created, but I *don’t* want to throw out nationalism: any future healthy restoration will be starting from a point of discohesion, and nationalism is an excellent vehicle for mending that wound. There’s a lot of work to be done before we can have solidarity between the social classes thanks to the liberal project and it’s not going to be easy to remove the ‘equality’ meme from people’s heads. One pretty promising method is nationalism.

                  For me, this is largely an ethnic nationalism. When I listen to Kodaly’s “Psalmus Hungaricus” I passionately wish there was something analogous for the English. English nationalist music tends to be far too pastoral and is often quite camply faux-militaristic, while Hungarian nationalist music often makes you want to stand up and raise your chin.

                  There is though a perfectly sound case for a somewhat strong version of civic nationalism, so long as it involves fully closed borders.

                  Why the obsession with immigration if we’re to do away with the liberal project including the welfare state? What’s so bad about a libertarian order with open borders? My next door neighbour often says the only problem with immigration is that they’re a drain on the NHS and they claim the dole. (I’m kidding, Thomas Sowell isn’t really my neighbour, but I’d like him to be…. no I’m kidding, I wouldn’t.)

                  Because we need to restore solidarity. We can’t have the old nation-state model while people hate each other and envy others’ possessions and achievements. We need something concrete to cement the bond between members of the community: a bond that transcends mere economic class.

                  Race is a fantastic candidate for that. Language is a milder but potentially worthwhile candidate too.

                  Whatever you might think about all of that (and you’re perfectly legitimate in feeling snobbery towards the liberal sentiment of a Jean Paul or a Thomas (Irish) Moore), you must admit there’s a problem that needs a solution.

                  America is notoriously divided right now and whilst race is a large part of that, it’s certainly not the whole story.

                  There are white cis-male hetero liberals that make me think extremely unwelcome thoughts, don’t know about you!

              • jim says:

                > > “You use the word “parental” in contexts where the word “paternal” would be more appropriate.”

                > Depends how you want to define ‘appropriate’ (which is also a liberal Word). If I’m talking about how neither father nor mother affects outcomes in children, I’m going to use “parental” rather than “paternal” – bite me.

                Your argument that fathers do not influence children presupposes, in part, that the roles of mother and father are interchangeable – among the many other lunatic left things it presupposes.

                > > “You are are triggered by “class treason”.”

                > You know that’s not true. You claimed it once before and I clarified that I was talking about race treason.

                Your explanation was not believable. You were caught dropping your mask. What triggered you was not capable of being plausibly interpreted as race treason.

                > You want a rational argument for Carlyle’s philosophy? Sure, I’ll give you a soundbite that over-simplifies:

                > The Whig revolution that began with the progressive liberalisation of the economy led inexorably to the growth of mass franchise democracy and ultimately the gibs train because at its core laissez-faire applied to human labour (and indeed to housing) is inhumane. The entire project of the ‘labour market’ was a power grab by the bourgeoisie against the establishment of the day, which was the aristocracy. Responsibility for the welfare of the peasantry used to be a matter of noblesse oblige but under the ‘labour market’ no such responsibility exists: you sell me your time, I pay you for it, and if it’s no longer economical for me to buy, nobody has the right to force me to.

                > Sounds great, if all men were created equal: just a matter of keeping your skills up to date – your steel works job got out-sourced to the third world? Tough luck buddy, better learn some Fortran!!!!!!

                An accurate analysis of Carlyle,

                but your conclusion is “Therefore socialism”

                while Carlyle’s conclusion was “Therefore serfdom and slavery”. These are opposite conclusions.

                Carlyle concludes that as in a marriage, the conflict of interest should be resolved by forcing them to stick with each other, lots of little piles with restricted movement between piles, while you want to put everyone in one big pile. It is the difference between solving the battle of the sexes by seriously enforcing marriage, and solving the battle of the sexes by abolishing marriage and replacing it with child support.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted.

                  I told him he could not keep endlessly repeating this claim without evidence or explanation*]

                • jim says:

                  If you want to keep making this argument, produce the actual data on socioeconomic status and marriage rates of twins raised apart and demonstrate that it supports your conclusions.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There were two occasions when I cried during my conversion from ancap libertarianism to neo-reaction.

                  The first was “Chartism” and the horse analogy. I still feel hugely repentant for my part in pushing the ideology that treats human beings worse than horses.

                  The second was “A South-Side View”. I wept with Adams. Our narcissistic assumptions led to the destruction of blacks in America and, even more perversely, in Europe.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  This is what the onset of a genuine reaction feels like.

                  You’ve all felt it previously and you’ll feel it again in the future.
                  Yes I’m arguing from ‘feelz’, absolutely.

                  When Nike gives you the middle finger and doesn’t care if you boycott them, you should feel a visceral thrill of hatred. Maybe you do, maybe you don’t. Maybe it’ll take a different trigger for you: we’re all individuals, right? lolz

                  Anyway may as well get censored for spam rather than science, so here’s a nice recent upload of Francis Poulenc (gay, bougie, modernist, then BOOM: CATHOLIC) ‘s reactionary moment: Litanies to the black virgin of Rocamadour

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDwE0KcyM40

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Edit: actually meant to link THIS live version, which is more effective rhetorically to illustrate the point

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vilNKJait70

                  Are their parents all singers? lol It’s likely some of them are because of the genes, and having music at home is no worse than having music at school or wherever, so it’s quite possible.
                  More importantly they’re French, yes even those ones.

                • peppermint says:

                  “I cried, and this is what it feels like to be a faggot”, said CR, “and my faggotry is the salvation of your people”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint:

                  ““I cried, and this is what it feels like to be a faggot”, said CR, “and my faggotry is the salvation of your people””

                  You feel no emotion around the subject of other people’s welfare because you’re a libertarian who only cares that the King doesn’t get to fart about telling the real innovators what to do when it’s none of his goddamn business.

                • peppermint says:

                  Haha, I’m always drunken angryposting, but you call me emptionless because you call me an autistic libertarian because you want to propose socialism as a solution to a problem way down on the list of problems we have headed by MY FRIENDS ARE HOMELESS because evil communists like YOU.

                  Multi-generational housing isn’t a solution for a GUY WITHOUT PARENTS you FAGGOT.

                  Kys queer.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                This betrays a deep ignorance of history, but deep and thorough historical ignorance is a weak point of most reactionaries (ironically enough!). French nation, or any other nation for that matter, is Liberal project par excellence.

                Nations need to have enough economies of scale to – at minimum – support a nuclear weapons industry to be sovereign.

                Preferably they can also support cultural institutions such as producing television programs and movies to avoid American “soft power”.

                Military technology permitted smaller sovereigns in the past.

                • X says:

                  Nations need to have enough economies of scale to – at minimum – support a nuclear weapons industry to be sovereign.

                  9/11 is our clear proof that nations aren’t sovereign.

                  Only the blockchain is sovereign.

  18. peppermint says:

    Is there any way we can describe people like CR so that less incompetent sinister people won’t be able to trick future kings into violating freehold, or is the best we can do to say the pious king can’t be convinced to do leftism, and tolerate the presence of incompetent leftoids so we can understand at least at a visceral level what the competent ones are like?

    • Doug Smythe says:

      As a start- beware of self-described “Fascists”, who offer a more manly-sounding brand of the same old Progressive product. Whatever the brand name, the generic name should be “authoritarian Progressivism” or something to that effect.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Deletions are a healthy move. The passive-aggressive policy of leaving a note saying “deleted for reason X” is less so, but not my blog.

      Enjoy the totally not libertarian echo-chamber.

      • Roberto says:

        There are a few currents within NRx.

        The consensus is that, just the 1930s’ Nazism was mutated Lutheranism (with some WASP characteristics), the 2010s’ Progressivism is mutated Puritanism (with some Jewish characteristics); and that for there to be a Restoration, there must be a new State Religion — “altar” — as well as a legitimist, i.e. monarchic or aristocratic or feudal or authoritarian, form of governance: “throne.”

        Beyond that consensus, Neo-Reactionaries generally advocate Ethnonationalism and Patriarchy.

        If you’re aligned with this worldview, you’re aligned with NRx. If not, you’re not.

        There is quite a disagreement between the Jim-Land techno-commercial faction, which favors liberty in accordance with freehold (you can use as you please those things under your control and authority) versus the Neo-Absolutist faction, which holds that — as the blogger “Reactionary Future” put it — “Liberalism [aka Libertarianism] is more left-wing than Communism.” The latter faction is stridently anti-freehold, as a principle.

        If you consider Libertarianism to be *to the left* of Communism, that’s clearly not the blog for you. But — whether or not one defines them as entryists — there are people within NRx who actually hold such a position. Personally, I identify with the Jim-Land wing, but I believe that CR’s positions do echo the Neo-Absolutist (or whatever they call themselves) views which are held by some within NRx.

        Having said that, internet drama is a lot of fun, so I suggest Jim write a post denouncing the anti-freehold wing as entryist scum who don’t belong in NRx. That can trigger an interesting discussion.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          He already has.

          That’s a nice cladistic analysis.

          I’m not sure there’s much use left for ‘left and right’ to be honest. ‘Left’ basically means ‘shitty person’ when we say it, while ‘right’ basically means ‘white shitlord’ when our enemies say it.
          All three modern political philosophies are ‘left’ by the standards of George III’s time.

          The libertarian spectrum is basically bourgeois laissez-faire; the Burkean conservative species is basically America yes France no; the modern liberal spectrum, from moderate centrists to SJWs to communists of all kinds is basically the reaction against the *effects* of libertarianism.

          Anyone who doesn’t fit in those categories is either a reactionary, embracing the Toryism of 1800, or else some sort of radical nationalist.

          Me I have a lot of sympathies with 1800 Toryism but I don’t see it as practical in the modern world, as Carlyle predicted. After all, by the time the 1848 revolutions took place, there were really no authentic monarchs or aristocrats anywhere in Eurasia. The best these ‘best of men’ could do under the circumstances was what they still do today: charitable work and afternoon tea.

          We need Trump on steroids: tariffs/protectionism, deportations/protectionism and a good healthy dose of loyalty to one’s tribe.

          I see most of you as allies most of the time, but your (as in the community’s) continued allegiance to Big Capital is problematic lol

        • The Cominator says:

          I again object to the idea that National Socialism was derived from Lutheranism at all.

          EVERY high level early Nazi except Goering (and Goering was the most “rightist” and least ideological of the top Nazis) was a lapsed Catholic, every one of them (at least that I can think of). The party started out in Catholic Bavaria. It eventually did better in Protestant areas but that is because Protestant areas had no stubborn Catholic Centre Party constituency. Their best Protestant area votewise was not a Lutheran one but Calvinist East Prussia.

          Rosenberg’s drivel is not to be taken seriously because Hitler who decided really what Nazism was never took him very seriously. Nazism was a heretical version of leftism Hitler cooked up in his head but to the extent Christianity influenced him Hitler’s influence was Roman Catholic not Lutheran. Himmler was also said he was greatly influenced by the Jesuit order in shaping the SS.

          • Roberto says:

            German race-theory was heavily influenced by the pre-Boasian American race-theory: Eugenicist and Nordicist through and through. Hitler was a great admirer of Madison Grant and personally met with Lothrop Stoddard. The WASP aspect of Hitlerism is obvious.

            Regarding Lutheranism versus Catholicism, Jim’s argument (iirc) is that the Nazis, being very redpilled about the JQ and not nearly redpilled enough about the WQ, were that way because Lutheranism specifically had an obvious anti-Jewish tilt, while lacking such a tilt regarding sex-realism. They were leftist about pretty much everything except race and Jews. As Catholicism is generally more universalist, less antisemitic than Lutheranism, it makes sense that Nazism would memetically derive from the latter rather than from the former, regardless of the personal background of top Nazis.

            • The Cominator says:

              Luther towards the very end became anti-semitic but anti-semitism was stronger with Catholics then Protestants of all types.

              The Nazis were generally considered pretty anti-feminist at the time. Hitler opposed German women being even encouraged to work until the war situation got very desperate and even then (despite Goebbels and Speer urging him) never made it compulsory.

              It is clear in the Table Talks that Hitler supported female sexual choice to some degree though (he said adultery was genetically good in some families that had centuries of arranged marriages for money or political reasons), I guess they were pro-feminist in that sense but not others.

              • jim says:

                Hitler was a notorious blue pilled pedestalist, and failed to return the status of women all the way to pre-weimar. He returned the status of women part way to pre-weimar.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  So far Trump hasn’t taken us to pre-Weimar. He needs to.

                  It’s a good start.

              • calov says:

                I don’t think anti-semitism as we understood it existed in early modern Europe. Luther was anti-Judaism, just like he was anti-Islam. He was that way at the beginning but thought that the Jews had been presented with a falsified Christianity by the Pope and that was why they hadn’t converted.

                His harsh rhetoric against the Jews at the end of his life had to do with their failure to convert, his realization that the synagogue liturgy involved regular blasphemy against Christ (and maybe Mary, can’t remember), and his harsh opposition to usury, which was constant throughout his life and far more pronounced than the winking at usury practiced by the catholic establishment.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its hard to sort out racial vs religion anti semitism before the 19th century.

                  Certainly as early by the time of Prince Henry the Navigator there was a view that Jews were racially different. Prince Henry the Navigator wrote he was proud that he was almost solely of Northern European blood and said that its unfortunate that Portugeese blood has been adulterated with Arabic and Jewish blood (and that above all they must guard against being adulterated with African blood). And no I don’t have a link I read it in some book years ago on the Middle Ages.

                  So racial theories may have gotten their groove in the 19th century but they were hardly unknown before that time.

                  You are correct Luther’s animus towards the Jews was mostly religious.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There was no anti-semitism in England before Oliver bloody Cromwell because there was no possibility of it.
                  We should put an end to anti-semitism again. There’s nothing wrong with Zionists so long as they’re not in your government.

                • 1. Cromwell is the favorite Puritan among most of us here. He was also Carlyle’s favorite Puritan.

                  2. Prince Henry came from England but he was Crown Prince of PORTUGAL.

                  3. Elizabeth I quietly let in some Marrano jews fleeing the Spanish Inquistion (they had to nominally not say they were not Jewish because she didn’t want to formally repeal the law the way Cromwell did but basically everyone knew they were Jews) and she even had some at court and not everyone liked that so there WAS some anti-semitism in England from the time of Elizabeth I.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You lot are so touchy, it’s ridiculous lol it really is like talking to liberals.

                  Just because someone despises the lunatic Cromwell, it doesn’t follow from that that they love the Diggers for heaven’s sake lol

                  I was making a joke about how no jews in society, no anti-semitism. Obviously the original poster’s an efftard: there’s been anti-semitism as long as there’s been jews in society, and some of it’s not been justified.

                  Elizabeth had every right to make exceptions to her own laws. The monarch is in charge, not the judges.

                  Anyway over&out, you people are a bit unhinged.

          • jim says:

            When Hitler was in a position to decide what Nazism really is he wanted to get off the holiness spiral that threatened to devour him – hence the night of the long knives. When Hitler was riding the tiger, when the holiness spiral was running, Rosenberg’s account of Nazism was accurate.

            A holiness spiral goes wherever it goes, regardless of what the leadership may wish, intend, or expect. And to stop it, you need a night of the long knives or a great terror.

            What Hitler says Nazism is did not matter until it did matter.

            • The Cominator says:

              Hitler NEVER intended (at least not before he was an insane amphetamine addict late in the war) to let the holiness spiral keep going though. Almost immediately after being appointed he said there was to be no permanent revolution.

              I’m not denying Hitler was a leftist (of a heretical variety) at all. He just never intended to let it keep going and was always fully prepared to go Night of the Long Knives to prevent it from going that way.

        • The Cominator says:

          If you oppose freehold and support socialism then yes I think you are an entryist.

          Throne Altar and Freehold should be the fundamental executive summary gospel of NRx. Required reading in the church of whatever the state religion is at least once every year.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Throne, Altar, and Freehold are to Reaction what Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity are to the Prog tradition: they comprise a single master principle that subsumes everything else, and are indissociable in this unity. Take one of the three elements away and the rest go down with it.
            There is course a lot of room for debate on exactly how the three elements are related and on how to concretely implement the relationship- but anybody who categorically rejects one of them isn’t a Reactionary and wastes his own time if he thinks of himself as one.

            • The Cominator says:

              Progressives do not actually value liberty or fraternity even at the lower ranks (at least modern ones don’t). Lower ranking progs value equality but the psychopathic status maximizers at the very top generally value only power.

              Agree on Throne Altar and Freehold.

              • calov says:

                the low ranking ones value liberty and fraternity (or whatever the gender neutral equivalent is). It’s just that equality is the overriding concern and liberty and fraternity take their cues from it. The upper level ones may actually believe in all 3, some of them. They just think that in order for equality to come about, they need to have more power than you, and you need to be stripped naked and made to pay for the sins of your ancestors for the next several centuries.

        • peppermint says:

          The problem is, as a non-automatist, automatically rejecting automatism.

          To not be ideological, but not allow CR to ban waffle fries.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Nobody wants to ban waffle fries. That’s just a silly straw man.

            We need to ban the corporations who over-charge gullible fools for fat-drenched waffle fries.
            There’s nothing wrong with home-cooked waffle fries, pizza, hot dogs or anything else.

            What’s wrong is people who can barely afford to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, feeling that they have to go and give what little they have to Franky&Benny because of peer pressure that libertarians say doesn’t have any power over them.

            I know people who’ve put expensive pizza (and by ‘expensive’ I mean the price is too high for what it is, it’s not intended as a compliment lol) on their OVERDRAFT.

            I’m pretty sure someone somewhere has taken out a Wonga loan to dine out because it’s someone’s special event and they can’t be seen to look ‘cheap’.

            Meanwhile Franky&Benny takes the profits, pushes progressivism with it, sends it overseas, cheats its staff, cheats its customers and probably cheats its suppliers for all I know.

            These are bad actors and they need to be stopped.

            I don’t give a damn what you’re eating.

            • Roberto says:

              The reason you come across as a Marxist while Moldbug doesn’t is that you keep making it about saving “gullible fools,” or those with a 90 IQ, from their own self-destructive behavior.

              It’s one thing to argue, “France needs to ban Domino’s Pizza to allow the flourishing of French culture,” and quite another thing to say “France needs to ban Domino’s Pizza because otherwise idiotic and impulsive Frenchmen overeat and suffer for it.”

              The former is a right-wing argument, though not very popular on the right. The latter is completely leftist. You’ve hijacked 10+ threads and made them about the latter, and would have continued to do so had I not played Devil’s Advocate on your behalf.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                I’m trying, quite hard, not to even be here reading this but I keep getting drawn back in.

                “saving “gullible fools,” or those with a 90 IQ, from their own self-destructive behavior.”

                A libertarian would just blame the victim, while a progressive would insist on the freedom of the restaurant chains to continue operating but impose ineffective regulations on them that appeared to virtuously do some good while in fact all they did was strengthen the power of bureaucrats.

                I was going to finish with “a reactionary would…” but I won’t do that because it’s needlessly divisive. I don’t identify as NRx any more, so what I’ll say is this:

                Some people would acknowledge that not everybody has sufficient agency to avoid these traps, as evidenced by the fact some people really are living paycheck to paycheck, at risk of financial ruin should anything bad happen to them, and simultaneously are very regularly dining at these places, and as a result, in the long run they’re dying prematurely and in the medium run they’re getting grotesquely fat.

                Having acknowledged that these people can’t and won’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and having observed that the companies profiting from this state of affairs are bad actors who hate us and everything we stand for, some people, myself included, would simply tell them to fuck off.

                • peppermint says:

                  McDonalds isn’t at fault here.

                  Usury is a problem, but you didn’t complain about usury.

                  First you complained that fatty food is eaten.

                  Then you complained that fatty food is eaten by poor people.

                  Now you implicitly complain about usury.

                  This isn’t about usury.

                  This is about your future career as a muttawa.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  If the lo-agency people are legally unfree, then it’s up to their rightful masters and lords to forbid them from squandering their allowance on junk food and so on. If the masters and lords say they can’t, their fitness for authority should be questioned before the Sovereign bans a whole industry that isn’t actually selling an inherently illegitimate product. Junk food isn’t in the same league as dope.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No basically a restored state needs to plan to not have lo-agency people.

                  Reproduction should be forbidden to those of too low IQ the way it is encouraged for high IQs.

                • Roberto says:

                  Exactly, The Cominator. The kind of utterly dysfunctional people described by CR — those who spend lots of money they don’t have on things they don’t need — should be systematically removed, if only by way of sterilization. Like Jim, I want the technological singularity, and therefore wish to see those who would hinder the advance of civilization neutralized.

                • jim says:

                  > Some people would acknowledge that not everybody has sufficient agency to avoid these traps, as evidenced by the fact some people really are living paycheck to paycheck, at risk of financial ruin should anything bad happen to them, and simultaneously are very regularly dining at these places, and as a result, in the long run they’re dying prematurely and in the medium run they’re getting grotesquely fat.

                  When I think of a grotesquely fat person, I don’t think of someone dining out at McDonalds while living paycheck to paycheck. I think of someone drinking Coke Zero in his Prius.

                  I suppose there are quite a few grotesquely fat people dining out at McDonalds while living paycheck to paycheck, but I don’t know them, I don’t notice them, I don’t care what happens to them, I am entirely confident that their problem is gluttony and sloth, not capitalism, and fixing their problem is for them and God, not for the state, nor for society, nor for me.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes it should be done via sterilization.

                  I’d rather not resort to mass murder (except with militant leftists who are a threat) people who die at the hands of the state should have done something to deserve it or be a real threat it shouldn’t happen just because of your IQ or your race etc (that kind of mass murder is leftist in nature) but at the same time certain types of people should be made not to exist in the future.

                • peppermint says:

                  Ways to get fat
                  * eat when not hungry
                  * eat carbs when hungry, instead of fats and protein, leaving self still hungry
                  * not get enough sleep

                  Ways CR expects to get fat:
                  * Be poor. Eat a lot of McDs fats and protein (I know he doesn’t know the first thing about not being well off or he would have mentioned high carb burritoes from 7-11, not Taco Bell, but Chipotle, which sells garbage at ridiculous prices to people like CR who hate themselves (will CR countersignal them next or miss the opportunity?)

                • jim says:

                  Social Justice Warriors always project. The morbidly obese man living from paycheck to paycheck does not eat at Chipotle. The morbidly obese man drinking Coke Zero in his prius eats at Chipotle.

                  “To vegetables grown in healthy soil, and pork
                  from pigs allowed to freely root and roam outdoors or in deeply bedded barns.”

                  That is the Coke Zero in a Prius demographic, not the paycheck to paycheck demographic.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m used to it.

                  You don’t like Hillary? You’re a neckbeard living in a basement jerking off to anime.

                  You don’t like Franky&Benny? You’re a fat soyboy who drives a Lexus.

                  Basically what you’re saying is “lalala problem doesn’t exist”.

                  Well I’m telling you it does. I know many working class people who will never be able to buy a home, and because they’ll never buy a home, they’ll never have a family. These are responsible people, people who get up at crazy hours and go to work where they do their best to do what’s required of them.

                  A liberal will mock them as Deplorables: what kind of moron wipes bottoms or sells people bars of chocolate at a service station at 4am? Losers! Loser-ville!

                  But I didn’t expect reactionaries to side with the liberals.

                  You live and learn.

                • jim says:

                  > Well I’m telling you it does. I know many working class people who will never be able to buy a home, and because they’ll never buy a home, they’ll never have a family. These are responsible people,

                  You are telling me about first world poverty, and proposing that capitalism is at fault, and socialism is the solution.

                  Like socialism has been wonderfully successful at curing poverty </sarcasm>

                  If you were familiar with reactionary thought, you would know what causes first world poverty, and what our solution is.

                  Though on doing a search, seems inadequately publicized, so I will do a post on this so that the concept of first world poverty goes into the canon. That way the next entryist can avoid revealing his unfamiliarity with reaction.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I roll my eyes when I hear about them going to Bella Italia on their overdraft. I lose a little bit of respect for them too.

                  How easy it’d be to just blame them, and let Bella Italia and the Restaurant Group off the hook.

                  But a reactionary has higher values than the merely economic, and if you want to dismiss me from the reactionary club, fine: SOME PEOPLE have higher values than the merely economic.

                  I’m prepared, and so should you be but you’re not, to entertain the possibility that they’re clinging to what’s left of their dignity.
                  People who thought they stood a chance, people who tried, people who bettered themselves, only to find everything either out-sourced or in-sourced.

                  So they dine out, cargo culting bourgeois respectability, and if it ruins them financially, well that’s life: they HAVE to signal – to themselves first and foremost – that they’ve ‘made it’.

                  I roll my eyes, but I should neither dismiss nor condemn, because look at who benefits: always CUI BONO.

                  These corporations are all about the Rainbow Flag, yet you’re defending them. These corporations are having their employees’ wages topped up by the tax-payer. These corporations hire under-25s because the pension contributions are lower, then they find reasons to let them go when they grow up. The illusion presumably is that they’ll have moved on to better jobs: actually most likely to worse jobs.

                  These corporations are FOREIGN.

                  I see no reason to ‘think’ about it any further: I’ve heard enough.

                  People are being ruined, and people who show great agency at work are showing none in their private lives. Why?

                  Well if you were N.E.V.E.R going to afford a home, wouldn’t YOU spend every penny you got and fall back on the ‘safety net’ for emergencies?
                  I can’t say with absolute certainty that I wouldn’t.

                  I’ve mentioned this theory before, but ‘prosperity’ is a slippery eel: if nobody can afford a home, won’t this be bad for GDP? NO!!!!!! It’s GOOD FOR GDP!
                  They might not have $1500 a month for rent or $60000 for a deposit on a house, but that just means the $400 they DO have a month is ‘disposable’ : very good for GDP and very good for Bella Italia.

                  I HATE the capitalists at this point.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Well if you were N.E.V.E.R going to afford a home, wouldn’t YOU spend every penny you got and fall back on the ‘safety net’ for emergencies?
                  I can’t say with absolute certainty that I wouldn’t.”

                  You invest, this is the great secret of the Jews more then their IQ. This is what allowed them to get rich even back when almost every profession was denied to them.

                • info says:

                  ”Reproduction should be forbidden to those of too low IQ the way it is encouraged for high IQs.”

                  Not saving Low IQ people from their own demise is a start. No subsidies for them whatsoever.

                  Sterilization would be quite invasive though.

                • peppermint says:

                  Who the hell eats at bella italia?

                  Papa johns, pizza hut, dominos.

                • peppermint says:

                  Giving food to poor Whites isn’t a problem because humans can’t reproduce without a stable job and apartment.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > I’m prepared, and so should you be but you’re not, to entertain the possibility that they’re clinging to what’s left of their dignity.
                  People who thought they stood a chance, people who tried, people who bettered themselves, only to find everything either out-sourced or in-sourced.

                  So they dine out, cargo culting bourgeois respectability, and if it ruins them financially, well that’s life: they HAVE to signal – to themselves first and foremost – that they’ve ‘made it’.”

                  Where I live, the exact same is true for fairly upscale middle class people as well (due to a combination of extremely high real estate and consumer prices and extortionate rates of taxation). They live far beyond their means and are racking up notoriously high levels of household debt. I bet that nine times out of ten the etiology is down to an uncontrolled wife (middle-class women tend to have much more status anxiety and attending things to prove than middle-class men). Restoring patriarchy would make many of these families less prodigal.

                • peppermint says:

                  Exactly. The real working poor are totally invisible to status-seeking ghouls like CR.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > But a reactionary has higher values than the merely economic, and if you want to dismiss me from the reactionary club, fine: SOME PEOPLE have higher values than the merely economic.

                  Speaking as someone whose values go far beyond the economic (to the point of not regarding the economic as any kind of top-level priority), I find myself much more interested in protecting people of all classes from false doctrines, family disorganization/disintegration, irreligion and the corresponding decline of everything beautiful and uplifting in arts and letters, the campaign of psychological terrorism being constantly waged against them by the Cathedral esp. if middle-class and White, drugs like marijuana whose sole purpose is to induce mental disorganization, the corruption of manners and the corresponding epidemic of boorish and socially disruptive behaviour, and above all, democracy (under which the honest people end up enslaved by the worst people) than in reducing merely physical risk factors for the economic end of saving health-care costs for the State.

                • peppermint says:

                  > protecting people of all classes
                  how magnanimous of you

                  > from false doctrines,
                  no one wants to believe something false, except that they think they get something from it. An important way to achieve that is to impose false doctrines.

                  > family disorganization/disintegration
                  yes. Hopefully by enforcing marriage and then letting people sort themselves out

                  > irreligion and the corresponding decline of everything beautiful and uplifting in arts and letters,
                  hopefully this isn’t code for banning porn, so people can only see titties in holy hoax propaganda and R movies, which makes those titties seem reasonable and glamorizes the actresses who show them, and makes every perv who draws a boobie in seventh grade a dangerous hero to the children instead of a weird perv who needs to keep it to himself.

                  > the campaign of psychological terrorism being constantly waged against them by the Cathedral esp. if middle-class and White,
                  yes…

                  > drugs like marijuana whose sole purpose is to induce mental disorganization,
                  false and gay

                  > the corruption of manners
                  good luck enforcing good manners, on other people, in their interactions with each other.

                  > and the corresponding epidemic of boorish
                  so much for protecting people of all classes

                  > and socially disruptive behaviour,
                  this isn’t about manners

                  > and above all, democracy (under which the honest people end up enslaved by the worst people)
                  democracy isn’t about manners either

                  > than in reducing merely physical risk factors
                  reducing physical risk factors is the primary function of government

                  > for the economic end of saving health-care costs for the State.
                  why is the state in the business of providing heathcare to the nation and/or resident foreigners? Are people incapable of looking after their own affairs?

                • peppermint says:

                  The working poor don’t have healthcare and are afraid of going to the hospital because they will get charged unpayable amounts at usury. They talk to each other and do their googles to figure out how to stay healthy.

                  CR doesn’t even think about them, because he can’t possibly gain soft power by using them, they don’t really have any power, and he rightly assumes that once he has the middle classes in line he can tell them what to do and they’ll have to do it.

                  Cannabis is the cure for autism and helps a lot of people with a lot of stuff because it interacts with a lot of stuff. It also makes people horny and easily led, which is a problem if you believe out loud that a sex act is proper if both parties consent, but secretly hold more natural views.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  My sympathies very much lie with the Doug Smythe type of reactionary.
                  Yes of course the social problems we’re describing stem from feminism and related social ills and yes of course correcting those ills is both necessary and sufficient for curing pretty much the entire western malaise.

                  Nevertheless I see no reason at all to defend the corporations that are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of large parts of our society while the victims of that system find themselves not even able to reproduce.
                  Genocide is possibly hyperbole in connection with those corporations, but very mild hyperbole. The academics are much more to blame, but to pretend the corporations are just chasing the bottom line is just absurd. Everything they do screams that this is not so.

                  It frankly disgusts me to see people here talking about eugenic breeding programmes to kill WHITE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE and it frankly disgusts me to see people here talking like cuckservatives: pull yourselves up by your bootstraps; upskill and move to where the work is, goyim!

                  No, screw you. This is our country.

                  I’ve already agreed that family anarchy is the cause, but let me re-state Doug’s evidence, since everybody thinks anything that comes out of my mouth is self-serving progressive infiltrator lies:

                  “the exact same is true for fairly upscale middle class people as well (due to a combination of extremely high real estate and consumer prices and extortionate rates of taxation). They live far beyond their means and are racking up notoriously high levels of household debt.”

                  A libertarian would say they only have themselves to blame for living beyond their means, but what, we’re going to cull everyone with IQs up to the 78th percentile because they’re unfit to live? That’s a whole white shoah right there. There must be a word for reactionaries and libertarians who do this, and it involves the syllable ‘cuck’.

                  I’m with you Doug: it’s a family problem, *but it remains a problem* and the dismissals I’ve been getting from this community for the past month make me bloody sick to my stomach.

                • peppermint says:

                  we have established that you know and care nothing for working people, and your concern about corporations is to insert yourself as a commissar

                  my solution to corporations committing crimes to to arrest the directors, and to creating externalities, to internalize those decisions with fines, a solution which you reject, because it doesn’t make you a commissar

                  if you were in charge of a commissary you would sell overpriced “whole foods” like soy hot dogs in whole grain mac&cheese and would try to convince people to buy them on the grounds that it marks their superior discernment, and tell the to take out loans to buy your snacks because it’s an investment in themselves

                  just die already

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR “It frankly disgusts me to see people here talking about eugenic breeding programmes to kill WHITE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE”

                  I said outright I don’t want to kill anyone except leftists and that LOW IQ LOW AGENCY people should be STERILIZED (not killed).

                  You put words in my mouth and said “white working class”.

                  Your argument is that impulsive low iq people inevitably cause externalities for others and I’ll grant you that point fine. The solution is to sterilize them as both mass murder and slavery are horrible solutions.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “I said outright I don’t want to kill anyone except leftists and that LOW IQ LOW AGENCY people should be STERILIZED (not killed).”

                  Globohomo could paraphrase you’re entire shtick:

                  We said outright that we don’t want to kill anyone except Nazis, and that high privilege people over-represented in power should be prevented from reproducing (not killed).

                  “You put words in my mouth and said white working class.
                  Your argument is that impulsive low iq people inevitably cause externalities for others and I’ll grant you that point fine. The solution is to sterilize them as both mass murder and slavery are horrible solutions.”

                  What Doug and I have noticed is that it isn’t limited to people who traditionally you’d categorise as ‘the plebs’ or whatever.
                  This stuff’s happening to two groups in particular:

                  1. Workers – that’s to say people who work in shops, care homes etc. or as cleaners, filing clerks or ‘unskilled’ call centre operatives.
                  2. The lower middle class – that’s to say people in ‘professional’ jobs and the trades but who aren’t high level managers or owners.

                  But it gets worse…… it’s not just that consumer capitalism’s producing suicidal over-spending, over-indulging and short-term thinking: capitalism itself, at its very heart, is poison.

                  Consider the simplest case of micro-economics that everyone except Nazis thinks it a no-brainer – Walter Block’s “your tie, my pen” intuition pump:

                  You ask me to trade you my pen and I’ve been admiring your tie all night so I suggest we trade the two items. If you agree, and you trade me your tie for my pen, we’re both better off: there’s a dual inequality in which you’re better off or you wouldn’t have agreed to trade, and I’m better off or I wouldn’t have agreed to trade.

                  The moral of this story is generally roughly something like this:
                  This is how capitalism improves the general well-being simply by virtue of allowing individuals to pursue their own self-interest in ways that respect the natural rights of other people. It’s the best alternative to combat and conquest ever devised and if the entire world were run that way, we’d all be better off every minute of the day.

                  Well that’s just a fairy story. Sure, occasionally there will be times when trade DOES produce this mutual benefit, but in the vast majority of real world cases, it’s a zero sum game: when I gain, you lose and vice versa.

                  Consider the following antidote to Block’s intuition pump:

                  You ask if I’m willing to trade my pen and I’m super-hungry. You’ve been nibbling a delicious vegan fruit snack bar on and off all night so I ask if you have any more. You pull out a pack of eight and tell me I can have the lot for my pen. We trade, and there’s a dual inequality: I’m better off because I want the tasty food more than my pen – I’ve got another at home after all; whereas you’re fed up of the poxy rabbit food and you’ve not seen a pen like that for years – your mother used to have one and you really want it.
                  Great, we’re both better off then.

                  Yeah *in the present*, but we’re Misesians right? What about the future?

                  In the morning you’ve got a pen but I’ve got nothing because I turned the snacks into energy, which I’ve used, and poo, which I’ve placed carefully into the sewer thanks to lovely privatised sanitation at just a small cost.

                  Everyone’s still either glad they traded, or else not overly fussed, but BOOM: the news appears – it’s 2008 all over again. The niggers can’t in fact buy houses after all and those eight-year car loans have resulted in a million new cars this year that don’t have buyers. Dang, looks like we’re going to have to start selling stuff to pay the bills.

                  .
                  .
                  .
                  where’s my pen?

                  The moral of this story: saving and spending are not inclusively fungible categories. There’s a world of difference between buying a spare foot pump for your car and buying a bottle of Pepsi Max.

                • jim says:

                  The end result of this reasoning is that you confiscate the kulaks grain in order to industrialize.

                  We saw how that worked out. Or, again, Venezuela, which is de-industrializing with impressive speed.

                  Theory ultimately has to be tested by experiment. The experiment has been done thousands of times, always with similar outcomes.

                  The moral justification of capitalism, as given by Mises, Hayek, and Ayn Rand is sound, as empirically demonstrated by the grotesque and extraordinary evil of real world socialists, their extraordinary arrogance, malice, evil, and vicious cruelty. Socialists are always very bad people. They want to die and kill the world with themselves.

                  The pragmatic justification of capitalism is that given in “Throne, Altar, and Freehold”, and that given in “I pencil”: The task of central planning is unmanageablely complex, and anyone who fails to realize this is evil, crazy, or both. Socialist regimes always strangle themselves in their own red tape.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Obviously I meant “your”: typo or thinko?

                  Maybe we’re not as rational as we thought. I could just as well have just bought stocks in Debenhams on the same rational infallibility principle.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim wrote:

                  “The end result of this reasoning is that you confiscate the kulaks grain in order to industrialize.”

                  I don’t see how that privileges saving over consumption: quite the contrary in fact.

                  “We saw how that worked out. Or, again, Venezuela, which is de-industrializing with impressive speed.”

                  Indeed. So? Nobody called for that. The world isn’t a choice between unbridled consumer capitalism and envy-redistribution socialism.

                  “Theory ultimately has to be tested by experiment.”

                  Indeed, including capitalism and the results are in.

                  “The moral justification of capitalism, as given by Mises, Hayek, and Ayn Rand is sound, as empirically demonstrated by the grotesque and extraordinary evil of real world socialists, their extraordinary arrogance, malice, evil, and vicious cruelty. Socialists are always very bad people. They want to die and kill the world with themselves.”

                  This is just ‘capitalism might be rotten but it’s better than all the alternatives’. You could be Tony Blair or Elizabeth Warren and still say that.

                  “The task of central planning is unmanageablely complex”

                  Of course, and nobody recommended it. Socialism’s about bringing about equality through tinkering with the allocation of resources.
                  I’m more against that than you are. Remember activist shareholders are totally the norm now. As we saw in the leaked Google video, the winners under capitalism no longer care about petty things like money: they have higher goals such as equality diversity and democracy.

                  All I’ve ever said is that capitalism has produced lower middle class people going into debt to eat at shitty restaurants, and it’s pretty much impossible to deny that.

                  Is it all about the food? No of course not, no matter how many times you claim it. It’s much bigger: it’s about the lack of savings, the ballooning debt, the population being *all in* for government bail-outs of all kinds, big business being *bought and paid for* and government being *bought and paid for* in return.

                  It’s about the fact that the corruption doesn’t end with a name badge. It’s *as bad* for name badge holders with ‘limited’ on it to ruin the future of our people as it is for name badge holders with ‘ministry’ on it to do the same.

                  You might as well BE Tony Blair if you’re going to claim that Serco delivering state services will harness the creative power of the free market. That’s not what you think you’re doing, but it’s what you’re *actually* doing.

                  One of the first anti-capitalist red pills I ever experienced, very uncomfortably, was Yuri Maltsev praising public-private partnerships in the former eastern bloc.

                • jim says:

                  > > “The end result of this reasoning is that you confiscate the kulaks grain in order to industrialize.”

                  > I don’t see how that privileges saving over consumption: quite the contrary in fact.

                  Supposedly, the liquidation of the kulaks was forced saving, or primitive capital accumulation. You gave me one of the standard arguments for socialism, and I gave you the standard reply, from theory and experiment.

                  Of course, in practice, it turned out to be destructive consumption, not the imposition of wise saving by wise planners, turned out to be “quite the contrary in fact” – and I gave you the standard explanation why it does in fact always turn out that way.

                  Similarly the institutional apparatus that in the US is intended to give the poor free medical care in practice makes medical care expensive and unavailable for everyone.

                  > The world isn’t a choice between unbridled consumer capitalism and envy-redistribution socialism.

                  But the forced saving argument that you just gave us is not envy-redistribution socialism. It is still socialism, and still results in capital consumption, capital destruction, and often enough in mass murder.

                  You are arguing for the transfer of wealth and power to the priestly classes, of which you are obviously a member, on the basis of the supposedly superior virtue of the priestly classes. This is the opposite of the reactionary program.

                • CR having been outed as a leftist you are now trying desperately to recruit people.

                  “Doug and I” I don’t see that Doug is agreeing with you that reaction properly understood is progressive and socialist.

                  There WAS a time when progressives favored eugenics (which I favor) and they were actually right there but they didn’t make it a point of emphasis or use it properly.

                • peppermint says:

                  Look through all his posts. He’s been offering flattery from the beginning because that’s what ghouls do.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  What a pointless circlejerk this really is.
                  First you slander me as a leftist, yet again, which flies in the face of everything I’ve EVER said here.

                  “CR having been outed as a leftist you are now trying desperately to recruit people.”

                  “I don’t see that Doug is agreeing with you that reaction properly understood is progressive and socialist.”

                  Doug isn’t agreeing with me on that because I haven’t claimed it. What you’ve seen here is I’ve agreed with Doug, not the other way round. Doug’s flavour of reactionary is deeply suspicious of degenerate behaviour, regardless of what’s written on the name badge.
                  I agree with that, and there’s nothing whatsoever leftist, progressive or even socialist about it.
                  The reason you morons are convinced I’m a leftist is I defended the term ‘socialism’ in the sense that Jim was using it in his article of the same name.
                  I didn’t expect right-wingers to perform a flip on that and start using it in the everyday sense straight away afterwards, but I should have: intellectual dishonesty is human, not merely leftist.

                  “There WAS a time when progressives favored eugenics (which I favor)”

                  You’re very hung up on whether or not your intention to sterilise three quarters of the remaining white population makes you a leftist. Nobody cares whether it does or whether it doesn’t. What it definitely does make you is an enemy of the white race.

                  Let’s explore that slur ‘socialist’ a bit further. What is the purpose of envy-socialism’s tool of *redistribution*?
                  Why are they redistributing anything – to what end?
                  We know the motive: envy. That’s obvious to anyone who isn’t themselves an envy-socialist: an envy-socialist is convinced that this impulse to level things down is in fact some variety of justice, but we see straight through that: they don’t WANT one person to have more than another, and whether that lifts up the lower person or not is of no importance whatsoever, just so long as the rich get poorer.

                  I think Margaret Thatcher famously visualised that perfectly in her famous Parliamentary interaction with Simon Hughes of the then Liberal Party in the 1980s. It’ll be on YouTube if anyone’s interested: she says something like “you would rather the poor be POORER, so long as the rich do not get more rich”, and she was right.

                  But what is it that envy-socialists want to achieve? Break it down to the most basic level of analysis and it’s this:

                  They want to seize resources that, by their reasoning, are sitting idle in a bank account on behalf of someone who has no need for those resources,

                  and then transfer them to someone who has very specific, measurable uses for those resources.

                  In other words they want to turn resources saved for the future into resources consumed in the present.

                  That’s why accusing someone like me of that same goal is so disingenuous. I want to turn resources being consumed in the present into resources saved for the future. I’m literally the OPPOSITE of a redistributing envy-socialist. If I HAD to have a redistributive mechanism in society, with a gun at my head, I’d apply a strong rate of VAT on all consumer goods and use the proceeds to artificially subsidise existing saving. Perhaps a 50% rate of VAT used to fund a 1% payout for anyone with more than $100,000 continuously in the bank over the course of the previous five years.

                  Yes yes I know that conflicts with usury. There would be other alternatives and hopefully I wouldn’t HAVE a gun to my head demanding such mechanisms, but if I HAD to redistribute, that’s the direction of flow.

                  Tw@

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’ll tell you what though: I might not be a lover of redistribution of savings to spenders, but I’ll tell you who is: MacDonald’s!

                  Peppermint said:

                  “McDonalds isn’t at fault here.”

                  Well I hate to disagree with such a paragon of virtue but that’s just naive and gullible.

                  Take all your favourite left-wing redistributive evils, and apply the following test: is it good, or bad, for MacDonalds’ bottom line?

                  Welfare: some lazy piece of garbage on a council estate flat-out refuses to provide value to other people but instead finds innovative ways to pretend to be looking for and/or training for work. The left thinks he’s a victum and wants to give him welfare. The cucks think he’s a piece of garbage but they understand that they have to give him welfare or the press will turn on them like crazy and he’ll probably turn to crime.
                  What does MacDonald’s think? He probably goes there twice a week, which he definitely wouldn’t if he were living in abject poverty by his own bad choices. MacDonald’s is very glad of the business.

                  What about privileging women in society above men? The left sees that as a laudable end in itself, as do the cucks to a point. But what about MacDonald’s? Do they favour a society in which money and power’s controlled by tight-wad old white men, or by party-girls with sass and attitude? Them SWPL chicks love them their Maccy D breakfasts which they eat ironically or unironically depending on who’s watching lol

                  etc. ad infinitum.

                  Redistribution from savers to spenders is ALWAYS good for the capitalist.

                • Roberto says:

                  >your intention to sterilise three quarters of the remaining white population

                  There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to capitalists. It is a dimension as vast as gulags and as timeless as cuckoldry. It is the middle ground between envy and atavism, between shilling and entryism; and it lies between the pit of libertarians’ fears and the summit of their knowledge. This is the dimension of counter-signalling. It is an area which we call the STRAWMAN INTENSIFIES.

                • Roberto says:

                  >But what about MacDonald’s? Do they favour a society in which money and power’s controlled by tight-wad old white men, or by party-girls with sass and attitude?

                  Why does that matter?

                  It was not McDonald’s who destroyed coverture, patriarchy, marriage, and the family. That rampant hedonism is a manifestation of Feminism is true; that to get rid of Feminism you need to get rid of leisure is illogical.

                  Stop being a faggot. If you want to argue that capitalists are behind leftism (Feminism, LGBTQPA, Affirmative Action, Diversity, Peer Review, Scientific Decline, Race Denialism, Third Worldism, Anti-Whitism, Socialism, etc.), make your case and let everyone evaluate it based on the evidence.

                  Your “capitalists love leftism” line won’t convince anyone outside of the 110 IQ (Dunning-Krugger) forums of TRS to be anti-capitalist unless you can prove that capitalism inevitably and unavoidably leads to Feminism, Affirmative Action, Diversity, Peer Review, Scientific Decline, LGBTQPA, Race Denialism, Third Worldism, Anti-Whitism, and Socialism.

                  Go ahead; we’re waiting.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I was right all along, you’re mostly libertarians.

                  Jim says “Forced saving is capital consumption” what? lol

                  What happened to “whatever you subsidise you get more of and whatever you tax you get less of”?

                  Then Roberto says I’m straw-manning the Cominator by claiming he wants to sterilise 3/4 of all white people, but that is in fact exactly what he’s saying: that anyone stupid enough to get sucked into living beyond their means to the point of vulnerability should be sterilised, which as Doug notes is basically a lot of the middle class and essentially all of the lower classes. That’s an awful lot people and my figure of 75% is based on your beloved bell curve: one standard deviation above the mean is the 78% percentile so I knocked off 3 percentage points in the interests of understatement.

                  He then goes on to argue:

                  “If you want to argue that capitalists are behind leftism (Feminism, LGBTQPA, Affirmative Action, Diversity, Peer Review, Scientific Decline, Race Denialism, Third Worldism, Anti-Whitism, Socialism, etc.), make your case and let everyone evaluate it based on the evidence.”

                  Well this is just another straw man. I’m not arguing that capitalists are the CAUSE of leftism. I’m arguing that any example of leftism you care to imagine is absolutely in alignment with the old-style capitalism of the bottom line and fiduciary responsibility to maximise profit.
                  I’ve also noted that modern capitalism is so concentrated that you have companies like Google that don’t seem to care about the profit motive at all, but have other ends in mind.

                  I sincerely hope you’re not arguing, Roberto, that Google is not pozzed at the highest levels. Or maybe you are, I have no idea.

                  At this point it wouldn’t surprise me at allllllll to hear the argument (from any of you basically) “it’s their private company, they can ban whomever they choose”.

                  Lolberg city.

                • Roberto says:

                  CR’s arguments, like history, tend to repeat themselves: first as tragedy, then as farce.

                  >that anyone stupid enough to get sucked into living beyond their means to the point of vulnerability should be sterilised

                  What are you even on about? Most whites don’t live like low-life trash and don’t behave like low-life trash. It’s not 75%. It’s at most 15%, as compared to about 90% of blacks. And besides, sterilization is not even the issue; the issue is that low-lifers should not be saved from their own poor decisions.

                  Eugenics against dysfunctionals is a good thing. It rids the race of bad elements. Whites, particularly Hajnal Line whites, have always practiced intense eugenics against the dysfunctional members of society. So did the Ashkenazi Jews, in their own unique way. So did East Asian society, in its own unique way. And what humans failed to do, cold harsh climate and the scarcity of food did, at least in Europe.

                  No (or grossly insufficient) eugenics against dysfunctionals = AFRICA.

                  >I’m arguing that any example of leftism you care to imagine is absolutely in alignment with the old-style capitalism of the bottom line and fiduciary responsibility to maximise profit.

                  Now you’re just trying to weasel yourself out of your shitty argument, lawyerly. What does “in alignment” mean? That the CEO of McDonald’s loves Feminism and Diversity? I don’t give a shit what he loves. I care about who created Feminism and who created Diversity. It’s not McDonald’s.

                  If capitalism and the capitalists are not the cause of leftism (as you said: “I’m not arguing that capitalists are the CAUSE of leftism”), then why are you trying so hard to pin blame on them? Is it because capitalism proves that some people, i.e. those who spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need, are dumb, impulsive, and inferior?

                  If capitalists do not cause leftism, as you have admitted, then what are they doing that is so evil? You say, “They poison consumers with junk food,” but those who get junk food poisoning always mysteriously happen to be both gluttonous *and* high time-preference; people with self-control and the ability to plan ahead somehow manage to avoid being “poisoned.”

                  >companies like Google that don’t seem to care about the profit motive at all, but have other ends in mind.

                  Bad state religion. We’ve been through this no fuhrer than 6 gorillion times already. Replace the bad state religion with a good one; send the catladies of HR back to the kitchen barefoot, pregnant, and spanked; make leftism low status and civilization-building high status; cleanse academia off leftism; and you shall see even the notorious FAMGA being on board with the NRx worldview.

                  You don’t really seem to “get” Moldbug’s point about Brahmins, do you? It’s because you are a Brahmin, as Jim correctly notes. Reaction wants to take away power from people like you, and give it to those who actually create valuable things. Hence your antagonism to reaction. The jig is up.

                  It’s only unfortunate that there are many CRs on the alt-right, and even more who fall for their arguments. That’s why I encourage Jim to denounce the socialist wolves in the midst of the internet right. That, and the hilarity that never fails to ensue whenever holier-than-thou people are told to STFU.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR falsely claims I want to sterilize MOST whites when I want to sterilize low agency state dependent whites who are around 15-20%.

                  He then claims both that he is disgusted by my very unlibertarian proposal and that we are libertarian robots at the same time.

                • peppermint says:

                  > I’m arguing that any example of leftism you care to imagine is absolutely in alignment with the old-style capitalism of the bottom line and fiduciary responsibility to maximise profit.

                  > I’ve also noted that modern capitalism is so concentrated that you have companies like Google that don’t seem to care about the profit motive at all, but have other ends in mind.

                  These consecutive paragraphs are incoherent. Are you going to revert to a level 1 if you fail to extract enough life force? It makes sense, you must have been desperate to have ended up here.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint I’m being deadly serious with you right now.

                  I’ve been painted as a leftist and an infiltrator and what I want you to consider is not that I’m NOT (though I’m not, but I don’t expect you to believe me: the campaign has been sustained and relentless) but rather that even if I am, I’m reaching out to you personally.

                  “Our capital is overrun to the extent that you identify with the government.”

                  I don’t identify with THE government, I identify with government.
                  What I see is anarchy. Our capital is already lost and I strongly doubt we’ll get it back, nor our second two cities after that.
                  If we’re lucky, we may regain some of our medium sized cities but it’s going to be touch and go, especially if we want to avoid civil unrest.

                  The current government, which I would agree with you is a left-wing progressive extremist government that puts even Tony Blair to shame for his timidity, is rotten to the core and deeply evil in its intent.
                  It has identified you and me as the enemy and its goal is our neutering and eventual absolute replacement.

                  I am not siding with them one iota.

                  What I’m suggesting to you, and why I’m reaching out to you, is that this prejudice that the government and ONLY the government can wield this kind of power is misguided and dangerously doomed to fail.

                  I asked you to entertain my outreach without regard to whether you think I’m a leftist, and I’m making the same gesture by not attacking you for any supposed libertarianism. On the assumption that you’re a reactionary in the standard tradition – favouring the social and societal forms of the past over those of globohomo – I’m telling you that our most pressing concerns in the current year are not in fact governmental in nature.

                  They are corporate and utterly, utterly political.

                  If you haven’t already, watch the leaked Google video. This is not a cadre of workers seeking to maximise the revenues of their company. This is an anti-fa cell comforting each other in defeat and planning for victory.

                  “CR, to get a sense of where we are, how we have resisted in the past, and what victories we’ve had, check out Revilo Oliver’s book erica’s Decline, and also Lothrop Stoddard and Bob Whitaker.”

                  Thank you, I will. I have a lot of reading to do this year. My circumstances have changed and the way I used to read is no longer open to me so the challenge is getting off the internet and settling down to read.

                  “You’ll be less strident when you put our struggle in its 150 and 250 year context.”

                  I’m not trying to be arrogant here, or to one-up you about how marvellously well-read I am. We all are, or we wouldn’t be here of all places. This is a very history-nerdish blog and all the better for it.
                  All of us have read at least some old books and learned from them to at least some extent.

                  All I’ll say to you is that the prejudice that government is always bad and private business is always good – or at least always seeking to maximise profit in some way – is thoroughly modern, a product of the Enlightenment, and was fought tooth and nail by the Tories of the time, no trace of whom is left. Burke was a Whig. Bastiat was whatever the equivalent of a Whig was in revolutionary France.

                  The Tories of the 1790s were hostile to the entrepreneur class and while we can all agree that stifling innovation would have prolonged suffering and prevented some things that we too would acknowledge were ‘progress’, it ought to give us pause that some of our assumptions have their origins precisely in the overthrow of orderly rule and the establishment of market anarchy.

                  That doesn’t mean we should go all-in for the planned economy and state ownership of the means of production: Marxism is an even LATER innovation, a reaction, in effect, to laissez-faire and the adverse effects it was having on the lower classes.

                  I am not, by the way, denying that laissez-faire had POSITIVE effects on the lower classes, especially in the long run. Tom Woods is right: life expectancy and per capita wealth increased enormously across the 19th century, for mostly economic rather than technological reasons.

                  What I AM saying is that capitalism is having profound effects today, and that the people driving capitalism are not our allies in any meaningful sense whatsoever. Quite the contrary, to put it very mildly indeed.

                  If attacking Marxist capitalists makes me left-wing then I’m left-wing, but it’s a very 18th century Tory kind of left-wing.

                  I invite you to reflect on whether you really want to gun for Facebook, Walmart, McDonald’s and General Motors, let alone for the out-sourcing of not only industrial production but information technology as well.

                  In the end, the vision the capitalists have for our people is of an amorphous atomised brown horde working meaningless zero-hours contract jobs for minimum wage, endlessly enslaved by unrepayable debt and never owning anything outright. Everything you own will eventually be on a rolling hire contract and every decision you make will be mandated by your corporate overlords.

                  The alternative is to find a way of replacing the current system of government-by-anarchy with a system of government-by-force, and putting a few things right.

                  Then, as Moldbug put it, once security and stability is restored, we can breathe a little more freely and relax a bit.

                  Until then, the ban hammer, the tax hammer and the steel toe capped boot of state regulation are our friends.

                  NOT NOT NOT wielded by Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron for heaven’s sake! Wielded by Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson, by Jared Taylor and Mike Enoch.
                  Speaking metaphorically of course: we need POLITICAL leaders – Donald Trump on steroids.

                  People say Trump’s achieved nothing, and they have a point when it comes to draining the swamp and building the wall, but he’s achieved a lot economically and long may he continue to do so in the teeth of opposition from the supposed right.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator, I’m also being deadly serious with you.

                  You may think the proportion of the native populations in the West who are now engaged in self-destructive low agency behaviour is 15-20% but in fact it’s much closer to 75%.

                  I don’t know what kind of circles you move in and I don’t want you to dox yourself so don’t tell me.

                  What I will tell you is that outside of the government centres, most people are employed in either government work or else in service jobs.
                  As someone else noted a while back, it’s not just low IQ low agency types that are being sucked into self-destruction at this point: it’s the middle class as well.

                  I’m not going to make the case yet again as to what exactly is so self-destructive or why it’s self-destructive, because at this point repetition in the interests of dispelling misunderstanding and misrepresentation has been transformed into a weapon with which to attack me. You know full well what I’m talking about so there’s no need.

                  If you want to breed out the people who are ruining their lives and bankrupting the nation, you’re going to have to sterilise at least 3/4 of the population.

                  I was briefly convinced of the necessity of this, but the ethics of it are prohibitive. At this time more than any time in our history we need to take our own side.

                  That means protecting everyone in our society, and that may well involve some very left-looking measures. It may also involve some very right-looking labour contracts and some VERY right-looking tax incentives.

                  Roberto:

                  “What does “in alignment” mean? That the CEO of McDonald’s loves Feminism and Diversity? I don’t give a shit what he loves. I care about who created Feminism and who created Diversity. It’s not McDonald’s.”

                  I’ll make an exception here and repeat for only the first time what “in alignment” means.
                  Welfare hand-outs, ideally with as few strings as possible, easy to game the system, results in people who should be living in abject poverty having a small amount of money to spend. Not enough to invest in anything but plenty to spend on trinkets, toys and of course services.
                  Notoriously welfare scum all have the big TVs, the Sky subscription, drink Costa Coffee and order Domino’s Pizza.
                  I live not far from two council estates and on bin day the main rubbish poking out of the overflowing bins is take-away paraphernalia.

                  Do you see how this aligns with the interests of the people selling it to them?

                  Every other example of left-wing policy works similarly.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If you haven’t already, watch the leaked Google video. This is not a cadre of workers seeking to maximise the revenues of their company. This is an anti-fa cell comforting each other in defeat and planning for victory.”

                  Yes google has been converged by SJWs and glow in the darks. Hence it is no longer a private company seeking profit so much as an arm of the deep state (specifically the arm of the state that glows in the dark) aimed at spreading the state religion. People who don’t at least convincingly pretend to follow the state religion at google are ruthlessly purged.

                  Destroy the religion, purge the spy agencies of progressives and communists and put say Jared Taylor, Roosh, Jim, Molymeme, and Roissy in charge of the social sciences of whatever the most prestigious colleges allowed to continue to exist and google will become reactionary overnight.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Destroy the religion, purge the spy agencies of progressives and communists and put say Jared Taylor, Roosh, Jim, Molymeme, and Roissy in charge of the social sciences of whatever the most prestigious colleges allowed to continue to exist and google will become reactionary overnight.”

                  It’s good that you acknowledge that the destruction of poisonous entities by the state can sometimes be beneficial for the health of society.
                  How would you address the Google problem then? Go and have a talk with them, explain that the culture just changed for the better and help them find ways to comply?

                  You don’t think there’s the slightest possibility they might find ways to *subvert* your implementation of the new culture?

                  Why not just abolish them? We need denazification, if you will.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “It’s good that you acknowledge that the destruction of poisonous entities by the state can sometimes be beneficial for the health of society.
                  How would you address the Google problem then? ”

                  I believe I just did though it would require kingly power and dissolution of the monasteries.

                  Google is operating in a pozzed irrational way not because it is a capitalist entity but because it is covertly an arm of the state and really an arm of the state church.

                • jim says:

                  HR empowers priests. In the Damore case, prepared grounds for a lawsuit against the company, the board, and the CEO, should they fail to fire Damore. But it is not so much that HR gives the orders, at least not most of the time, as that HR ensures that management is composed of representatives of Harvard.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Google because of its systematic importance in terms of manipulating what information the people see was not converged MERELY by HR.

                  The same intel agency types who coordinate the press decided to coordinate google.

                  Zuckerberg has had some troubles lately because for a while he only cared about muh shekels and was for the most part refusing to censor crimethink because he thought it was bad for business. Then he suddenly started having problems.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  CR:

                  “Why not just abolish [Google, Facebook, Nike, Amazon, etc. etc. etc.]? We need denazification, if you will.”

                  The Cominator says:

                  “it would require kingly power and dissolution of the monasteries.

                  Google is operating in a pozzed irrational way not because it is a capitalist entity but because it is covertly an arm of the state and really an arm of the state church.”

                  jim says:

                  “HR empowers priests. In the Damore case, prepared grounds for a lawsuit against the company, the board, and the CEO, should they fail to fire Damore. But it is not so much that HR gives the orders, at least not most of the time, as that HR ensures that management is composed of representatives of Harvard.”

                  These are all equivalent statements.

                  The magical line between private and public entities is an illusion. The blurred edges run all the way through government and corporations. I’ve seen people acknowledge that ‘regulatory capture’ means that in effect the drug/oil/whatever companies control parts of the government and I’ve seen people (just now) say that the government (or rather Harvard, which amounts to the same thing) controls corporations through human resources departments.
                  It sounds like the dividing line can safely be thrown out.

                  Our war is not on the governmental parts of the Cathedral, but on the Cathedral in toto.

                  That’s really all I’ve been saying all along. To go and simply shut Nike down is easier than checking carefully (presumably through large scale regulation and compliance auditing) that the Cathedral’s really gone.

                  All I’m saying is why bother with the onerous method when the free market can be trusted to re-create a simple shoe retailer quite quickly if we just shut ’em down.

                • jim says:

                  That our economy is substantially socialist is a bad thing, and would continue to be a bad thing if it remained socialist with warriors in charge, and would be a considerably worse thing, with artificial famine and mass murder, if you were in charge.

                  Because there are no sharp lines keeping stuff separate, we get the paralyzing out of control complexity that is bringing Washington to a grinding halt. The presidency is powerless because all powerful, strangled in its own red tape.

                  Human Resources and Sarbannes Oxley is doing immense damage to our economy, in that government intervention is screwing over corporations, and immense damage to our government, in that our government is overwhelmed by the impossible complexity of attempting to run the economy in minute detail.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The state generally cannot resist keeping its hand off information organs.

                  The American constitution greatly restricts the government from OVERTLY controlling information organs (at least as long as the constitution is even theoretically followed) but as soon as the state got into the spook business it took over them covertly and unfortunately the CIA was compromised heavily by liberals and communists (who joined up out of elite universities out of anti Nazi sentiment) and they pozzed everything.

                  The economy should be left to its own devices outside of banking insurance and media (private banking never exist, capitalist efficiency in insurance is parasitic, private media is too dangerous to the state and also like banking never really allowed to exist for long).

                  Google is a more subtle problem, its theoretically a search engine but can skew searches towards things progs want you to see. I would think google should not be overtly taken over but the spies would merely be replaced with reactionary spies and it would subtly skew results to things that favor the reaction rather then the poz.

                • jim says:

                  The state is inevitably going to control the organs of information.

                  These used to be the churches, became the newspapers and education system, and is now Google and such.

                  This needs to be put on an open and official basis, with an archbishop and a grand inquisitor.

                  Banking is a problem, since bankers inevitably engage in term transformation, term transformation inevitably leads to crisis, crisis inevitably leads to state bailout and nonconvertible money.

                  The solution is a genuinely free market banking system with restrictions on term transformation, in parallel with a heavily regulated and government guaranteed banking system that performs term transformation – and is authorized to go after any unregulated private entity that engages in term transformation without formal and overt government guarantees.

                  The index rate for floating mortgages should be government guaranteed thirty day loans or discounted bills in multiples of $100 or $1000

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim wrote:

                  “Human Resources and Sarbannes Oxley is doing immense damage to our economy, in that government intervention is screwing over corporations, and immense damage to our government, in that our government is overwhelmed by the impossible complexity of attempting to run the economy in minute detail.”

                  I used to turn these same somersaults, believe me. Before I was a libertarian I was a naive participant for about five years in government-funded programmes. When I realised they had no intention of achieving their stated goals but were in fact going through the motions to get paid, it turned me sharply to the right, and it seemed COMPLETELY logical that if these tax-funded endeavours were evil, getting rid of as much of that type of activity in society was obviously the way to go.

                  It STILL makes sense to a certain extent: of *course* if someone’s going to get paid regardless of outcome, they’re going to do a worse job than if they get paid *as and when* they complete the task at hand by voluntary customers.

                  This is all perfectly true. Socialism per se is problematic. I honestly wish I’d never embraced the term strategically, because it didn’t work. Every time I advocate authoritarian rightism, some clever liar pretends they sincerely believe I’m advocating redistribution and egalitarianism. I should have seen it coming but I honestly did not believe that righties were apt to engage in such disingenuous tactics.
                  Nevermind, that aside, we’re still in broad agreement on these matters of general principle.

                  Nevertheless, it remains the fact that:

                  1. Private businesses benefit from mass immigration driving down the cost of labour
                  2. Private businesses benefit from a grateful workforce more than willing to sleep six to a room and share a bed, and even shoes
                  3. Private businesses actively prefer a docile compliant unquestioning population with high time preference and a tendency to blow their dough on junk
                  4. Private businesses benefit when people are given resources that ought to be saved, but instead are then spent
                  5. Private businesses actively prefer a degenerate population that seeks innovation and titillation and never gives a thought to matters of spiritual and familial concern
                  6. Private businesses are glad when a people becomes atomised such that they never act collectively: why wouldn’t they be!

                  Yet all I see from this community is excuses to let them off the hook for their major part in what’s happening to our people.

                • jim says:

                  > 1. Private businesses benefit from mass immigration driving down the cost of labour
                  > 2. Private businesses benefit from a grateful workforce more than willing to sleep six to a room and share a bed, and even shoes

                  If immigration was driven by evil capitalists, we would be employing workers on work visas, like the excellent system applying in Dubai, instead of criminals living on welfare.

                  Go to any brown part of California between nine and five. There are about as many browns around between nine and five, as there are between five and nine, likely more.

                  If private businesses were bringing in migrants, we would have what Dubai has, and what Dubai has is pretty good.

                • peppermint says:

                  kinglessness

                  society rots from the head down

                  the solution for google is to execute the executives and directors for treason and sedition

                  what would you want to do to solve the other problems?

                  you would want to create more jobs for jerks like you, of course

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What do capitalists care if some of the scum they import to be their new submissive, grateful workers end up defecting and taking the dole?
                  Where do you think they spend the dole? lol

                  If the dole is a resource transfer from the potential savings of affluent whites to a coddled underclass, this is a very good thing from the standpoint of retail sales, housing, healthcare and everything else.

                  More consumers is good for business.

                  Dubai’s a stain on the Muslim world. There’s a part of the world where women aren’t spoiled and the part of that region you prefer is the part where they are lol

                  It’s self-pwnage beyond belief.

                  Reactionaries who are somewhat woke to the race question should have no difficulty at all in seeing what the capitalists are up to.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint parodies:

                  “the solution for google is to execute the executives and directors for treason and sedition”

                  There’s no need to be cartoonish about it. We destroy Google by banning it from operating as a business.
                  The individuals are at liberty to make a new company, but if it’s like the old one, we’ll disband it.

                  Let’s MAKE these people act as capitalists.

                  Can you think of a corporation that isn’t left-wing? I know you think the government’s dragging them kicking and screaming into the Cathedral (which is weird considering how ubiquitous the Cathedral’s influence is on government, educators and the media) but any specific company that isn’t on board with the left’s social programme?

                  Harry’s Razors perhaps…….. we shall see.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  OK I self-selected Harry’s Razors because I’d heard them advertise with Tom Woods. I SWEAR I had never visited their website before. Firstly I assumed they operated only in America and secondly I use an electric razor (more proof of leftism? lol).

                  Check it out, Beavis:

                  https://www.harrys.com/en/gb/social-mission

                  “More than one way to be a man” eh Tom?
                  (More than one way to have your ‘wife’ on the show to pretend you’re not a divorcé, too, but nuff said about that)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m not even joking. This is news to me. By all means pick a different one, but I like this one.

                  “At Harry’s, we believe it’s our duty to try to do good for our customers and the community more broadly. As part of that effort, we set aside a percentage of our sales, and a lot of our time, for charitable organisations. We always have, and we always will because it’s just the right thing to do. Meet some of our partners below.”

                  “Our partners” – let’s have a look shall we?

                  The Bronx Freedom Fund: Elena Weissmann, Director; Yonah Zeitz, Project Associate; all the rest are ethnic minorities.

                  Campaign Against Living Miserably: actually looks like it might be a good’un. I won’t kill myself if I turn out to be disappointed at some future point but they look like good guys on first glance.

                  A Call To Men: Jewish and diverse, promotes the following: “Help create a world where all men and boys are loving and respectful and all women and girls are valued and safe.” (lol)

                  The Representation Project: Social Action Campaigns “#NotBuyinglt / #MediaWeLike#DisruptTheNarrative#AskMoreOfHim#AskHerMore#RepresentHer”
                  – and if you idle for a few seconds, a pop-up appears calling for a world free of gender stereotypes

                  I’ll get the popcorn out shall I?

                • peppermint says:

                  the executives of google are guilty of treason and sedition.

                  you think the corporate veil should protect that, and i’m the lolbergtarian?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Sorry for large number of posts but you guys have demanded evidence before, and I promise you faithfully, this has been a discovery process for me.

                  I picked Harry’s because it was a firm that wasn’t boycotting right-wing people: they advertise with Tom Woods and the way he does it is he personally reads the advertisement, so they will have had a dialogue with him.

                  You’re aware, from the timestamps, that I only just visited their website, and immediately found them diverting so-called profits to ‘charitable work’ for their customers and their non-customers lol

                  Well, the Bronx Freedom Project is still on their list of partners, so I googled it: are these lawyers fighting injustice or what?

                  Here’s the lying NY Post:

                  https://nypost.com/2018/05/14/nonprofit-under-fire-for-bailing-out-man-accused-of-rape-a-week-later/

                  It’s been four months, Harry, maybe pull your support now?

                  No of course not. You want to ‘hashtag respect her’, after all, right guys?

                  Any of you racists jumping to any conclusions before you read the Post?

                  Shame on you! Stereotypes!

                • jim says:

                  Havel’s Greengrocer.

                  They are buying holiness to keep the regulators off their backs. Change of regime, they would be funding lynchings of blacks to enforce law and order, instead of rapes by blacks to emasculate white men, and would not notice that the definition of holy had changed.

                  This signifies no more than the bakery baking a gay wedding cake.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m triggered and I’m going to bed.

                  Wanna stab a guess at the ethnicity of that 23-year-old community teacher?

                  “the executives of google are guilty of treason and sedition.

                  you think the corporate veil should protect that, and i’m the lolbergtarian?”

                  I’m going to make no comment at all, because I’m not in my right mind right now.

                  The Bronx Freedom Project or whatever it was called has now expanded due to $30m (I think? Not reading that article again, it’s too harrowing) from Richard Branson (Virgin Records, benevolent purveyors of among others The Sex Pistols and Culture Club) and a guy called Flom whose life’s mission is to free criminals.

                  Oh dear dear dear, capitalism’s FAR worse than I thought.

                  These people are just as ideological as anyone in the government: in fact more so. Which came first: gay marriage laws or Culture Club?

                  Worse, who liberalised broadcast media in the 1980s and gave us Channel Four television, complete with the films of Derek Jarman? Cheers Maggie.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  http://bronx.news12.com/story/37949173/brooklyn-man-arrested-in-bronx-rape-robbery

                  So he followed her home, forced her to take large sums of money out of the cash-point, then choked her unconscious, at which point she probably assumed she was about to die, then raped her, at which point she probably assumed she was about to die.

                  And you’re STILL excusing the firms that paid for his freedom to do it because they have private owners.

                  If this had been a government agency, you wouldn’t be pretending this is ok.

                  This is not ok and if I don’t go to bed I’m going to say something I regret.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, I am excusing the firms that paid for this. If I was easier to find, I would probably be paying for it also. Why do you think Trump gave so much money to the Clintons? You think he loves them?

                • Simon says:

                  You are not going to in-group anyone on this blog. I suggest finding new pastures m8.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR most businessmen don’t want to be on the bad side of the government.

                  So they largely try to signal they are in conformity with the state church.

                  Now they get REALLY nervous and sweat bullets when the spooks show up and tell them they need to make changes to their policies. Furthermore the spooks will tell them their market position will be guaranteed if they play ball on preaching the official truth they want… but if they go the other way bad things will happen to their business and maybe then bad things will happen in their personal life and escalating to maybe things bad for health or that of their family will happen to them.

                  I’m sure almost all the tech moguls in Silicon Valley got that visit from the spooks. Now Peter Theil told them to go fuck themselves because he had backing from the “red” deep state and he isn’t afraid of them.

                  Zuckerberg also initially told them to go fuck themselves its bad for business but then bad things started happening to him and hes fallen into line.

                • peppermint says:

                  > liberalised broadcast media in the 1980s

                  Liberalised media and it’s all anti-British in a country where most people are British.

                  No fans league used to pack stadiums.

                  The academics used to have to pretend it was just the free market doing its thing, but these executives are being ordered to destroy their companies now, so it’s clearly not market forces doing this.

                • Yara says:

                  >Now Peter Theil told them to go fuck themselves because he had backing from the “red” deep state and he isn’t afraid of them.

                  Yes, but he still had to sell all his Facebook stock and evacuate San Francisco.

                • peppermint says:

                  Ok CR, ‘liberalise’

                  * you’re probably English
                  * you would lose everything if you hinted that you thought any of the things we say
                  * you don’t trust yourself not to hint at it if you allow yourself to think the things we say
                  * in order to be able to sleep at night, you want one thing you can do to help save your nation

                  i have no idea what one thing a single man can do to help. You do need to stay sane and not hint at knowing things you’re not supposed to. Maybe you can, at least, live a virtuous life, and wait for an opportunity to act more meaningfully that may never come.

                • peppermint says:

                  Maybe, as an individual, you need God. The salvation of your nation is far too big aa burden for you to carry as one man. Let God deal with the king and parliament, you need to support His grand design by being a good man, a proper good man, not as the pozzed churches and TV stations say.

                  I’d be talking like that myself if we didn’t have an emperor here.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Simon:

                  “You are not going to in-group anyone on this blog. I suggest finding new pastures m8.”

                  It’s a massive black pill. I remember how I was when I first discovered blog dot jim dot com – I mean come on, how cool is that for a URL, and look what he’s saying! OMG he’s right about everything! Wow! How radical this guy is!

                  But yeah, you’re absolutely right. If Jim and his acolytes will defend THAT, they’ll defend anything.

                  So long as it’s not the government doing it, it must be the government forcing them to do it, but if it’s the government doing it, that’s evil government for you lol

                  I could get THAT message from Adam Kokesh: Adam VERSUS THE MAN – *moshes*

                  Yeah you’re right Simon. I guess Lauritz is right too: it’s too late and we’re done.

                  Time to hunker down and go full Viet Cong like Morgoth said.

                  Keep your head down, stay out of the way, and any chance you get to shine a light on the evil without putting your head above ground, take it and move on.

                  We’re not just dissidents now, we’re hated dissidents fighting an uphill battle against pretty much everyone, including the ‘radicals’ on the internet.

                • jim says:

                  > So long as it’s not the government doing it, it must be the government forcing them to do it, but if it’s the government doing it, that’s evil government for you lol

                  You are trying to get us to outgroup capitalists of our own race, ethnicity, and culture – trying to get us to outgroup white leadership in favor of priestly leadership, much as the commies got the peasant with one cow to outgroup the peasant with two cows. You want us to outgroup Trump.

                  Linus signed off on the code of conduct – and promptly left linux and went into “therapy” – meaning he accepted a quasi state punishment and conviction of “insensitivity” – which suggests he would have received a state conviction otherwise – the usual deal, usually negotiated by your lawyer, is “therapy” – stupendously expensive therapy – in place of jail time. I am not going to outgroup Linus because he signed off on a code of conduct which immediately led to a purge of Linux developers. Similarly, Trump massively funded the wicked witch of the West Wing.

                • Simon says:

                  I am not part of your in-group m8.

                • peppermint says:

                  The government is in charge, and no one is in charge of the government.

                  Like Striker said, all economies are planned. By the government, which is in charge. Including our “free market” economy, which just happens to not sell any pro-us media, except TRS, which, for some mysterious reason, can’t use most payment processors.

                  I get you’re allowed to blame banks, and, somehow, banks but not
                  bankers, but not the government, but it’s happening in more and more industries that businesses are being forced to do things that negatively impact their businesses.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Keep your head down, stay out of the way, and any chance you get to shine a light on the evil without putting your head above ground, take it and move on.

                  Yes. Discretion is the better part of valor.

                  > We’re not just dissidents now, we’re hated dissidents fighting an uphill battle against pretty much everyone, including the ‘radicals’ on the internet.

                  Pretty much. A lot of internet radicals are glow in the dark or doing it for their own idiosyncratic reasons.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Simon:

                  “I am not part of your in-group m8.”

                  I know you’re fishing for pain with your net of cruelty, but all you do is turn men into rocks.

                  I’m well aware that my very essence is being genocided. It’s in many ways just deserts for having chosen to selfishly not reproduce, and for previous sins against nature and against God.

                  As Jordan Peterson would say, we don’t have to be victims.

                  I plan to do what little I can and live a good life. All hope for change in this life is gone, quite frankly.

                  It’s not just that the government wants my people erased and all the normies applaud; it’s that the people who aren’t applauding are applauding big business doing the exact same thing.

                  Fine, I’ve walked alone before. But you know what? I’m not alone.

                  There are millions of us and every day that passes another one raises his head and sees the blue sky and the blond black sun.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s not just that the government wants my people erased and all the normies applaud; it’s that the people who aren’t applauding are applauding big business doing the exact same thing.

                  liar

                • jim says:

                  > It’s not just that the government wants my people erased

                  Your people? Hard to judge someone’s race over the internet, but you don’t seem to naturally employ white shibboleths, or be all that assimilated to white culture. If you are white, you have been in a very diverse environment all your life. Zimmerman was culturally white. You, not so much.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

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

                  Weiße werden dich befreien

                • Simon says:

                  You’re being treated this way because you’ve become intensely annoying. Your misapprehension of core reactionary tenets has been explained to you ad nauseum, but you refuse to listen and learn.

                  Mate, you’re in your early twenties, obviously intelligent, but it’s clear the task of worrying about saving your people is beyond you. You’re struggling to reconcile the gaps in reaction’s foundations with higher order concepts. That’s fine. But please just shut up and take a break, preferably permanently, and leave this to people who can deal with it adequately, or if they can’t, can at least shut up and passively observe.

                  I’d suggest getting to the bottom of your self as a start because not desiring children is inexcusable. It shows a tremendous lack of self-knowledge and identification with your masculine centre,

                  Your sin right now is not knowing how to be a man, and not knowing how to be a husband. Work on that.

            • peppermint says:

              fat-drenched are the best kind, and overpriced is in the eye of the consumer. kys queer

    • Alrenous says:

      Rulers need to be good judges of character. This is not negotiable. CR’s character is a mass of red flags, if you can read such things. If you need to describe what’s wrong, then the person you’re describing it to is already proven to be unsuitable for the role.

  19. X says:

    SUBJECT: American patriots do not understand what is coming

    EU-resident Alsadius [tells us](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8120#comment-2033740) not to worry and maybe he’s relying on [a dumb blog from Eric](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8053):

    > Remember, we won this particular fight. The places where they have the most influence are the places that are already the most SJW-heavy, and those places rarely matter.

    […]

    >> Except now they have enough power to get you fired from your job and kick of social media if you don’t go along. Heck, in your country they have “Human Rights” Commissions […]
    >
    > One time in a million, yes. And don’t get me wrong, that’s a problem. It’s a gross injustice to the unlucky SOB who gets targeted […] But most people who express rightist views in public do so freely and without harm coming to them.

    Why do Europeans forget how quickly economic collapse turns into war and mega-death? They seem to need to repeat it every 80 years or so, as a wake-up call and reality check.

    I’m going to be ROTFLMAO when the leftists take control of the elections via immigration and repeat the socialist/Marxist Wiemar Republic mode of self-destruction again. These overconfident fools on Eric’s blog [plan to take out the power and food supply](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8120#comment-2031603) of major cities. Understanding the truth of 9/11 is key to understanding what happens next after that. If we understand the global elite are determined to exterminate these overconfident “patriots”, and we know the smartest action is to push an object in the direction of its extant motion and inertia, then clearly the U.S. military assets will be turned against the USA as a false-flag. Imagine America’s ICBMs being launched against the USA itself and blamed on Russia. The U.S. military will attack Russia in retaliation, so Russia will nuke the patriots. What is coming is utter chaos, psyops, and mega-death. Eric is such an idiot, fool!

  20. anon says:

    Found a post by a Googler about how he met his wife after being dateless at 30 and thought it might be interesting to you guys. Lots of classic mistakes even though he is a smart dude.
    https://archive.is/c3eTf

    • Simon says:

      …”she’s a stocky Taiwanese-American…”

      Why is this bloke giving advice on how to get married. There is nothing special about what he did or achieved. He should just keep quiet and endure his marriage.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Yeah, marrying a fat Asian woman is almost certainly something he could have done in the first place – that he had to go to extreme lengths to achieve that just shows exactly how bad his plan was.

        • X says:

          He wanted a friend, someone to talk to, and playmate. Very immature and beta-male oriented. Doesn’t seem to understand anything about evolutionary competition, nor care. Doesn’t seem to understand his sperm is wasting, nor care. Doesn’t appear to be particularly interested in survival of his in-group, genetics, culture. Our fucking Internet is being run by high IQ, immature Millennials who haven’t a fscking clue. C.f. my post below on what I think the likely outcome of this will be.

      • jim says:

        Facebook has approximately eight hundred people paid and working full time to intervene against right wing views. Since Roosh has been banned, it is likely that this bloke is another full time paid intervener paid to intervene against Roosh’s views, being promoted by google, facebook, to argue for the blue pill.

        He is saying “I am another incel, and by following the blue pill, I got married”. This sounds like a script. The people being paid to “intervene” to “counter extremism” are told, by the people paying them to say “I am a fellow X, and …”. The “counter terrorism” operation targets Muslim extremists “Hail fellow Muslim, Islam, rightly understood, is actually progressivism” “Hail fellow incel …”, “Hail fellow white mail nationalist …”

        They are told to get their targets to ingroup them, and paid to do so. What this bloke is saying sounds like the script that people are being paid to follow.

        • anon says:

          Doubtful. He is one of the oldest and most active posters on the site. The account is tied to his real identity.

          • jim says:

            Has he always been an incel giving blue pill advice to fellow incels?

            • anon says:

              Marriage is not a big topic on Hacker News, so probably not. I remember him defending Brendan Eich. That already makes him less blue pill than the majority there, lol.

        • X says:

          Presumably everyone here is aware of the leaked Google video. I will link it again in this context:

          https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

          Google is the epitome of multiculturalism. There’s no in-group cohesion. Google is a prime example the Yuri’s “useful idiots”, because they will end up destroyed by the ideologies they’ve promoted.

          I think a false-flag nuclear war is in the USA’s future. My detailed hypothesis linked below:

          steemit.com /money/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-countries-vulnerable-to-economic-devastation-soon-20180915t224622431z

        • X says:

          Facebook has approximately eight hundred people paid and working full time to intervene against right wing views.

          Are you confusing the 814 people they selected to target? I can find no mention of 800 people paid by Facebook. Facebook is definitely paying for it, but how do you know the number of people employed by the The Institute For Strategic Dialogue?

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          There might be shills out there targeting sites like this, but on normie mass platforms I think there are more who sincerely live the blue pill.

    • X says:

      Linus committed that?!!? Have aliens taken him away and replaced him with a clone? This Linus:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY

      • jim says:

        This code of conduct is the work of people who think that once they have murdered all white males they will have the stuff that white males create, and don’t realize that without white males, that stuff will no longer exist.

        They think all the stuff descended from the sky, and white males, being the evil sexist racist homophobic mysogynist islamophobes that we are, snatched all the good stuff up, thereby preventing anyone else from having it.

        They think that if it was not for the horrid oppression committed by white males, they could just help themselves to the stuff in Walmart, and Walmart shelves would magically refill.

        This code of conduct was brought to you by the same thinking on display in Venezuela and in South Africa, where without white farmers the South African crops mysteriously don’t grow and without bakeries run by lighter skinned Venezuelans, darker skinned Venezuelans find themselves mysterious short of bread.

        Russian agriculture has never recovered from the liquidation of the kulaks, and every open source project that adopts a code of conduct mysteriously suffers from bitrot.

        A code of conduct results in social justice warriors being helicoptered into the social role and social status of people who create value, but strangely and mysteriously, value ceases to be created.

        Similarly, social justice takeover of superhero comics and Star Wars movies.

        • X says:

          Jim you don’t have to convince me of that. I know where this leads. My question is WTF happened to Linus Torvalds? He is the one famous geek who I think is similar to me in that he doesn’t give a fuck about what other people think about his views and expresses them frankly. How did the Linux Foundation bend his arm sufficiently to get him to be the committer of this change? I could understand if he abstained, but he actually committed that. If Linus can break, then does that mean I am the last software developer on the planet who has a backbone and who also isn’t duped about everything else such as Eric S. Raymond his group of high IQ fools. Pray tell me I am not alone in this world? Where are you my fellow in-group hackers with a backbone, testosterone and who also are awake enough to see that 9/11 was a false-flag?

          Readers who don’t understand 9/11, don’t understand anything about what we’re facing now as a “white man”.

          Hail almighty Trump! Except there’s a problem. He isn’t almighty. If he was almighty, he would have immediately called all us up into arms to dismantle the DEEP STATE that perpetrated 9/11.

          I know you disagree with me.

    • Eli says:

      Sad that Linus had to abandon his stance. I remember having the privilege of arguing with him a bit in the RealWorldTech forum (back in the days when it was still an active website… and yes, I did correct him on something). He always liked educating and arguing, and mocking others etc was not beneath him. But he was a straight shooter, and had a ton of good info.

      I haven’t been following the Linux story closely for about a decade. Now the SJWs got to him, apparently. It’s just a matter of time till they push him out altogether and Linux dies. Goodbye to both.

      • X says:

        Let’s fork it and welcome him with open arms! Let’s pay him more than he was being paid.

        Come on guys, you need to put your economic resources where your mouth and head is.

        • Eli says:

          I’m already paying. Just not to Linus yet 🙂

          • X says:

            Can you share with me this extant organization? I am not really tracking Linux development much. Had myself buried in blockchains and crypto lately.

            • Eli says:

              I don’t focus on helping tech foundations. I help religious and political orgs / people.

              I find that tech foundation type charity is silly, unless I know there is a particular individual behind.

              The way to get income for someone is to do useful work or sell a creation. Everything else is suspect and might be appropriated by niggers and SJWs.

              • X says:

                The way to get income for someone is to do useful work or sell a creation.

                I agree with that. So do you want Linus to work for Google then?

                I meant what NXer oriented organization has a business plan for Linux that isn’t the SJW-infested trajectory it is already on? I thought maybe someone else had already worked this out, so I don’t have to do everything. Are white men suddenly being born without thumbs? It is like most everybody around here (and on Eric’s blog) wants to be a political hack instead of actually doing anything that can actually accomplish anything. Sorry for being critical. I would never donate to any political organization.

                • Eli says:

                  I don’t know what Linus is up to. Whatever it is, I’m not too concerned. I believe that what happened to him was probably a result of threats, possibly legal, forcing him to do a cost-benefit analysis and act accordingly. It is, frankly, a natural result of bureaucratization of Linux. I don’t know how Linus got himself into this situation, but it looks like he’s either getting too old and weak or got strong-armed or both. I can’t fault him, because I’d likely break much sooner.

                  Whatever his future involvement will be, he will have the ability to support himself and work on interesting stuff. The reactionary program (as far as I understand it) is not a socialist-lite “make jobs” program per se. The reactionary program is about letting people like Linus fully own their creations (including their own children and wives) as property.

                  There is no need to involve oneself in his business plans either, because none have been presented, other than the already existent.

                  As to bitcoin and its clones, I’m not as optimistic, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. As of now, I would invest neither my money nor my effort into it.

                  I have my own things I’m working on. And that’s what counts, in my own estimation.

                • jim says:

                  Bitcoin has fatal flaws that render it vulnerable to state control. These flaws are fixable, but state power may already be too entrenched to fix them. It is being swallowed by “Know your Customer” laws.

                • Eli says:

                  @jim: Yes. Also, the very sad fate of the creator of Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht, should serve as dire warning to bitcoin idealists.

                  The government, if bothered enough, can kill any effort of “tokenization” and the rest of the silliness.

                  Worse, it might actually coopt these efforts to serve its purpose. “Cashless economy” can mean different things to different people, and if I absolutely had to put my money on the likely scenario, which I’d really resist doing, I’d bet on the government using the technology for something quite contrary to what bitcoin idealists were hoping for.

                  I remember back in 2005, when I had pro-statist/totalitarian leanings (kinda like the esteemed CR forum poster here), I was imagining a system where the government controls all cash electronically. That was before “bitcoin” was even a term. That was a period when I idealistically believed that the gov, by virtue of democracy and capitalism, is, fundamentally, the “good guys.”

                • jim says:

                  The problem is fixable, but requires both technological competence and political awareness. It can be done, just bitcoin did not quite do it.

              • X says:

                Excuse me for not being clear. I was thinking perhaps some initial investment funding or buying some products of some business plan. You wrote “paying” so I didn’t interpret that as charity.

                Also perhaps there’s a lack of awareness around here about how the blockchain potentially changes the economic model of the Internet:

                https://medium.com/public-market/the-future-of-network-effects-tokenization-and-the-end-of-extraction-a0f895639ffb

                https://medium.com/@cdixon/crypto-tokens-a-breakthrough-in-open-network-design-e600975be2ef

                I think CR should pay attention to those links above.

                Note I can’t remember the original source of the theory about the Token Economy enables investment in the network by the participants who are also the owners of the network. This overcomes existing problems with capitalism. It wasn’t Chris Dixon who is cited above.

                • X says:

                  Ah I found the original source of the theory.

                  https://medium.com/newtown-partners/crypto-network-effects-are-driving-thin-protocols-a4108e94b1a

                  Crypto-network effects are driving Thin Protocols

                  Joel Monegro wrote “Fat Protocols” in 2016, where he postulated that the blockchain stack captures value at the protocol level (Bitcoin and Ethereum) and not the application layer. This is different to the the internet, which captured the value at the application layer (Amazon, Facebook) and not the protocol layer (TCP/IP or SMTP).

                  http://www.usv.com/blog/fat-protocols

                  What’s significant about this dynamic is the effect it has on how value is distributed along the stack: the market cap of the protocol always grows faster than the combined value of the applications built on top, since the success of the application layer drives further speculation at the protocol layer. And again, increasing value at the protocol layer attracts and incentivises competition at the application layer. Together with a shared data layer, which dramatically lowers the barriers to entry, the end result is a vibrant and competitive ecosystem of applications and the bulk value distributed to a widespread pool of shareholders. This is how tokenized protocols become “fat” and its applications “thin”.

                  This is a big shift. The combination of shared open data with an incentive system that prevents “winner-take-all” markets changes the game at the application layer and creates an entire new category of companies with fundamentally different business models at the protocol layer. Many of the established rules about building businesses and investing in innovation don’t apply to this new model and today we probably have more questions than answers.

                • X says:

                  Lol then MIT arrives 2 years late and tries to take credit for the economic theory above:

                  https://medium.com/mit-cryptoeconomics-lab/the-blockchain-effect-86bd01006ec2

    • X says:

      @anon if you’re Eugine Nier who posted this news also to Eric’s hacker-flog, please meander back over to my blog for the refutation of your claim that I don’t understand the material science w.r.t. 9/11.

      The discussion over there seems to indicate that they’re indeed shoving Linus out the door. Apparently semi-subconsciously Linus didn’t want to go to the developer meeting this year because he knew they were going to raise this issue.

      Linus is claiming he is a non-empathetic person. Well I’m empathetic ENTP, but I think it’s pointless to be empathetic with incompetence, failure, and societalcide.

      Again I would hope the are enough hackers who could self-organize, fork, and continue Linux without the politically directed failure.

      • jim says:

        > The discussion over there seems to indicate that they’re indeed shoving Linus out the door. Apparently semi-subconsciously Linus didn’t want to go to the developer meeting this year because he knew they were going to raise this issue.

        The function of Linux will be redefined from making computers useful, to proving that women and nams can be techies also.

        If Linus replaced by social justice warriors, which always happens when you get a code of conduct, Linux slowly dies – bugs will not get fixed, misfeatures will get added, and it will suffer from bitrot as the world changes around it.

        It will go the same path as Soviet and Rhodesian agriculture.

        • X says:

          I emailed Linus.

          —————————- Original Message —————————-
          Subject: Linus don’t let them pressure you! What really happened?
          From: “Shelby Moore”
          Date: Mon, September 17, 2018 6:51 am
          To: “Linus Torvalds”
          ————————————————————————–

          Linus,

          I want to offer you some moral support, if not also eventually other forms of support.

          I’ve never contacted you before. I’m not a Linux kernel contributor (yet).

          Presumably you’re receiving a zillion emails regarding the following change to Linux Code of Conduct (CoC) to incorporate SJW politics, so I don’t know if you will read mine or if there’s any interlocutor filtering your incoming email.

          https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8a104f8b5867c682d994ffa7a74093c54469c11f

          https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167

          I presume you don’t want to waste time on politics and instead want to focus on technology. I agree! Fsck politics. We’re technologists. Every project that takes on a CoC rots into incompetence and political rigor mortis.

          Here follows a link to one s/w project I’m working on and the linked post below cites the recent rapid acceleration of SJW purity cleansing political societalcide underway:

          https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/35#issuecomment-421559008

          I hope a new (smaller, more focused) community could form around forking the Linux kernel with you still at the helm being the great technologist you’ve always been. That being said, I’m not trying to convince you to not think about empathy at all, but being empathetic to failure direct politics is not an improvement!

          And please feel free to use any curse words you like if you reply (although I’m not expecting a reply).

          This SJW-infestation of the Linux Foundation is the early warning sign of the collapse of Linux into a political clusterfuck. Please. Don’t. Go. There.

          Also thank you for giving us an alternative to that ad-malware, trojan horse Windows 10!

          Regards,
          Shelby H. Moore III
          https://www.linkedin.com/in/shelby-moore-iii-b31488b0

          P.S. I’m disappointed that you committed that CoC change. Based on what I had seen of your personality in Youtube videos (which I very much respected and felt that you were similar to me although I’m ENTP and I am empathetic), I would have expected you to abstain and let someone else commit it.

        • X says:

          The progressive-leaning Jeff Read over at Eric’s hacker-flog disagrees with us:

          Who’s to say it will tank in quality? Tons of open-source projects — including Go and Rust — have adopted similar codes of conduct, and their contributors still put out great stuff.

          Ahem. Incorrect:

          https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/35#issuecomment-420534861

          Linus mentions that he was “confronted” about his behavior by people in the community. My guess is he was given an ultimatum: shape up or we will fork the kernel and maintain it without you.

          That’s why I emailed Linus to encourage him to not be wary of forking the community. There’s an overarching forking coming in the Western world. To be on the winning side, each of you need be paying attention. Again those patriots who think their guns are sufficient, aren’t paying attention to how false-flags can dupe the patriots hypothetically causing them to for example enter a catastrophic war with Russia. Deception is the modus operandi of the global elite.

        • peppermint says:

          They already killed Gnome with HX experts and made the boot proces totally opaque and thus controllable by glow in the dark clowns. They assassinated Ian to achieve that.

          Agile programming teams are so untrustworthy they need to run literally everything in Docker because no one knows how to get things running side by side.

          The future of Linux is WSL. All graphical apps will be run on win32-64 but Bash is finally a decent command line for Windows.

          Bill Gates was never able to hire those ten good programmers.

          At some point AMD and Intel won’t be able to make a CPU that processes legal instructions securely. We’ll have DDR4-4000 that’s incompatible with a 4.3GHz CPU and everyone will tell each other that real men buy SoCs to get real work done.

          The SoC will come with Windows on Flash, sort of like Apple’s Toolbox ROM.

  21. peppermint says:

    Lying, doubling down and projecting characterizes the bezerker ghouls.

    There are also the CR-type ghouls. They are incapable of producing and are thus fixated on redistribution. As Cominator noted, they mindlessly use flattery to build coalitions to keep themselves ingrouped and outgroup anyone who calls attention to them. They are only interested in power, even if they are competent enough to avoid the appearance of seeking every scrap of power available, since power fuels their continued unlife.

    The reason the working poor are afraid to go to a doctor is there are myriad CRs making sure any transaction with a doctor has to go through them.

    • X says:

      The blockchain and Bitcoin are enforcing a meritocracy. This craziness we see in the West is the beginnings of the bankrupt system eating itself into mega-death. My stance is buy Bitcoin, GTFO, and come back after it has been burnt to the ground.

      As I said many times, if Trump was capable of stopping this trend, he would have already dismantled the DEEP STATE. Again I assert the DEEP STATE perpetrated 9/11. Jim thinks they merely allowed it happen. Nevertheless the conclusion is the same, which unless Trump demonstrates that he has the support to dismantle the DEEP STATE, then there’s no hope left for the West. Can anyone offer an objection?

      Governance in Asia is improving. The West is going into cardiac arrest. Stay inside the West at your peril.

      Does anyone have any opinion on any non-Asian white countries that are not sliding into the SJW gulag? Russia?

      • Roberto says:

        You have hypergraphia.

        • eternal anglo says:

          Come the Restoration, I hope that Jim style ultra-condensed prose pseudocode will become the high-status idiom of scientists and intellectuals. Actual science will be vastly more convenient, and disciplines with nothing to say will, instead of ballooning into the vast heaps of manure we observe in the current humanities, shrink to one-line articles or simply shut up entirely.

          • X says:

            Vacuous. Insufficiently cryptic.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Jim prose works for science, not for intellectuals. Need Latin, Greek; make smart ideas inaccessible to morons.

            The English language has a rich variety of words taken from many different cultures and capable of communicating a rich meaning and differing connotations. Giving that up because of morons masquerading as intellectuals using nonsense speech is an unacceptable retreat. Use language as rich and complex as you like and set the people who misuse the language on fire. Language is a societal good, and those who use it to tear down society are doubly traitorous. Deal with them appropriately.

            • X says:

              Somebody doesn’t want readers to know the truth about 9/11. So instead attacking the facts, they meta attack the message with some vacuous claims of intellectual superiority.

          • Koanic says:

            I suspect Jim writes in that style to avoid being identified by his real-life writeprint. I wouldn’t take it as a style guide. Although I enjoy it.

            This is definitely the case with Q.

        • X says:

          I’m ENTP. What are you really wanting to say? Just say it. You dislike my message? You think my message is idiotic or naive or…? Spit it out please.

          • Roberto says:

            Your mental condition, whatever it is, is causing you to write 1,000% as many words as you should. It is annoying and spam-like. You don’t stay on topic, you repeat yourself, and you often write 4 or 5 comments one after the other within the same sub-thread.

            All that would be forgivable if people found what you have to say pertinent or well-written, at least 40% of the time. Alas, they do not, which is why you hardly elicit any responses at all – except from Jim, who as the admin needs to put you in check.

            Look: others here write a lot also. Not as many (repetitive and irrelevant) comments as you do, but yes, blog-regulars often enjoy writing comments.

            The difference is that when Peppermint, Dividualist, Doug, Anglo, Cominator, and even the great evil CR write a comment, the readers sometimes think to themselves, “Wow, that was a good comment. It’s funny; it’s well-written; it’s worthy of a re-read. I thoroughly enjoyed that comment.” In contrast, people don’t feel the same way about comments written by yourself.

            Now, you can get the hint, and write less. Just be more focused and stay on-topic. Or, you can continue to spam the comments section with irrelevant shit, and consequently you’ll be bullycided in ways you have hitherto considered impossible. Your choice, m8.

            • X says:

              Please be specific with at least one or two examples of what you think I wrote that was irrelevant?

              I’m not aware of anything I’ve written on this page which is irrelevant.

              For example, the email I sent to Linus which I shared here was intended to inspire others to do the same, and hopefully achieve something. I am into doing something not just waxing endlessly about politics. Also the reason there are two copies of the email there is because when I posted the first copy, it was censored because of the numerous links. So I reposted it with the links redacted. Jim apparently decided to release the second copy from the moderation queue, thus displaying two copies. I don’t know why he did that? Is it because he wants to make me look bad?

              In any case, I am quite happy to leave and stop posting if that is what Jim and readers want. Before I leave, I would though like you to substantiate your claim by providing some specific examples of what you think is irrelevant?

              • Roberto says:

                Are you kidding me?

                You’ve been vehemently sperging out and melting down about “DEEP STATE 9/11 DEEP STATE 9/11 DEEP STATE 9/11” in this entire thread, for literally no reason at all. Apparently, the previous thread, which is almost 600 comments, of which approximately 75% are your own, just wasn’t enough for you.

                This very sub-thread was started by Peppermint explaining why CR is a ghoul; to which you responded by a whole bunch of things that have 0% to do with Peppermint’s original comment, thus instantly detailing his sub-thread. He wrote a post about CR; you responded with “Blockchain, Bitcoin, Trump, Deep State, 9/11, Asia, SJWs, Russia.” Do you think that’s appropriate?

                Your posts read as spam, even when they aren’t. The solution is to not let your hypergraphic impulse get the best of you. But you’d rather just quit and go elsewhere than force yourself to write better; that’s what people with your condition always do.

                • X says:

                  In my view, Jim’s inability to quickly grok reality (of physics and natural laws for example) was the cause of the extremely voluminous quantity of comments that were required in the prior blog to explain about the controlled demolitions on 9/11. I presume Jim will disagree with my assessment.

                  The generative essence of peppermint’s criticism of CR is that CR doesn’t want a meritocracy. I then argued that the controlled demolitions on 9/11 prove that nations aren’t sovereign and can’t be meritocratic. I asserted that Bitcoin is the only large-scale meritocracy on earth and it is bankrupting the existing financial system and thus its rise will coincide with the collapse of Western civilization as we knew it.

                  So as usual those claim their intellectual superiority over me, are in fact suffering from an intellectual insufficiency and inability to grok my thought process.

                  I think I’ll end it here out of respect for your request to remain clueless and ignorant.

                  I will also thank our host Jim for his gracious non-censorship. And thus as a gesture of my appreciation and respect, I will stop.

                • jim says:

                  > In my view, Jim’s inability to quickly grok reality (of physics and natural laws for example)

                  The reality of physics is that red hot coals do not look much like molten iron, the towers starting their fall by toppling sideways like falling trees does not look much like controlled demolition and lots of people saw a commercial airliner fly at near ground level into the Pentagon.

                • peppermint says:

                  How did two unrelated sentences end up in the same paragraph? (fwiw I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your writing)

                  My criticism of CR isn’t that he rejects meritocracy, he will say anything, it’s that he’s a level 2 ghoul looking for life force to drain before being banished back to the heck from which he came.

              • jim says:

                When I released the one from moderation, it simply did not occur to me to remove the other. Or maybe I simply could not easily find it.

                Since you want me to remove the other, give me the link, and I will remove it.

    • peppermint says:

      CR did teach me to recognize ghouls. They are creepy in that humans want a mutual exchange of value, and more than that, a continuing relationship that they can rely on, and a community they can support their families in, while ghouls want power, status, money, right now, with no regard for anything. Humans can feel fear and shame or get bored, ghouls can’t.

      Level 1 ghouls consume resources and don’t do much else. A human can even control one of them and get it to do useful work, but even then, its’ rotting flesh is taking up space that a human could occupy, and as soon as a higher level ghoul appears, any appearance of loyalty is gone, and you never get much of an appearance of loyalty out of a ghoul, it will never notice your haircut, it will never give you a birthday present.

      Level 2 ghouls are smarter than Level 1 and instinctively, reflexively, creepily seek power. They are great at controlling their fellow ghouls; when they approach humans they try to flatter us or make promises, but know that it is flattery and promises from the icy undead. One thing they will never agree to do, however, is honest work for a dignified salary. They have no use for that, since they don’t have families.

      Level 3 ghouls, aka berserker ghouls, aka SJWs, will famously always lie, project and double down. They will tirelessly hunt down the enemies of the necromancers and their demon lords and many of our people have fallen victim to them. They are much more self-aware and subtle about their power-seeking reflex. Some of them are self-aware of being ghouls, others fancy themselves necromancers.

      Necromancers have a few differences from level 3 ghouls. Surely “Coraline Ada Ehmke” has created more of value than Hillary Clinton, but Ehmke is a ghoul, and Clinton is a necromancer. The real difference is, naturally enough, of control: necromancers are in control of their ghouls (if they lose control, of course, they just become ghouls). Necromancers only take orders from the demon lords, which they see as freedom.

      • The Cominator says:

        Re Ghouls… Ever since I’ve heard of 4chan’s NPC theory (that some people are just sort of soulless automatons who follow stimuli) I wonder if there is something to it.

        90% of the younger millenials give me the impression they are NPCs…

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Jim should repost quote this – really insightful.

      • X says:

        One last parting fart…my gf will be delighted (Jim your theme that females like to be frightened) to hear that the “zombie apocalypse” horror that she views in the movies is actually coming to fruition. Millennials seem to be into this movie theme.

        Keep in mind Winter’s point about Karl Popper, witch hunts, and human innate to demonize. Also keep in mind Nietzsche’s point about ressentiment.

        My (Millennia filipina) gf’s reasonable reaction just now, “because they’re all on drugs.”

        Bottom line is that humans are fallen creatures and that’s why we either need global elite and/or blockchains to enforce some Forms of Action so we have some order in the chaos. The more decentralized (more degrees-of-freedom) in the order, the more resilient it will be. Don’t be a victim of the collateral damage.

        I’ll be working on this. No time for endless political discussion. Cya…

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Blockchain’s just egalitarianism and democracy all over again: the wisdom of crowds.

          This libertarian shibboleth of “the more decentralised (more degrees of freedom) in the order, the more resilient it will be” is just wrong. It’s no more real than ‘we the people’.

          Ultimately blockchain’s just the principle of ‘trust no-one, keep meticulous records and have witnesses’, ie. the low trust society of atomised individuals.

          I see why libertarians like it, but anyone concerned with security and the health of society should have no truck with it.
          We need Moldbug’s cast iron global fiat currency managed with an iron fist.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Fiat money is the PCP of the State, which under its influence can no longer distinguish hallucinations from reality.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              CR believes (of course) that we need a fiat currency for “reactionary” reasons.

              So unexpected.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                There, flushed out two more libertarians. Sorry Doug ^^

                Fully-fledged Keynesian Economics is basically the deliberate, rather than accidental, planning of the money supply to match the needs of the nation.
                The reason it’s so unbelievably terrible in the context of the modern world is the usual reason that reactionaries note: the central banks are run on a democratic basis, serving political organisations which are themselves run on a democratic basis; worse, every piece of that machine is subject to independent checks&balances, appeals procedures and so on.

                This is why what we see is not in fact a planned money supply, but rather bureaucratic sludge pretending to be a planned money supply, combined with outright corruption for party-political gain.

                This leads libertarians to do what they always do, namely to seize upon the failure of the status quo as an excuse to destroy the institution itself, in this case the money of the nation, in favour of a ‘free market in money’.

                Can you seriously IMAGINE how the people living paycheck to paycheck because they have a Franky&Benny’s habit would be exploited by crooks and sheisters in a free market in money? lol Come, work for our special Taco Bell money, you’ll even get discounts, it’s legit!

                I don’t give a damn if you idiots want to call me anti-reactionary, progressive, leftist or anything else you want. What I’m anti is libertarianism, namely the bias in favour of letting people do stupid destructive things on the grounds of the superiority of the free market over the King’s responsibility.

                What actually happened to Kings when we ‘devolved’ away their responsibilities? Basically Victoria happened, and then the comedy Georges, then the fake Elizabeth and now what…. Queen Meghan?

                Good job, free market

                • jim says:

                  > Fully-fledged Keynesian Economics is basically the deliberate, rather than accidental, planning of the money supply to match the needs of the nation.

                  A predictable formulaic lie.

                  Keynesian economics is in actual practice always and necessarily the expropriation of savers and investors in favor of those well connected to the state. Human nature makes this absolutely inevitable, just as intervention supposedly in favor of peasants inevitably turns into war on the peasants, and the “Iron Ricebowl” inevitably turns into artificial famine.

                  The good King will not allow himself too great power to control other people’s property and intervene in the households of other patriarchs, for to do so would require him to exercise power more than any mortal can exercise, will destroy the incentives of patriarchs and property owners, and the power will slip into the hands of a faceless bureaucracy that he cannot control or even keep track of.

                  Similarly the good king will not allow himself the power to plan the money supply to match the needs of the nation, for the power will inevitably slip from his hands into the hands of banker regulators whose actions he cannot keep track of, and inevitably the power will be exercised to their benefit, not to the benefit of the nation or the King.

                  Power to plan the money supply to match the needs of the nation is power to priests at the expense of businessmen and ordinary members of the middle class, and winds up matching the needs of priests at the expense of businessmen and households.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s a description of the status quo.

                  There’s no reason why some of the better pieces of maths couldn’t be turned to a more productive use, it’s just essential that ONE PERSON WITH AUTHORITY do the planning, rather than a nested structure of committees and over-seers on behalf of a temporary administration of competing semi-rulers.

                  It’s a tiresome Hans Hoppy argument I know, but the time horizon of a monarch’s long because he wants to bequeath the kingdom, whereas the time horizon of a politician’s short because he knows he’ll be voted out at some point, etc. etc.

                  By the way I’m not advocating Keynesian Economics, just that the King control the money supply in order to undertake economic planning. Everything else in the domain of ‘economics’ (if such a thing even exists) should be good old-fashioned pre-20th century economics, or “Austrian Economics” as it’s now called.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The most nefarious libertarian shibboleth of all is that Austrian Economics implies Libertarianism.
                  You know Tom Woods is on dodgy ground when he just hand-waves and says “you could be Austrian without being libertarian……… if you hated humanity”.
                  He usually rarely question-begs like that so it’s obviously a weak spot.

                  On closer inspection it’s outright wrong. Nothing in Mises points to the absence of planning in society: quite the contrary in fact and his own career in Austria was very authoritarian.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >There’s no reason why some of the better pieces of maths couldn’t be turned to a more productive use, it’s just essential that ONE PERSON WITH AUTHORITY do the planning,

                  Just constant leftist shibboleths.

                  Yes, tell us of this one PERSON with authority – us reactionaries like having a person with authority run things.

                  Man – the word is man you leftist faggot. At least try.

          • X says:

            We need Moldbug’s cast iron global fiat currency managed with an iron fist.

            That is what Bitcoin is. The global elite may control the mining. But they won’t violate the protocol anytime soon,because if they did then it would blow up the perceived of a Nash equilibrium and Ideal Money.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              X, you’re doing the usual Bitcuck trick of conflating Bitcoin and ‘Blockchain technology’.

              Bitcoin is one of an infinite number of cryptocurrencies: there are currently 57 with market caps above a hundred million dollars and there’s no reason why that supply shouldn’t continue to explode.
              What would you idiots say if QE ran at the same rate as the growth in the global supply of crypto monetary units? lol 5700% growth in the money supply in ten years? Get out of here!

              Bitcoin’s famously ungoverned, which is why scam artists like Jeffrey Tucker love it. The question is why so many self-described reactionaries, opposed in principle to anything being ungoverned, also love it!

          • jim says:

            A central currency managed by a true king would work, but it is an attractive nuisance, attracts corrupt people, winds up not being managed in the best interests of the currency holders, then winds up not even being managed in the best interests of those with the privilege of issuing currency

            • The Cominator says:

              The problem with commodity currencies is they get hoarded. Currencies should not be a store of value just a medium of exchange.

              The problem with Fed Notes it that the currency is debt based (which is a horrible awful scam) and it doesn’t consistently produce the steady inflation it is supposed to. But currency SHOULD steadily inflate. Value can be stored elsewhere. Lincoln’s Greenbacks were far better.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Hoarding of mined commodity money counter-acts the mining, plus a little bit of added deflation. History suggests only a very slight and gentle deflationary effect, more than matched by the inflationary effect of better wage negotiations.

                Commodity money is semi-governed, which is why libertarians favour ‘a free market in money’, with the usual caveat that this tends to favour some sort of commodity money, though in the modern world who can honestly say what would happen lol imagine a billion gaslit former shitlibs in Lolbergistan taking Google’s word for what constitutes sound money lol

                *why is commodity money ‘semi-governed’? Because whilst it’s anarchic in the sense that there’s no-one in charge of it, in practice GNON is in charge of it because more doesn’t spontaneously appear. (Of course new deposits are sometimes found, which is in principle inflationary but only to a small degree. The big source of shocks under commodity money is large sudden international movements of the commodity, such as the conquest of South America’s effect on Spain. Interestingly nobody uses this as an argument against excessive international trade. More thought required.)

              • The Cominator says:

                “‘a free market in money”

                Moldbug was very clear that this doesn’t actually exist and probably can’t exist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I don’t recall that argument being made but I already disagree with it. Moldbug (PBUH) isn’t God.

                  Just to be clear, I assume you’re not saying you’ve never heard a libertarian talk about “a free market in money”?

                • The Cominator says:

                  https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered/

                  Among other things he explains that free markets in banking and money never really actually exists here.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Today he’d expand that to include, well, everything.

                  The market anarchy Lew Rockwell pretends to believe in is just a fiction. All economies are planned.

                  Reading the piece now: you were right about eugenics and the need to sterilise large numbers of people until the problems have become manageable again, so maybe you have a point here.

                  Nevertheless, I again hope you’re not claiming that no libertarian ever says “a free market in money”, because they do, from Sheldon Richman to Bob Murphy to Christopher Cantwell.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m NOT claiming that libertarians don’t talk about a free market in money.

                  I’m just claiming that maybe other then for 8 years or so after Andrew Jackson it just doesn’t happen.

                  Not all economies are planned, but all monetary systems are planned (generally badly).

      • Koanic says:

        Great post

  22. Not CR says:

    Jesus H. Christ you’ll never give it a rest will ya?? The difference between Neoreaction and Libertarianism ain’t just that Libertards promote what normals call degeneracy and libertinism and NRx is all about ethics and myths but both are still capitalist, NRx REJECTS Capitalism 150% bottom line. It doesn’t have a single shit to do with some kind of divide between Libertard Matrix of dildos mumbo jumbo and Traditional Morals, it’s about Libertarianism wantting to do away with hierarchy to get a few more shekels, NRx *embraces* both order and hierarchy because they are part of our Human Nature and can’t just be done away willynilly without causing the destruction of civilization. Libertarianism promote degeneracy so one class _parasites- can milk their superiors while NRx promote Feudalism because we’re smart enough to know the workers *need* bosses because they can’t manage on there own becuase of the problem of low I.Q.’s in the working-class (Read some Evola, it’ll do your brain some good! Cut the “Libertarians and Conservatvies are just buddies that lost their way’ malarkey already cause we ain’t buying it bub.

    You don’t know a damn thing about me, weirdo. Nations are communities?? NO SHIT SHERLOCK!! Guess what, I *care* about my Volk’s Community and that’s why I support economic systems that work, not crapola that just produces sickening GARBAGE like capitalism, “mixed economics”, fascist corporatism or other. I don’t want my Volk to become degenerate through wealth(Read Glubb) and thats exactly what happens when you take away the stimulus of poverty, central planning, Hierarchy in the workplace and start allowing personal inititative to let any random start a business of dubious value, privarizing property and letting Dildocracy run rampant. I don’t give a rat’s ass about “starvation” or “famine” or “empty store shelves” I care about *results* and when you go against Human Nature like Libertarians do you do nothing but bring decay. I’m a proud Authoritarian and Communist *and NRx* Every single supposedly “left-wing” Communist State has been more Redpilled than the supposedly less leftist “free world” because Communism isolated them from Merchant’s markets and the shilling.

    Every time a functional Communist state fiddled with markets, the Jews showed up to harm the state. Look at the shithole that is China, or the collapse of the USSR. We in NRx could learn a thing or two from that. Its folks like *you* that get butt hurt about Economics and focus on unimportant technicalities like “everyone’s starving”, who do the Jew’s dirty work. I always say that NRx is about *more* then Economics, that Economy is just a tool to bring about National Greatness and imports from Japan. Whenever I name that tool or name the Jews, I get a bunch of goyim running to their defense as Liberal Slime like you get butt hurt like no tomorrow. You folks are all hung up about Economics not me, because you want to push your Jewish crapola without any body noticing.

    The Soviet Union was doing just fine until ol’ Gorbachev got into office and Dumbocracy creeped back in. Now Cultural & Economic Judaism are being allowed to undo all the progress made by the heirs of Lenin, which is just another lesson for us to draw from.

    ps I DON’T Support North Korea at all. Kim Jong Un is a weak-minded manchild with little enough moral fiber that he consider being a good goy and doing ‘market’ reforms on even a limited level to be a good idea. I just don’t like seeing a perfectly functional nation like North Korea seeing it’s culture and economy being cucked.

    • The Cominator says:

      > NRx REJECTS Capitalism

      > I’m a proud Authoritarian and Communist *and NRx*

      Sure ya are. How do we do fellow reactionaries isn’t Marxism great.

      You have to go back.

      https://media1.tenor.com/images/8ad4d2ed04f3094456f12d099251727e/tenor.gif

      Jim I’m thinking it should be an immediate permaban (if possible) to claim that NRx and Marxism have any overlap. If people want to argue for Marxism fine, they should not be able to claim that Marxism is NRx.

      Moldbuggian NRx supports capitalism and SOME KIND of authoritarian government. Moldbug for whatever reason didn’t want to touch the woman question.

      Jimian NRx supports capitalism, monarchy, patriarchy and to some degree (though probably not as much as say stormtards would like) ethnonationalism.

Leave a Reply