Poz, capitalism, and free markets.

Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.

But others have been making more sophisticated arguments, which arguments deserve to be promoted into a post.

Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders, which requires the Christian program of peace with outsiders, which is apt to result in the hyper Christian holier than Jesus program of surrender to outsiders.

Obviously the Libertarian Party promotes free markets, and also promotes poz that will at best result in whites being ethnically cleansed out of America, and males being spiritually castrated, and at worst could result in whites being physically genocided and males being physically castrated. This started with the nineteenth century English prime minister Gladstone building a coalition between economists and the hyperpuritan leftist evangelicals, which was swiftly devoured by the left, and ever since then libertarians have been trying to revive that coalition by accepting ever greater levels of ever more suicidal poz and ever more emasculating poz.

So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz, manifest in the logic of trade, manifest in the holiness spiral of Christianity, manifest in Gladstone and manifest in the Libertarian party.

(But not however manifest in capitalists selling wedding cakes to gays, nor in capitalists selling mortgages to cat-eating illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets. Obviously making marriage gay reduces marriage, does not increase it, obviously gays do not get married except to humiliate Christians and prevent straights from getting and staying married, and obviously selling mortgages to cat-eating unemployed illegal immigrants loses money. Obviously very few non Asian minorities can successfully handle a substantial mortgage, thus attempts to provide a substantial number of non Asian minorities with substantial mortgages inevitably and entirely predictably blew up in the loss of a trillion dollars. Whiteness predicts loan repayment better than credit history, except for the longest and most stringent credit histories. Even Asian nonwhites have substantially higher levels of credit scam for the same level of credit history, and non Asian non whites are all scammers, as near to all of them as makes no difference, just as all female CEOs and board members blow up the company as if it was a marriage to a beta male. If a non Asian nonwhite repaid a mortgage, it is solely because he flipped the house for a profit, and the real estate agent had to take the back payments on the mortgage out of the sale, in order to deliver a clean deed to the buyer. If he had a clean credit history before he took the mortgage, it was faked up. All women are like that, and all non asian minorities are like that.)

Carlylean Restorationist argues

Are you happy with Poz so long as there’s a free market liberated from central planners?

I’m sorry but I’m just not, at all. I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin not because I love five year plans, Soviets deciding what brands of breakfast cereal will be on the shelves (if any) and tanks on every corner.
I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin than 2018 Berlin because 2018 Berlin’s violent, rapey and full of filth, while 1988 Berlin isn’t.
I’d feel safer, more at home, in the 1988 version of Berlin.

(I use Berlin rather than London not because of any preference for it – quite the opposite in fact. The reason is that 1988 Berlin had the worst kind of economic policy imaginable to one of our mindset. The thing is, in spite of that policy – or (red pill) because of it – it doesn’t suffer from what 2018 Berlin suffers from under global relatively free trade.)

Well yes, but the brown face of the Democratic party, like Venezuela, has close to the worst economic policy imaginable, and also at the same time has poz at ethnic cleansing levels, in that the whiteish minority is being driven out of Venezuela Kristallnacht style.

Eighteenth century England had reasonably sound economic policy, and also far less poz than any twentieth or twenty first century society.

So, if we compare 1988 Berlin with 2018 Berlin, or with the suicidal ethnomasochist globohomo policy of the Libertarian party, looks like a strong connection between sound economics, and suicidal poz.

If we compare eighteenth century England, with Gladstone’s England, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, and seriously damaging levels of poz. Gladstone began today’s attack on the family, began the replacement of marriage with child support, and turned the British empire into the anti British empire, foreshadowing today’s anti American “International Community” empire.

If we compare the Libertarian Party with almost anyone, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, suicidal ethnomasochism, and globohomo self castration.

On the other hand, if we compare Trump’s America with Venezuela, or Trump with the brown face of the Democratic Party, or eighteenth century England with almost anywhere, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, free markets, and lack of poz. The libertarians attack Trump for insufficient capitalism, and insufficient poz, while the brown Democrats attack him for excessive capitalism, and insufficient poz.

The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy. I read that the “lavish lifestyles” of the nobility were harshly curtailed, and I also read that famine followed so it would seem that the lavish lifestyles of the serfs were also harshly curtailed. Which only makes sense if leftism did exactly what it always does: Knock over the apple cart to grab the apples. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster for almost everyone in agriculture, particularly the serfs. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster from day one, and steadily got worse and worse all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks, because the emancipation was accompanied by the introduction of collective land ownership. The correct solution was to emancipate serfs without land, converting them into agricultural laborers, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers. But the left was already campaigning vehemently against emancipation, and had it been done that way Alexander would have gone down in Whig history as worse than Vlad the impaler. So in Czarist Russia we see a connection between unsound economic policy, and poz leading to suicidal poz. Bad economic policy, in the form of collective land ownership, led to more poz, which eventually led to a disproportionately Jewish communist party taking charge. (Albeit Stalin continued bad economic policy while massively reducing poz.)

So yes, there is a connection between sound economic policy and ethnomasochistic rule by globohomos, since sound economics favors peace with outsiders, and favoring peace with outsiders is apt to blur into favoring surrender to hostile outsiders.

But Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.

Tags: ,

196 Responses to “Poz, capitalism, and free markets.”

  1. bob k. mando - ( Creepy Joe Biden always asks your baby for consent before he changes her diaper ) says:

    Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

    come on, Jim. you’re supposed to be more up on Reality than this.

    Marx advocates free International Trade in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, it’s supposed to help drive the creation of the International Proletariat.

    which, as it happens, is the same time ( pre-1950s ) that the Republican Party in the US was very protectionist.

    like Muh Dumbocracy, there is NOTHING “reactionary” about Free Trade and neither of those philosophical positions have anything to do with the principles that the US Constitution was written to express.

    in fact, the US Federal Government was intended to be funded by Tariffs ( since the Income Tax didn’t exist until the 20th century ), which is the precise inverse of muh Free Trade.

    • jim says:

      I support bilateral free trade agreements supported by the threat and actuality of trade wars – I support Trump’s policy on tariffs. That peace is better than war does not imply that surrender is better than war. I also support Trump’s infant industry and technological externality argument for tariffs.

      I oppose, reject, and condemn, the American constitution and the declaration of independence.

        • jim says:

          The Battle Hymn of the Republic celebrates the state religion of New England conquering the states of America and suppressing the diverse and separate state religions of the individual states. Like Nazism, it is is now reactionary only in having been left behind by further movement leftwards.

          The battle hymn of the Republic celebrates what Harvard used to be.

          We will burn down what Harvard has become, and we should have burned down what Harvard used to be.

          That said, what Harvard was then was far to the right of 1930s Nazi Germany, so the Battle Hymn of the Republic is in some contexts reactionary.

          • peppermint says:

            The best looking building in Cambridge is Harvard’s Memorial Hall built to celebrate their victory in the War between the States.

            Everything else, at best functional and nice. Except the Cambridge Public Library which is tastefully half stone and half glass and steel.

            Meanwhile at night homeless people fuck in a nearby church doorway visible from the street.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              That’s true in the original Cambridge too: major HIV scene, major heroin scene, major homelessness; lots of very righteous People Who Know Best, a booming retard support industry, 99% on the government payroll one way or another, very wealthy.

              The whole place needs to go into one of Professor Hawking’s messy black holes.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “which, as it happens, is the same time ( pre-1950s ) that the Republican Party in the US was very protectionist.”

      For the same reason the South was against protectionism. It isn’t poz, it is sectional politics.

      • bob k. mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) says:

        For the same reason the South was against protectionism.

        ie – for purely economic reasons with no basis in politics or philosophy.

        the economy of the South was driven by exports ( cotton, sugar, tobacco ). therefore, they preferred lower Tariffs as this would boost their external market value and size.

        the economy of the North was driven by the strength of domestic industry ( the factories of the Great Lakes States ). therefore, they wanted protection against the strength of English and German manufacturing.

        the economy of the South ( approx 1/3 of the US population at the time ) was subsidizing the economy of the North because almost 3/4 of Federal revenue derived from Southern Tariffs … the North wasn’t exporting much.

        I oppose, reject, and condemn, the American constitution and the declaration of independence.

        *shrugs*

        so you would have voted for Lincoln.

        he hated the 10th Amendment just as much as you do, and he did his part to destroy the Republic.

        I support bilateral free trade agreements supported by the threat and actuality of trade wars

        as i’ve pointed out before, a Unilateral Universal Free Trade Agreement with the entire planet could be implemented today

        and it wouldn’t even require the filling of one side of Ansi A.

        1 – the US will drop all Tariffs against any nation which drops all Tariffs against our products

        2 – if any nation chooses to impose any Tariff or market quota,
        a – the US will take the highest Tariff which that nation imposes, add 10%, and apply that as a Tariff against EVERY product from that nation
        b – any import quotas will be likewise reciprocated against ALL products from that nation ( exemptions allowed only in cases of National Security concerns over raw materials that can’t be sourced in the US / Canada )

        boom. there ya go. a few more codicils for other types of interference in Muh Free Trade ( regulations and the like such as China and Japan like to use ).

        these ‘Free Trade Agreements’ which run to thousands of pages are clearly no such thing.

        I also support Trump’s infant industry and technological externality argument for tariffs.

        i’ve been pointing out for … thirty years now? … that Muh Free Trade is not a rational possibility when dealing with a slave economy.

        and, of course, it’s epic stupidity to have Free Trade agreements with nations which have sworn the destruction of the United States. ie – still overtly Communist China. in that case, the Free Traders are arguing directly against their own policies and philosophies. they claim that Free Trade will make BOTH parties stronger.

        why would you *want* to strengthen China? and give them nukes? and give them ballistic missiles? hrm. that looks quite like a strategic plan.

        but to get back to refuting your original proposition:
        Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders,

        the historical data disproves this, categorically. in the same way that it disproves the utility and efficiency of the Federal Reserve.

        the United States ( both North and South ) grew more robustly in the 18th through early 20th century than it has since the artificial enhancement of WW2 destroying the industrial base of almost every other 1st world nation on the planet.

        IF the ( privately owned ) Federal Reserve cannot create greater and more consistent growth than the minimally regulated 18th century
        THEN why are we paying them billions in interest every year? especially since they have utterly failed at the purpose for which they were created ( normalizing business cycles, the Great Depression and Great Recession both occurring *after* the creation of the Fed ).

        IF Muh Marxist Free Trade is so beneficial to the economy of the nation
        THEN why have American incomes stagnated since the mid 1970s?

        International Free Trade is uniquely beneficial to certain ethnic groups who insinuate themselves into governments and nations around the planet, though.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “ie – for purely economic reasons with no basis in politics or philosophy.”

          Self interest is the driver of most human behavior.

          “as i’ve pointed out before, a Unilateral Universal Free Trade Agreement with the entire planet could be implemented today”

          That doesn’t solve the issue of countries subsidizing firms; instead of openly fighting with tariffs, they now find new and harder to measure ways.

          “IF Muh Marxist Free Trade is so beneficial to the economy of the nation”

          The United States has uniquely low levels of international trade compared with most of the rest of the developing world; while our elite do use free trade to screw over the working class, it has little affect on the countries overall growth rate.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          How do all these boomers keep finding their way here?

        • pdimov says:

          >why would you *want* to strengthen China?

          Well because the Experts on China have figured that since China is Communist, it can never be an economic threat to America and hence there’s no danger in moving half of America’s economy there for cost efficiency reasons.

          >IF Muh Marxist Free Trade is so beneficial to the economy of the nation
          THEN why have American incomes stagnated since the mid 1970s?

          Good question to which I’d like to know the answer. NAFTA and WTO are from 1994 by the way.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            Mass immigration is from 1965; it depresses wages as well as increasing the number of low income earners. There is also the rest of the left apparatus put into place at the time (civil rights, ethnic cleansing, incentivizing crime, etc) which probably had an effect.

            • pdimov says:

              There is also women entering the work force.

              I’m familiar with the various possible answers, I just don’t know which one of them is correct (or to what extent each has contributed.)

          • Michael Rothblatt says:

            >THEN why have American incomes stagnated since the mid 1970s?

            The end of Bretton Woods.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Indeed, growth since slipping the Fed and the Income tax past the American public has been about 50% of what it had been before 1913…Perhaps appointing (((elites))) to pillage the American economy wasn’t such a good idea?!

        • TBeholder says:

          > the historical data disproves this, categorically.
          How so?
          Everyone who matters or prospers traded, a lot.
          Trade is possible at all because side A values products from side B a little more than side B does, and vice versa.
          The only troublesome cases are extremes of power imbalance:
          1. Formation of trade empire, that leads to smugness, incurable class separation, excessive brutality (thus hate from neighbors, and attempts of retribution up to genocide once its grasp weakens) and rot in some form (the ones from Picture This, or Khazarian Kahanate per Gumilev). And
          2. Thoroughly export-oriented, especially slave driving economy, like American South or Russia from Peter I to Alexander II. Which is apt to become a de-facto colony of a foreign empire, waste all its excess product for beads and mirrors rather than development and reserves, stagnate and breed laughable forms of poz.

  2. […] Poz, capitalism, and free markets. […]

  3. D. Schmitt says:

    This just goes to show that conventional left/right as a basket of things (which may or may not actually be linked) is so silly. Is free trade left or right? Under the normal lines of thinking it seems to belong to either or both depending on the year.

    What free trade does is break down the boundaries between two peoples, create dependence, and undermines sovereignty. As goods flow so does language and culture. Eventually what was once two separate peoples becomes meshed together in such a way that any separation causes unbearable economic strain. Also the subjects of one crown must then compete directly with the subjects of another, only each is under different laws. So that the actions of one ruler can impoverish the subjects of the other. Of course this could start a trade war but only if the ruler is willing, which has been quite rare recently. This inability to defend the interests of his subjects makes a ruler obviously weak.

    Free trade is only ever a good idea with peoples you already trust as family, and for goods you could live without. Universal free trade is blueprint for the tower of babel.

    • jim says:

      > Free trade is only ever a good idea with peoples you already trust as family, and for goods you could live without. Universal free trade is blueprint for the tower of babel.

      If you are trading for stuff that is nice to have, but you could do without (and you cannot do without steel) then you don’t need to trust them as family. And if you trust them as family, then can trade with them for stuff you cannot do without.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        This is absolutely right. Everything Leonard Reed claimed in “I, Pencil” was right: it doesn’t matter if you loathe and despise the people you’re trading with – so long as you’re voluntarily entering into trade with them, both sides are better off.

        There are those on the modern dissident right who don’t accept this, and they’re completely wrong.

        However, Ricardo was 100% wrong on the international division of labour. In the modern world, machines and blueprints can cross borders very easily, as can labour itself. That fact changes everything.
        The only sound reason for foreign trade of any kind is that the foreign country has some resource that we do not have, at all, or the goods&services they’re providing are things we have no interest at all in producing ourselves.

        In all other circumstances, free trade across borders is harmful to society, regardless of the benefits it brings to individuals and groups and the *economy* as a whole.

        When the Scottish steel works closed, Scottish steel workers were divided: the ones who stayed became defeated alcoholic nihilists and the ones who couldn’t bring themselves to accept that moved to places like Corby Northamptonshire.
        When the Corby steel works closed, Scottish steel workers largely fell into defeated nihilistic alcoholism.
        Rather than use the ‘freed up labour’ to work in factories, the factory owners imported cheap former-Soviet nation labour, to the point that some factories in East Anglia now infamously state in their advertisements “must speak Polish”.

        The government (of all stripes, across the decades) is of course guilty and utterly complicit, up to their necks in the corruption.

        But to claim that the businesses were dragged along for the ride kicking and screaming would be unacceptable.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Ricardo also assumed a gold standard that would automatically balance serious trade imbalances. Bretton Woods put paid to that…

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Not only Bretton Woods. A pure, functioning gold standard is rubbish also.
            People lose, hoard or make jewellery (etc.) out of gold so the global supply is doubly unstable: generally deflationary but with sudden influxes from new mines opening, new stashes discovered, etc. etc.

            Using gold for money is basically monetary anarchism: no-one is in charge, the system just emerges from nature. That gold (or something very very similar) is the best of these emergent, anarchic monetary solutions is really beyond doubt.

            We’re not Lockeans however (see latest article); we don’t believe all men are equal so it’s not tyrannical for some men to manage the money supply.

            Hence in a healthy society, fiat money would be a very, very big improvement on commodity money.

            In our sick world, the healthiest, most noble technology can and will be turned to poison. Jeffrey Tucker sings the praises of the iPhone app, but iPhones are also the most tyrannical surveillance system ever devised.

            In a healthy society, you’d be glad the state knew where you were and what you were doing. In our sick society, it feels oppressive because the people using the information are your oppressors.

            • TBeholder says:

              > In a healthy society, you’d be glad the state knew where you were and what you were doing. In our sick society, it feels oppressive because the people using the information are your oppressors.
              “The people out there happen to be your oppressors” is one-step-and-yawn thinking.
              The people willing to be your oppressors will always be the ones using this information, if at all possible.

              Any mechanism of power waits to be abused not because sooner or later it just somehow happens that there’s absolutely no one trustworthy who could be given it, but because there’s always someone willing to abuse it, and it’s those with incentive who will actively seek access to this mechanism (whether directly or via bribing/coercing those already having access to it).

  4. jim says:

    Carlylean Restorationist argues:

    > Is business the innocent bystander reluctantly dragged along for the ride, and hence harmless in a more just libertarian (or related) order?

    > NO……….. it is……. not…………

    Bullshit.

    If banks were allowed, they would refuse to lend to non Asian minorities, except for very small amounts, very short periods and very high interest rates, because such loans are very risky, because race is a better predictor of a loan being repaid than credit history. This would have profoundly reactionary consequences.

    If businesses were allowed, they would refuse to have women as board members or high executives, because of the female propensity for disruptive drama creation. This would have profoundly reactionary consequences.

    If businesses were allowed, they would never employ persons ethnically or culturally different from the existing leadership of the company for positions requiring trust, except those people were white Christians, because of the problem that diversity undermines trust. This would have profoundly reactionary consequences.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Business complies with the dictates of the left because doing so makes them money and not doing so makes them lose money to regulators, mobs, and grandstanding rent seekers. They are bowing to the edicts of a hostile and insane religion. The rational economic decision is to comply with the left, because the left has the power to destroy them.

      Look at how long it took and how much coercion was involved with making business kneel. Affirmative action, Supreme Court decisions outlawing competency testing, imposition of racial and sexual quotas, harassment and discrimination lawsuits.

      If we could free business from these requirements, we would have a very strong economic ally once the corrections occurred. To do that, we need power, or friends with power. The issues with business are that we are out of power and our enemies have it. They control the direction of business, hence poz. If we controlled them, no poz.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Business complies with the dictates of the left because doing so makes them money and not doing so makes them lose money to regulators, mobs, and grandstanding rent seekers. They are bowing to the edicts of a hostile and insane religion. The rational economic decision is to comply with the left, because the left has the power to destroy them.

        At this point, ‘business’ appears to joyfully signal and implement leftism, presumably because the managers actually are leftists, women, homosexuals, tribal foreigners, etc. Google is more zealous in destroying wrongthinkers than employment law putatively allows and nobody cares or even pretend to shake their heads with a smile at their youthful exuberance. (A bit of luck then that the judicial profession also appears to consist of leftists with little respect for the law per se.)

        In short, the infection of poz has proceeded farther than you think.

        To get to these positions of power, you first need to pass through the indoctrination centre and be approved by its masters. Universities must thus be sacked, plundered and burned. Law professors, among others, sent to the camps for reeducation never to be seen again.

        • jim says:

          Google got legal advice that they had to fire Damore, because crimethink was a hostile environment for women. So that was not spontaneous enthusiasm for suppressing crimethink, but fear of a hostile environment lawsuit. Social Justice Warriors were lying about what Damore said and thought, and would present the same lies before a judge to get their way. Remove the threat of the judge who would lean their way, they would have been fired for creating drama, not Damore.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            >Google got legal advice that they had to fire Damore, because crimethink was a hostile environment for women. So that was not spontaneous enthusiasm for suppressing crimethink, but fear of a hostile environment lawsuit.

            Not the story I’ve heard.

            The story I’ve heard is that the true believer head of youtube declared that he must be fired because she couldn’t explain to her daughters why Damore was wrong so the figurehead CEO hopped to it.

          • pyrrhus says:

            Nice try, but as an attorney I can tell you that it’s BS…Companies like Google can fight employee lawsuits for more or less infinite amounts of time, and very few employees would want to sue anyway, given the risk of becoming unemployable by Big Tech. Not to mention that the case would not have any merit, and might be rejected by the EOC.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            It’s instructive to read, e.g., Damore’s complaint against Google. Sometimes with some legal dramatic flourishes but generally credible IMO.

            6. Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so.

            8. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class Periods.

            128. On or around August 2015, Adam Fletcher (“Fletcher”), a L6 SRE Manager at Google, Jake McGuire (“McGuire”), a L7 SRE Manager at Google, and Nori Heikkinen (Heikkinen”), a L6 SRE Manager at Google all publicly endorsed blacklisting conservatives and actively preventing them from seeking employment opportunities at Google.

            https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit

            Et cetera, RTWT.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        >Business complies with the dictates of the left because doing so makes them money and not doing so makes them lose money to regulators, mobs, and grandstanding rent seekers. They are bowing to the edicts of a hostile and insane religion. The rational economic decision is to comply with the left, because the left has the power to destroy them.

        True.

        >If we could free business from these requirements, we would have a very strong economic ally once the corrections occurred.

        Not true.

        Look, what happens practically is that the old company officials complied because they were forced to but got replaced by true believers as time went on. The true believers then filtered for true believers resulting in a corp that’s entirely dedicated to furthering the poz – which is fine – the market *can* handle that but here’s the catch: the prog state then protects the converged companies with all the tools at its disposal – which are considerable.

        If you tried to rip out the state backing for the poz now all the converged businesses will fight it because the poz is what’s protecting them from competition.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Plenty would fight, yes. However, I speak of a period of time after the removal of the poz and the resulting economic corrections. Big business is not our friend now by any means, and it needs to be aggressively opposed. Once changes are implemented, they could be allies, but only once the poz is sufficiently weakened. At that point, businesses can be reactionary without fear of governmental intervention.

          If the left rules, business is leftist. If the right rules, business is rightist.

        • peppermint says:

          (1) signal that the snivel rights will never again be enforced
          (2) execs say, this is not Our Values
          (3) they just breached their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Fire them.

          I mean, it’s not quite that straightforward, on paper it is, in practice maybe we need to incenerate some of the trash, maliciously prosecute it for this or that, whatever.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      >If banks were allowed, they would refuse to lend to non Asian minorities, except for very small amounts, very short periods and very high interest rates, because such loans are very risky, because race is a better predictor of a loan being repaid than credit history.

      Nah, they’d still act to please the prog state because what MM said about our banking system is 100% true. The combination of maturity transformation and fiat currency means that every bank is constantly in danger of having its long positions drop in value and being unable to liquidate them without undermining every other bank who are (of course) all holding the same long-term assets. The result is that none of them can cover their short-term obligations if anything goes wrong. How does it actually work? They all get backstopped by the Fed which will simply give them money and buy market assets with freshly created dollars if anything goes wrong… as long as the prog state is happy with the way you’ve been running your bank.

      Much better to pay the prog tax and make less money in the short term because you make loans that don’t get paid back than to have your whole bank go under when the next inevitable crisis hits.

      • jim says:

        > > If banks were allowed, they would refuse to lend to non Asian minorities, except for very small amounts, very short periods and very high interest rates, because such loans are very risky, because race is a better predictor of a loan being repaid than credit history.

        > Nah, they’d still act to please the prog state

        Which is the same as saying that they are not allowed.

        • glosoli says:

          Lend to all comers, including ethnics>make great short-term profits>help your fellow capitalists who sell stuff to fill the houses>sell on the packaged debts to the mugs>short those packaged debts, making more profits when the bubble bursts>apply pressure to your employees in FedGov to bail out the Boyz if need be, whilst allowing small competitors to fail>repeat today, add in autos too.

          You have to be stupid not to see the beauty of the scheme. Once you own the Fed and the FedGov, you know you’ll always get bailed out. It’s a Ponzi scheme with a bailout for Mr Ponzi.

          Things for Jim to ponder:

          Has the increase in feminism resulted in fewer households or more? Less debt or more? More spending or less?

          Had the promotion of homosexuality and other perversions resulted in less spending on medication or more? Less destruction of the trad family or more? Less alcohol consumption or more? Less societal happiness and contentment with ones kith and kin or more?

          Has the deliberate importation of millions of invaders to the West resulted in a smaller welfare state or larger? Less govt debt or more? More households or less?

          You Jim have to be totally blind and stupid to think that big business hasn’t been behind ALL of the poz for literally ever. Why do you think Jesus whipped the money lenders in the Temple. In the Temple!

          They covet the whole world, every physical asset, including people. I will do some research when I have time on the big biz people who also were involved in the Poz. It’s a well known fact which lobby took out blasphemy laws in the UK, to help their pozzing of faith, target No.1. Same people legalised faggotry. Same people installed Blair, Cameron and May. Same people installed Thatcher and Reagan. And now Trump, so they get their pipeline and fracking.

          I agree with the comment alive, trade with foreigners is bad, full stop. Babel is always the aim. Keep to yourselves, be separate, Holy, faithful, obedient.

          The reaction you want is literally going to be Dengist fascism. But you like that.

          • peppermint says:

            …so who would use their own money to buy the future revenue stream of mortgages to unemployed subhuman garbage?

            • glosoli says:

              That would be the likes of your parents, and their insurers, all over America.

              Bankers have silver-tongues, first they invented mortgage-backed securities, then they invented Credit-default swaps.

              http://uk.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-cds-market?op=1

              https://derivativedribble.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/credit-default-swaps-and-mortgage-backed-securities/

              Fools everywhere bought them by the trillion.

              Read Liar’s Poker, really captures the righteousness of those financiers.

              • peppermint says:

                Typical Christian socialism. Marx’s reply to Christian socialists is why are there still poor people after a millennium of Christianity? I think it’s an apt response. Inb4 ((Yeshua bar Yahweh / Yusuf / some Roman)) quote about poverty.

                Calling bankers morally evil doesn’t change the incongruity between their ostensible motivation regardless of its moral character and their actions, but Jim’s government control theory explains it.

              • peppermint says:

                Some other fag blamed capitalism for the word capitalism being used to sneak in government mandates, you take it one step further by explicitly blaming capitalism for explicitly non-capitalist behavior that you call morally evil. This is the muddled thinking of christcucks. You let a desert rat hijack your moral sensibilities and then you say all kinds of bizarre stuff as pompous moral judgements.

                • glosoli says:

                  It is literally easier than 2+2=4 to trace the exploitation for profit of every man woman and child in the West to the efforts and designs of big business. Governments are their poodles, much like your relationship to Jim.

                  We are now their slaves, wholly.

                  Face that fact and turn to God for freedom, or remain their slave.

                • StoneMan says:

                  >This is the muddled thinking of christcucks. You let a desert rat hijack your moral sensibilities and then you say all kinds of bizarre stuff as pompous moral judgements.

                  People are stupid. Non-Christians are rarely un-muddled thinkers. Your comments ooze spite and vitriol on a regular basis, and yet you call Christians muddled thinkers. You would easier to take seriously if your tone were more dispassionate and less like that of a resentful pissant.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppy how come you hate Christianity quite as fiercely as you do?

                  I’ve only ever known leftie atheists to feel this strongly about Christianity. It’s weird to find someone on the right who shares that prejudice.

                  I was re-reading the Sermon On The Mount after talking to some guy on The Guardian comments board and what struck me once again was just how HARDCORE it is……

                  This ‘christcucks’ thing is crazy.

                  That said, modern churches are an abomination, but then isn’t that true of modern governments, modern schools, modern newspapers, modern novels, modern textbooks, modern businesses?

                • peppermint says:

                  Because Christians are socialists, bless their hearts.

                  ((Jesus)) said the poor we will always have with us. That sounds like a prohibition on socialism, but socialism isn’t really about the money. It’s about the last being first, easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle, the rich man’s duty to give Lazarus everything he has instead of it being charitable to give Lazarus stuff he doesn’t need, it’s about blessed are the faggots, they will get wedding cakes.

                  Maybe it’s necessary to take up the good parts, as with Mein Kampf. Is there a community of nazi socialists who post that bankers cut their own throats in 2007 because they’re just that greedy for blood?

                  We can discuss taking up the good parts, Christianity is as good an excuse as any to be a good man in this world where it’s so easy to find an advantage by being bad, when we’re ready to admit that the justification for Clinton’s law to force banks to loan to minorities, that minorities had the same rate of repayment as humans, was a consequence of the banks being allowed to choose. Today’s men don’t say I’m a Christian, they say I’m a pretty chill guy but not a cuck. I say I’m a Christian in contexts where Christianity means that.

                  Christians have this idea of going to Church. At Church you hear from an anonymous priest, exactly like at a university or at Socialist Matter. Every good blog has one named guy, including Daily Kos and Huffington Post.

                  So Mike Enoch and Richard Spencer say they think a UBI might be okay in a White ethnostate. That’s an interesting argument that if you follow the logic all the way you realize it’s because in a White ethnostate Whites will naturally shun the people on handouts, though it would still be a disaster to let women out of their father’s house on UBI.

                  That’s just, like, their wonky view. Named people can have ironic and dismissable views. Institutions can’t.

                  8chan isn’t a blog. It’s a real university and the real scholars monitor and engage there and then post on their own blogs under their own pen names. The law of comments applies to the /pol/ community too: staff writers, guest bloggers and namefags like UBI, commenters hate communism.

                  Besides being led by staff writers, Christians assuage their personal doubts with moral and political posturing.

                • Yara says:

                  >Besides being led by staff writers

                  Their sermons are lead by staff writers in a distant office somewhere, and their “praise music” is canned by unpaid amateur interns in the shitty music factory attached to its back.

                • StoneMan says:

                  “Because Christians are socialists, bless their hearts.”

                  Christians are forbidden to knock over the apple cart, and forbidden to lust after the apples, and forbidden to permit others knocking over apple carts. That the Christian who owns the apple cart is encouraged to be generous with his apples is hardly socialism. A Taoist, a Hindu, a Muslim, would all tell you that the man who obsesses over his apples is far from enlightenment, are the Eastern religions socialist too? Perhaps you would say they are, but if you wouldn’t, you simply aren’t being fair to Christianity.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      You’re the most important thinker in the movement Jim. It’s not my intention to sow dissent. If I could take the train to your Georgian/Jacobite world, I wouldn’t hesitate for a nanosecond. (Pace Ben Libet lol)

      “Is business the innocent bystander reluctantly dragged along for the ride, and hence harmless in a more just libertarian (or related) order?”

      Very sorry to keep beating this drum but it’s an important part of the puzzle.

      I worked in a hotel for about 2 years. I was an anarcho-capitalist when I signed up, and was overjoyed to be giving the public what they wanted and were willing to voluntarily pay for out of their own pocket.
      I’m not going to talk about the tax-funded guests, the arrangements that funded the various businesses, or any of that: we’re all grown ups and we know that we don’t live under free market capitalism. Nevertheless my simplification that this was a private business offering services people were taking up much of the time voluntarily and funding themselves was not unreasonably distorted.

      OK.

      If Poz went away, that hotel would be screwed. They need the heavy drinking. They even need the occasional prostitute to rent a room for a few weeks.

      Now: they’d also be screwed if the various state-funded enterprises went away. I get that, and I’m willing to wave that aside, because in AnCapistan, that state distortion wouldn’t be available to them and I’m fine with that and they’d have to be also.

      But what about the whores, the binge-drinkers, the queer marriages?

      That stuff would be entirely conceivable in AnCapistan and the hotel would embrace it – heck, I don’t think it’s beyond reasonable consideration that they’d push for it.

      “So your covenant community has a traditionalist marital policy: ok but isn’t our AnCap paradise about individual freedom? What right does anyone have to prevent gays from marrying each other? Sure you can say “go somewhere else” but what if they’re from here? Why should every single outlet prevent their love from blossoming? Let’s think about a ‘live and let live’ approach: our safe propertarian society’s robust enough to cope with it!”

      Would *nobody* in the business community make that argument? I remember Ron Paul in the 1980s on TV making that argument for the legalisation of RECREATIONAL HEROIN!!!!!! Ron Paul!!!!!!!

      Business likes the Poz. If every Starbucks could have poker matches, blowjob booths and on tap crack cocaine, they would, and if they didn’t, Caffe Nero would. Then when Caffe Nero did, Starbucks would either go bust or cave.

      Ludwig von Mises, that infamous Nazbol economic illiterate, once said “any enterprise catering only to the rich will never grow beyond small or at most medium size. Capitalism is mass production for the benefit of the masses.”

      Yep, and the masses likes them a drink innit.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        I’ll concede that they’d be entertainment facilities owned and run by largely white cis-male hetero social conservatives, but so what? Society rots in the masses not the élite.

      • The Cominator says:

        “If Poz went away, that hotel would be screwed. They need the heavy drinking. They even need the occasional prostitute to rent a room for a few weeks.”

        A restoration (which would never quite go full Islam not in the West unless Islam took over, and if Islam comes close to taking over genocide by the Russians and Chinese is the most likely outcome) would not likely end heavy drinking or prostitution.

        On prostitution quite the contrary, women who resisted the married life would not get state support and their choice of professions would be very limited (nursing sales caring for other people’s young children in some way and secretaries). Hence there would be a lot more women in prostitution (which also would be legal) and it’s price would go down.

      • jim says:

        You are taking the poz for granted, accepting the progressive rules as natural an inevitable. They are not.

        Women don’t really like emancipation, any more than dogs want to be without a master. They want to be property, and look for someone strong enough to own them, and in our society, cannot find what they are looking for.

        Further, if women are not property, if they are free and independent and all that, men and women both find it very hard to form families and have children, are denied their deepest needs.

        So women need to be the property of men. All going well, they start off as the property of their father, and, as virgins, become the property of their husband, and remain his property. And that is what will happen to the vast majority of women – for most women, all will be well. Very few whores.

        As for gay marriage, there are no gay marriages. Not in today’s society, and not in a reactionary society. Today gays go through the motions of marrying to mock Christianity and mock straights. In a reactionary society, mocking will get you killed, and men who lie with a male, as with a woman, will be executed. Problem solved.

        If a woman sleeps around commits adultery, the rules that applied under King Solomon will apply. The state will not do anything about it, except perhaps haul her back to her husband on a leash, but the husband will be entitled to kill her and/or the man she slept with. This should put a distinct damper on both the supply of whores, and demand for their services.

        If her father or husband is too weak to control her, or complicit in her whoring, or pimps her out, then the old Roman rules apply: any of the men she sleeps with will be entitled to claim her and keep her. If a woman sleeps with one man, he is not required to allow her to sleep with the next.

        These rules should keep gays in the closet, and whores in short supply. Whoring will be legal, but feral women will not. Hence, no whores.

        • The Cominator says:

          Restoration England had whores.

          I’m fine with going back to the 18th century, we should not go back to the rules of a semitic tribal society more equivalent to Saudi Arabia then anything in “our” history.

        • StoneMan says:

          >These rules should keep gays in the closet, and whores in short supply.
          Capitalists will not, of their own accord, make these rules. Restrictions upon capitalists and capitalism must be imposed from above, from a place that is utterly disinterested in gaining material wealth (because already rich beyond desire). If I am understanding you correctly Jim you are saying, more or less, that capitalists will not be incentivized to introduce poz in a non-pozzed society. I agree, but capitalists will not clean up the mess. That task belongs to those whose purpose is grander than the pursuit of wealth.

          Capitalism is a wild horse. Very strong, very powerful. It must be broken and made to serve, not to be indulged at every opportunity.

          • Roberto says:

            >Capitalism is a wild horse. Very strong, very powerful. It must be broken and made to serve, not to be indulged at every opportunity.

            So how’s Nick Land doing these days?

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          “Today gays go through the motions of marrying to mock Christianity and mock straights.”

          Absolutely right, but gay marriages are about more than cake. The average wedding costs in the region of £20,000 whether it’s genuine or nightmare-clown.

          Every wedding involves expensive room hire, expensive clothing, expensive entertainments (DJ, sometimes live bands, confetti of all kinds, chocolate fountains), massive holidays, jewellery, present-buying, endless drinking, posh meals, hotel rooms, plane flights, the list goes on.

          The wedding itself generates £20,000 but the guests will probably spend that much again between them.

          Very, very good for GDP and very, very good for the myriad businesses that profit from the whole thing.

          It wasn’t a conspiracy by business but the idea that business would turn off the spigot in a restored or just normalised society is absurd. Business owners (including but not limited to bakers) are PROUD that they’ll serve just about anyone without prejudice to their ‘lifestyle choices’.

          They’re not pretending to impress oppressive regulators: most of them are connected to the local council. These are perennial themes in the libertarian literature of course: regulatory capture, the thirst for cartels, the strict amorality of the market.

          And let’s not pretend either that government action precedes social change: it doesn’t. Did children stop cleaning chimneys when the law came out? No, libertarians are the first to tell everyone the conditions improved first, then the law was passed to prevent the holdouts from exerting an antisocial advantage.
          Same with the shorter working week and with days off, holidays, sick pay etc.

          I’ve personally visited a fruit factory that had a non-contributory (ie. all provided outside pay) pension scheme for fruit pickers and line workers in 1913 in Britain.

          Poz is just the same. Gay bars predated gay lib. Just listen to “Sing if you’re glad to be gay”: Tom Johnson (I think? I forget now, been a while) talks about ‘our last magazine’ and ‘raiding gay bars for no reason at all’, etc. etc.

          Important disclaimer: none of this in any way justifies egalitarian socialism. It does however open the way to the point of view that the state ought to own and control far more industries than it does at present. Putting the ‘national’ into ‘nationalisation’ as it were.

          Bad for profit and GDP? Probably: far fewer chocolate fountains, for sure.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Tom Robinson Band sorry, 1978: long before gay lib really took off. This was prior to the Thatcher ‘oppressive’ laws and a decade prior to equalisation of the age of consent: a full thirty years before gay marriage.

            Subversion is a multi-pronged affair. Just look at Thatcher’s liberalisation of the broadcast media: the new channel, Channel 4, was the gayest, most Marxian broadcaster this nation had seen up to that point and I think remains so, even in the face of Netflix.
            No Thatcher, no Derek Jarman.

          • javier says:

            This is very ignorant. If selling more weddings is the goal of liberals, why have liberals done everything possible to convince people to never get married?

            Weddings are expensive now because they cater to female vanity. Women want what they want and they don’t care what it costs. Men have been told it is abuse to ever tell a woman no. It’s status competition run amok. Men will put a stop to it as soon as the artificial state empowerment of women stops.

            Businesses do not benefit when they embrace the poz. Quite the opposite, they chase away customers, make products their customers do not like, search for new customers who do not exist, and spend all their money on useless diversity hires who are unqualified and unfit to work. They bleed money until they die and then lash out and attack their customers for not being progressive enough. Get woke, go broke, as the saying goes.

            Gays are bad for business. Embracing homos is a good way to drive away your customers. Normal people do not want to go to a bar where dudes in mesh tank tops make out with each other. In the town I live in, numerous bars suddenly embraced gays and said they were proud to serve gay customers. Now all those bars are closing.

            You are a very silly person.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            >Poz is just the same. Gay bars predated gay lib.

            Gay bars were owned by criminals.

            The infamous Stonewall Tavern was owned by the mafia.

      • peppermint says:

        …Vito Corleone got shot because he didn’t want to have anything to do with heroin. Michael Corleone got hooked into the family business because he had to assassinate a cop who was trying to let assassins kill Vito. Vito, and the guy you see in the beginning of the movie, just want justice for themselves and their families, but the government wouldn’t provide it.

        The government wanted to purify our essence by getting rid of booze hookers and gambling, and at the same time create anarcho-tyranny where rape is treated like it’s nothing and emancipated wymyn run wild, and ended up with organized crime and corruption which lead to heroin and illegals.

        You’re blaming Vito for the hotel.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I’ve heard these tired arguments so many times: prohibition doesn’t work………. they banned booze and got the mob

          Nope, not true, simple as that. It wasn’t seriously tried with booze and it isn’t being seriously tried with smack.

          We need a zero deals policy combined with a zero tolerance policy. You’re found in possession of cannabis resin? You die.
          You’re found intoxicated outside your home? You’re beaten to a pulp.
          You’re found to have procured the services of a prostitute? Instant castration and excommunication.

          It’s not rocket science. There’s a reason that most people never rape children.

          • The Cominator says:

            Trying to ban old vices is not reactionary though its progressive.

            I think what would work best with cannabis is full legalization. It was a very marginally used and low demand drug until it was outlawed if legal it couldn’t sustain the cool factor.

            The 19th century had tons of laudnum (low grade heroin) addicts so legalization will not work with heroin, but it had almost zero cannabis use even though both were legal.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              That’s not true at all.

              It’s a common piece of libertarian propaganda but it’s not true.

              If a servant was found drunk whilst on lordly grounds, he’d come to regret it. That was as good for him as it was for the household as a whole and for anyone he might’ve attacked.

              I visited an English Workhouse a few months ago and one of the historical records showed how one of the male inmates used to slink away during the day by climbing over the wall, go sell his (provided) shirt, buy drink and then come back in time for bed.

              We were supposed to applaud him while condemning the punishment he received, but in point of fact the punishment was a huge favour to him: one day, potentially, he might leave the workhouse and become a free freed serf.

              That’s the classical liberal position after a century of no-strings-attached welfare turned very, very sour.

              The reactionary position is that laissez-faire applied to peasants is inhumane.

              • The Cominator says:

                A lord might not tolerate a house servant being drunk on the job but until the Victorian era almost EVERYONE got drunk every night outside the Islamic world, Puritans were an exception. British soldiers and sailors used to get daily rum rations.

                One reason the Islamic world did okay relatively speaking up until a certain point was its endorsement of sobriety as a virtue, whereas in the West nearly everyone would have been considered an alcoholic. I don’t drink at all personally… bad family history with it and don’t want to become an alcoholic.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  To be meticulously clear, I am emphatically not making the case for prohibition as an eternal, immutable law.
                  I’m saying we need it right here, right now, in the current year of the 2018th year of the Lord, because we face a world of acid attacks, rape gangs and casual violence on the street.

                  Once the imminent danger recedes, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief.

                  A society in which crack cocaine is a legal, socially eccentric vice for occasional use by those who can demonstrably cope with it would be a beautiful society.

                  We do not live in that world. We live in the world where if you leave your window, let alone your door, unlocked, the fault is entirely YOURS when you lose everything you own.

            • jim says:

              > Trying to ban old vices is not reactionary though its progressive.

              By stopping other people from real or imaginary sins, one demonstrates one’s own superior virtue without the inconvenience of actually doing anything virtuous.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Yes it CAN be about that, but it isn’t always.

                A prohibition of drugs including but not limited to alcohol in the current year is not about virtue, but safety.

                One person per day is permanently disfigured in London by having acid thrown in their face. We need very harsh measures to turn something like that around.

          • jim says:

            Alcohol is rightfully part of western civilization. It is a truth serum. It enables you to learn the truth, and gives you an excuse for speaking the truth.

            I only drink socially. I only drink about once a week or once a month, possibly less, but about once a year or so, I get falling down drunk.

            Suppressing routine drinking would undermine our civilization by impairing male bonding and male cohesion. Prohibition would be worse for male cohesion than gays.

            • The Cominator says:

              I don’t drink myself and there are many things I don’t like about drinking but banning drinking is progressive (and radically progressive at that, its for the holier then Jesus puritans that Cromwell suppressed) not reactionary.

              No reactionary should ever endorse alcohol prohibition.

              Now however while I do think there should be SOME restoration of paterfamilias rights I do think husbands and father’s should be prohibited from “disciplining” wives and children when under the influence of alcohol. Such disciplinary powers should only be allowed when they are in a sober state.

              • jim says:

                You are buying into a feminist myth. The feminists are frantically looking for a battered wife to demonize marriage and men, but their battered wife poster girls all smell as funny as their rape victims.

                The battered wife problem has a striking resemblance to the problem of coeds being raped by white male cishet fratboys. Their poster girls are transparently whores and liars.

                In just not in a man’s nature to mistreat a woman who is sleeping with himself, and not sleeping with someone else. His genes want immortality. To batter a woman who is sleeping with you and not sleeping with someone else is like battering yourself, both according to Saint Paul, and according to Darwin

                And if she is sleeping with someone else, while living with you, and being supported and protected by you, needs killing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  A drunk is not likely to beat his wife for no good reason. Somewhat more likely to beat his kids for no good reason.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Go work in the entertainment industry for six months and then come back and say you were right about that Jim.

              People in the modern world are extremely unpredictable after heavy drink; every occasion (funeral, wedding, birthday of a 50-something, you name it) is marked by heavy drinking.

              Drink may well be part of western civilization. So’s the church, but modern churches are toxic places of filth that would make everyone on these boards violently angry if they ever stuck around to listen to what passes for a ‘sermon’ nowadays.

              One day, drink can take back its rightful place as truth serum, but not today.

              Today drink is the reason police vans fill every town centre every weekend and are proven necessary over and over again.

              To bring this into focus, drink proves that business is, at the very least, complicit in the Current Year culture. At worst, it’s a key driver on par with academia.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Today drink is the reason police vans fill every town centre every weekend and are proven necessary over and over again.”

                Same as it ever was. Still progressive to try to ban it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re really getting to the rub here:

                  Should the restoration be based on eternal, universal principles, or on the ephemeral contingent decisions of a conscious human agent?

                  A King can use prohibition as a tool to clear away the consequences of endemic drunkenness. A Walter Blockian judge cannot.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If we’re siding with the King, well that King can use nationalisation of industry, socialist provision of goods and services and draconian regulation of whole industrial sectors as contingent correctives also.

                  “Nationalise Twitter” is something that most of us could take seriously.

                  All I’m saying here is that “Nationalise Walmart” isn’t so very different, for exactly the same reasons. Even Moldbug says “Nationalise universities, banks and newspapers”. I say “Nationalise music and media”.

                • StoneMan says:

                  Better to have a king and no booze than booze and no king, but frankly I don’t see what problems booze restriction will solve that couldn’t be solved better by strict policing.

                  “Should the restoration be based on eternal universal principles, or on the ephemeral contingent decisions of a conscious human agent?”
                  The eternal universal principle that the ephemeral contingent decisions of a conscious human agent are better than the alternative.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What you just said, all of it

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “Nationalise Twitter” is something that most of us could take seriously.

                  China has figured out tech pretty neatly.

                  One solution for a smaller region would be to require that the Twitter Community Council or whatever they call themselves, is filled by the government rather than Twitter.

              • jim says:

                People in the entertainment industry are, for the most part, whores and pimps, hence drink to obliterate the truth, not to learn it. The problem is to cut down the supply of whores, not the supply of alcohol.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Right but how do you do that?

                  What if the market says we need more of this because people like it?

                  Even a year ago my answer would’ve been “well if people want that, who are we to interfere?”

                  Sorry but no……. we need to radically interfere, at the level of the customer *and the vendor*

                • jim says:

                  You are blaming men for female bad behavior.

                  The solution is to put women under the authority of good men.

                  Women not under male authority behave badly, in substantial part to provoke men to take charge of their lives. A whore is a woman who is looking for manliness and male authority in the wrong places.

                • jim says:

                  No we should not interfere at the level of the customer and the vendor. That is just hiding the symptoms, not curing the disease. The disease is women out of control.

                  Interfering at the level of customer and the vendor is blaming men, and punishing men, for female misbehavior. Is unlikely to reduce the amount of female misbehavior.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Curing symptoms isn’t always wrong.

                  “The problem is to cut down the supply of whores, not the supply of alcohol.”

                  Absolutely to the former, but why not the latter also?
                  For every sage thinker sipping a whiskey and listening to Brahms, there’s a lager lout screaming in the street and smashing car windows because they’re there.

                  Not all of them are women.

                • jim says:

                  Most people I know drink socially, and very rarely get drunk, and when drunk, would certainly never scream and smash windows. As I said, I drink once every few weeks, and get drunk every few years, and when drunk my most violent action is to say things I should not say. Indeed, I am far more dangerous sober, since when drunk, am physically helpless and need someone to stabilize me on my feet. I never get angry when drunk, I have never seen any white male get angry when drunk, never seen any east Asian cause problems while drunk. Not once in my long life that I can recall.

                  I have never seen anyone drunk screaming in the street and smashing car windows. Every violent act of anger or destruction I have seen or performed was done stone cold sober.

                  This might be a racial thing. Perhaps you are thinking of native Americans, or Australian aboriginals, but I just do not see white people fighting drunk. I have heard of it, but never seen it. And I have seen a great many people consume a great deal of alcohol.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  They should walk the press gang through the lout districts every now and then, conscript those too drunk to run, and gloriously send them off for a fight to … well, there’s nowhere to send them these days, is there?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Just when I thought I’d made myself incapable of experiencing envy Q_Q

                  Nevertheless, the fact that some neighbourhoods aren’t experiencing what everyone else is experiencing when it comes to violence and the threat thereof, combined with property damage, faeces in the street, etc. etc. doesn’t mean it can’t be corrected everywhere else.

                  Sorry but you just paid the n-word tax.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Apparently von Mises had never heard of the George V Hotel….

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I think Mises knew full well what was going on. He just thought some tiny but all-powerful military government would emerge to keep the proles in check.
          His lack of solidarity was what done him in in the end.

  5. Herodian says:

    Lack of poz in Trump’s America? The anti-poz are reduced to “owning the libs” through anon twitter accounts for fear of losing their jobs while every Fortune 500 repaints their logo with rainbow colors and heaps endless praise on the black female tranny who converted to Islam and just wants to code without being subjected to constant toxic masculinity.

    • jim says:

      It is significantly better than it was in Obama’s America, immensely better than it is in South Africa or Venezuela, and immensely better than it will be be if the Democrats ever return to power, which they will if democracy lasts a few years longer.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      In the real world Herodian, we live in a mass franchise Republic.
      The alternative to Trump in 2018 is not Charles II, much as all of us wish it to be. In 2018, the alternative to Trump in *plausible* counterfactuals is Hillary Clinton.

      Trump’s not perfect. On some things he’s not even good, but on the things that matter, he’s as good as is remotely imaginable under the current system.

      What Jim’s talking about in the article, and what all of us are engaged in talking about all the time, is what happens when the current system is gone.

      To complain about Trump operating within the current system is to completely miss the point. Would Trump push harder against Poz and immigration if he were really the God-Emperor? Or do you believe Trump himself regards 2018 America as the sweet spot? (If so, I fail to see why you’d think so. He doesn’t exactly seem to be applauding the press etc.)

      • The Cominator says:

        Trump almost unquestionably regards the 1950s as the sweet spot in terms of cultural/legal issues aside from economics (hes not as reactionary as most of us) with Calvin Coolidge’s economic policies as the economic sweet spot.

      • Herodian says:

        I’m not so sure if it’s significantly better than under Obama. I understand change takes time, but I don’t recall there being such a huge rainbow celebration of wokeness during Obama’s presidency like there has been the past couple of months. At least people are speaking up and actually fighting back, but the left responds with louder megaphones.

        CR: I agree with you. He is about as good as we can expect given the situation. I suppose the point I should have made is,, the poz is now baked into our mass culture. Okay.. what to do after the war we win so we get to start from scratch. The economic and cultural world we had in 1958 would be great, except 1958 still lead us to 2018.

        I’m sort of thinking the causality goes the other way. Once the poz sets in you start getting the economic nihilism. We got poz in the 60’s and early 70’s but the bugman economics didn’t really get going until the 80’s and early 90’s.

        I thought our side had pretty much settled on the notion that culture (morals) is upstream of policy.

        • The Cominator says:

          The rainbow coalition of wokeness is the left accelerating things they had planned to do slowly had things gone as they predicted and tried to rig.

          ” Okay.. what to do after the war we win ”

          No amnesty for anyone…

          White male progressives treated the most harshly. Probably won’t end up with a monarchy since Americans oppose the idea too much but if we get a Republic unamendable amendment that women can NEVER vote.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            The harshest penalties were reserved for people trying to overthrow the crown. This did not stop the crown from being overthrown. Focus on who is enforcing the rules, not what the text of the rules is.

            • The Cominator says:

              I’m saying that reactionaries like Pinochet are generally far too merciful in victory…

              If the left starts a war or forces one upon us (in order to defend ourselves) we should not make that mistake this time.

              • 7817 says:

                “I’m saying that reactionaries like Pinochet are generally far too merciful in victory…”

                Good point. Any idea what causes this, but it is a pattern that is hard to

                • The Cominator says:

                  Reaction is the cause of cynics.

                  Cynics find it harder to justify the kind of bloodshed the fanatics (and criminals) the left easily can.

              • 7817 says:

                Fat fingered it.

                Any idea what causes this? The pattern of being to merciful to the agents of poz when victorious over them is pretty common.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Universal principles

                • The Cominator says:

                  Quite the opposite when the reactionary faces the daunting and gruesome prospect of exterminating the other side the Billy Joel song “Shades of Grey” plays in his mind…

                  “Once there were trenches and walls and one point of every view
                  Fight ’til the other man falls
                  Kill him before he kills you
                  These days the edges are blurred, I’m old and tired of war
                  I hear the other man’s words
                  I’m not that sure anymore”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Not sure what you’re trying to say, Cominator.

                  What 7X is asking is why Pinochet led to Bachelet and why Franco&Salazar led to o.m.g. etc. etc. and it’s a reasonable question.

                  IMHO, universal principles: “I don’t have the right to initiate violence against these people who’ve done me no wrong”

                  To hell with that.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Right wing victory leads to poz because victorious right wingers spare far too many leftists.

                  They spare them because it takes real fanaticism to put up the kind of numbers the left generally does and the right tends to be made up of angry cynics who just want to be left alone. When the war is won they don’t want to shot 50 people each… they want to go home and live in peace. The leaders on the right don’t want to go down in history with huge body counts to their names.

                  In practice this means a lot of leftist are spared, for a time they are excluded from government but in a generation or two they are back.

                • TBeholder says:

                  They spare them because it takes real fanaticism to put up the kind of numbers the left generally does and the right tends to be made up of angry cynics who just want to be left alone. When the war is won they don’t want to shot 50 people each… they want to go home and live in peace. The leaders on the right don’t want to go down in history with huge body counts to their names.

                  …and if enough of them are sufficiently fanatic (or pretend to be), that’s just new holiness spiral and new “left” in the making.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  For what use would there be in punishment? Why would a felon be executed? Why would a malcontent be exiled? Why would a thief or malingerer or profligate be sold into indenture?

                  It is not simply a question of ‘balancing karma’, or repaying some ‘cosmic debt’; such a thing approaches the issue with the wrong mindset, cannot be felicitously quantified by a being that is component of the comos, and hence a legal system using such a rationalization would quickly (and have quickly) lose memetic real-estate.

                  No, the operative kernel is that it is not *merely* for what they did; it is that what they did is evidence, indication, that they might well do it or something liken to it in the future; that they might well be *the sort of person who does such things*. It is because of expectation, *prediction*.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Regarding Franco, I believe the problem was handing over the country to a sovereign who, alas, had been educated in America (sheep-dipped in poz).

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Death squads seem not to have those disadvantages, such as excessive mercy, and are a popular bottom-up solution to communism too.

          • TBeholder says:

            is the left accelerating things they had planned to do slowly had things gone as they predicted and tried to rig.

            In part.
            In the other part, the holiness spiral is not something they can slow down much, so it got out of sync.
            Then the middle-high level community organizers are “riding the tiger” now: either lose control (and be eaten by former pets) or run off in the open and bring a bike chain into gunfight, without heavy support (legitimate and quasi-legitimate).
            Sure, someone like Soros could pull the leash on a single pack of his bitches when they strayed toward the wrong barn… but his lackeys can’t just pull back the whole kennel when it’s frothing — and if they’ll try, they’ll be mauled first. Oops.

  6. reactionaryfuture says:

    There are a number of problems with current modes of organisation, but to understand it requires straightening out a number of points. First, capitalism is, and can only be, a state produced form of organisation. All those rubbish examples of unregulated pirate markets or what ever are bunk. They can only exist as parasitic on state created infrastructure. Once we recognize this we can look at the nature of this relationship between the state and businesses.

    Businesses exist as legal individuals at the acknowledgement of the state and so have no ability to act contrary to the state’s laws and regulations unless another actor (a state) creates enough pressure to stay the original state’s hand. This means they sway with the wind and don’t cause trouble. Where things get interesting is when these companies become very large and strategically important. Then two things happen.

    Firstly, the connection between the state and the business becomes very close. Look at facebook or google. The business becomes an arm of government (as all businesses are in reality.) Secondly, the now very wealthy individuals begin to use their wealth to make changes. The nature of these changes are very interesting and present the biggest case against this free trade/ free market nonsense (a state of existence which we may add never existed,and never will.) These newly wealthy individuals start funding pressure groups and start founding foundations. These foundations, such as the various Rockefeller Foundations and the Ford Foundation then get used to launch Poz attacks. Even in instances when the wealthy don’t do this, they still use their money to press for changes that benefit their business (like amazon) which basically amount to Poz attacks. These scummy oligarchs see from an oligarch eye view and invariably want to flood the labor market, undermine problems (like trade unions and families) and promote bullshit like free trade/ free markets which demands they be left alone (because, yeah, you are free to trade on equal terms with Amazon, its a free market…lol) except in cases when they get big enough and then support some legislation which proves prohibitive for any other business not of their size. There is a reason Marx made the mistake of seeing the state as being the vehicle of this scumbags, because from one angle it seems clear it is. The problem is the overall political structure is the problem and the businesses are acting in accordance with the structure. A healthy structure would really keep a serious lid on the creation of wealth because wealth becomes bastions of power that invariably get used by centralising actors. Amazon, for example, should have been squelched long ago and Jeff Bezos should have had his money removed from him. Letting him buy newspapers is insane. Maybe force him to work for the government if he is effective at organisation, but don’t let him rove around like this.

    Where trade goes off the rails is when we start believing the fairy tales around free trade, autonomous companies, and a non-political “economy.”

  7. Michael Rothblatt says:

    If the freer the market meant the more the poz, and less free the market the less the poz then we would see Hong Kong be the most pozzed place in the world, and Russia the least pozzed place in the world. What we see is exactly the opposite, in spite of Russian posturing as being some kind of beacons of morality. So I am inclined to believe that capitalism without social democracy is not neutral, but even slightly pushes in cultural conservative direction. Indeed, we even see this play out in spite of all the anti-discrimination laws:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbnb#Fair_housing_implications_and_discrimination

  8. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    “Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.”

    This is precisely what we need. It should be unthinkable in a civilised society for the radio to air ads which exhort the listener to “gamble responsibly”. It should be illegal for the radio to air an ad for youth-targeted alcopops followed by an ad for the gum clinic.

    In such a society, many industries would have to either be run by the state or else so closely managed by the state that they might just as well be run by it.

    This is something libertarians push back against, but Lew Rockwell’s idea of one town for me over here with pre-VaticanII, and one town over there like The Village is naive and Utopian. The Village would never cease in mental fight. The pre-VaticanIIs cannot in good conscience allow their sword to sleep in their hands.

    A running dog capitalist who gets it said on Monday “I wouldn’t be ok with France importing millions of savages: it’s a security matter for America and the world.”

    The time for ‘freedom’ has passed.

    • javier says:

      I’m not seeing this.

      When a gay person walks into your store, you need to be able to tell him to leave, and if he refuses the police should come and remove him for you, and if they rough him up in the process, let that be a lesson to him. The state only needs to protect your right to free association and free enterprise. What has happened is not “freedom” but rather the state has intervened in the natural order on behalf of the homosexual in order to make him higher status. The state says gays can come into your store whether you like it or not. It’s freedom for him, not for you.

      All that needs to be done is wipe away the unnatural laws which exist to artificially raise the status of low-status people.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Gays are a nice easy example to use because the lines aren’t very blurry at all.

        What about pizza eaters? What about people who throw out their sofa because they fancy a change?
        What about people going on four holidays a year to foreign countries?

        The principles are the same. If we say “the consumer is sovereign: all men are equal under the law and it’s not our place to police the private preferences of free men” then we’re agreeing with the Founders.

        The alternative is to agree with Charles I.

        • javier says:

          No company willingly hires droves of useless sacred cows and pays them to take naps. They do this because the state power and religion compels them to, because it is the only way to remain in business. This is not “consumerism.” If this is a secret plan by capitalist jews to make money, they are failing miserably.

          We already have state-run industry in this sense.

  9. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Uncle JF once said……..

    A marsh along the mountain chain
    Infecteth what’s already won;
    Also the noisome pool to drain–
    My last, best triumph then were won:
    To many millions space I thus should give,
    Though not secure, yet free to toil and live;
    Green fields and fertile; men, with cattle blent,
    Upon the newest earth would dwell content,
    Settled forthwith upon the firm-based hill,
    Up-lifted by a valiant people’s skill;
    Within, a land like Paradise; outside,
    E’en to the brink, roars the impetuous tide,
    And as it gnaws, striving to enter there,
    All haste, combined, the damage to repair.
    Yea, to this thought I cling, with virtue rife,
    Wisdom’s last fruit, profoundly true:
    Freedom alone he earns as well as life,
    Who day by day must conquer them anew.
    So girt by danger, childhood bravely here,
    Youth, manhood, age, shall dwell from year to year;
    Such busy crowds I fain would see,
    Upon free soil stand with a people free;

    ….. then he turned reactionary.

  10. glosoli says:

    Unpozzed foreign dealings (literally the only unpozzed version there is, anything other than this is pozzed):

    http://www.giveshare.org/BibleLaw/lawhandbook/11.html

    ‘While fair and peaceable interrelations between nations were the norm, God had prohibited any interaction, trade, aid or treaties to be conducted with ungodly nations.’

    ‘Alliances and covenants (treaties) with pagan or ungodly nations are forbidden. Exod. 23:32; Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4; Judges 2:2-3; Ezra 9:12; Psa. 106:34-36.
    Covenants with pagan or ungodly nations leads to idolatry and adoption of pagan ways. Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4.
    Do not to follow the ways of other nations. Deut. 12:29-30.
    A treaty of peace, agreeing to do no harm to another friendly nation, can be enacted. Gen. 21:22-32; Gen. 26:28-31.
    Alliances made with wicked nations will not be fruitful. 2 Chron. 20:35-37. ‘

    http://www.giveshare.org/BibleLaw/lawhandbook/16.html

    ‘A canceling of all debts in the nation was thus to occur at an established time or year, according to the national cycle of seven years. If no period was established then the debt would last for only six years from the time it was incurred.’


    You are not to deal dishonestly or falsely with others when you buy and sell. Lev. 19:11; 2 Kings 22:7; Acts 5:1-6.
    When you sell to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not oppress one another. Lev. 25:14-17.
    You shall not be unrighteous or have unjust gain in trading, selling or buying. Prov. 28:8; Isa. 33:15; Ezek. 28:4-8, 18.
    Free enterprise is recognized in trading and selling of all kinds of wares. Gen. 42:34; Neh. 13:20; Prov. 31:24; Isa. 23:8; Ezek. 27:12-24; Matt. 25:9, 16; Luke 22:36.
    Better is a little with righteousness, than vast revenues without justice. Prov. 16:8.
    Ill-gotten gains do not profit. Prov. 10:2.
    Sale of goods. Gen. 41:57; Deut 2:6; Prov. 31:24; Ja. 4:13. ‘

    ‘Whatever work you put your hands to, do it with all your might.

    Eccl. 9:10.
    Every man should enjoy the good of all his labor. Eccl. 2:24; Eccl. 3:13; Eccl. 5:18.
    The laborer is worthy of his hire (wages). Matt. 10:10; Matt. 20:8; Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18.
    We are exhorted to walk in a manner worthy of the vocation with which we have been called. Eph. 4:1.
    Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. 1 Cor. 3:8.
    If any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thes. 3:10.
    Lead a quite life, mind your own business, and work with your own hands. 1 Thes. 4:11.
    Be not slothful in business, but be fervent in spirit. Rom. 12:11.
    Do not engage in work and labor that is vain or futile. Jer. 10: 3.’

    Don’t do it Deng’s way, do it the righteous way. Incorporate all of the above into your nation’s law, do not add or subtract, and guess the result.

    Blessed propserity and peace.

    Puny men debating otherwise is pozzed.

    • glosoli says:

      I had an inkling this post would be studiously ignored, yet it’s the wisest set of guidelines for dealing with these issues in existence, you’ll never do better.

      Just be humble and accept Jehovah knows exactly what we need, and some sort of reaction might be successful.

    • TBeholder says:

      It does little good if one doesn’t understand how and why things traditionally worked this or that way, and what modern applications of the same principles are. We aren’t in bronze age feudal economy, after all.
      The best for this is Taleb — he’s a trader himself, and shows these principles on clear examples.

      • jim says:

        People are always interpreting God’s commandments, usually in an alarmingly creative fashion, and never more so than when they claim to merely following them in a literal and mechanical fashion. You cannot actually follow them in a literal and mechanical fashion, and they are not intended to be followed in a literal and mechanical fashion, so anyone who claims to applying them in this manner is lying, Rabbinical Judaism being notorious for standing the Old Testament on its head, and very recent Rabbinical practice and doctrine on its head.

        Gods commandments always need to be interpreted. And to interpret them, you need to ask why this commandment, what is the problem that it is intended to address.

  11. Dan Kurt says:

    Would someone define what POZ means. I thought it signified someone has HIV.

    Dan Kurt

    • glosoli says:

      Good question.

      The disease is far worse than HIV though. It’s literally always fatal.

      To be ‘pozzed’ means that you think you can do better than Jehovah’s design, rules and commands, that you can tweak the rules, do things just a bit differently, tolerate just a bit of evil, worship just a small graven image, commit just a little bit of theft (especially if it’s part of a business deal), lend to pagans for evil purposes.

      99.999999% of guys at this blog are pozzed.

      • eternal anglo says:

        Liar. Pig-headed christcuckery is one thing, intentionally spreading misinformation is another. You know very well that is not what poz means.

        To be pozzed is to be a cuck, to love outsiders more than your tribe, to be tolerant of every kind of sexual depravity, to worship women and white-knight for them. The word refers not only to the policies and consequences of leftism, but its spirit. It is leftism as it infects the soul. Stalin, a stone-cold, vicious Machiavellian, was a leftist, but not pozzed. Scott Alexander is pozzed.

        • glosoli says:

          You’re pozzed.

          And I’m an eternal Celt, fuck you Anglos.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Fuck us? We beat you to that, and your women welcomed us with open arms (and legs). We rule through right of conquest. Know your place.

            • glosoli says:

              You don’t even rule your own homes, cucks.

              My place is last, here on earth, I love it too.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Glossy would you nationalise steel in Britain? You’ve been to Corby I assume.

                • glosoli says:

                  I don’t want England to survive as a nation. I want Dumnonia back. So steel issues are not something I really care to consider.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s a fine line between edgy and tw@t

                • glosoli says:

                  I happen to believe England will not survive, serve it right, and I plan accordingly.

                  We’ll see who’s the tw&t in due course won’t we.

            • eternal gypsy says:

              >We rule through right of conquest

              “[M]y paternal line is English with a recent infusion of Swede, while my maternal line is Scottish and Irish with some sort of French admixture somewhere.”

              Who’s “we,” exactly?

          • StoneMan says:

            A Celtic Puritan, eh? What if Puritanism is proto-poz?

            • glosoli says:

              I’m a theonomist, not a Puritan. No holier than the Bible, but no less, that’s the way to run your nation.

              • StoneMan says:

                >I’m not a Puritan, I just think that society should be ruled by the Bible and that there shouldn’t be an established hierarchical structure whose specific purpose is to determine orthodox interpretation and control holiness spirals.

                lol.

                • glosoli says:

                  Catholic cuck much?

                • StoneMan says:

                  Man, it really is a buzzkill when people nip holiness spirals in the bud by calling them what they are and pointing out that you aren’t actually any holier than any other layman, isn’t it? A real bummer. Makes me so disappointed I could insult people on the internet.

                • glosoli says:

                  I don’t know what you think you’re trying to achieve with your comments, but rest assured I’ve endured worse from minty, so crack on if it feels like fun to you, I view people like you two as the village idiots anyway, literally ridiculous.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >I view people like you two as the village idiots anyway, literally ridiculous.

                  Oh, the village idiot views other people as the village idiot.

                  Go back to the “cheetahs are really half dog and there’s a papist conspiracy to hide it” forums – they suit you better.

            • The Cominator says:

              “A Celtic Puritan”

              Ever heard of the Covenanters. They were the Christian world’s closest equivalent to the Wahabbis.

              Glos sounds like a Covenanter.

              • StoneMan says:

                If it doesn’t have an established hierarchy it’s vulnerable to fracturing and holiness-spiraling, neither of those things are desirable. The distinction doesn’t seem particularly meaningful to me.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Covenanters had more of a hierarchy then Cromwell’s favored “independent” church structure which generally were not supposed to have much of a hierarchy at all.

                  The problem was the Presbyterian hierarchy was based on the “most holy” and the Covenanters were a lot more fanatical about Old Testament law then English Puritans generally were.

                  The Presbyterians were more favorable to a monarchy then the Indeps were, but they wanted the king to be a kind of holy symbol and puppet.

                  I think Glos is very close to being a Covenanter…

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m going to read about them.
                  Of course I think we should follow our side of the deal with our God, much of the Bible is various covenants being made, we just mostly forget what ours are.

        • StoneMan says:

          Unmerited pejoratives aside, your description of poz is spot on.

      • The Cominator says:

        “To be ‘pozzed’ means that you think you can do better than Jehovah’s design, rules and commands”

        That does not mean pozzed. If ancient Israel couldn’t live under “The Law” (and the Old Testament actually makes it quite clear they actually couldn’t) then we have no chance in hell of doing it.

        • glosoli says:

          There will always be the temptation of pozz, slithering on the ground, tempting you with its gold pieces. Even Cromwell took a few pieces I believe. The Glorious Revolution, heh, what an apt name for letting them in.

          ‘Further financial support (for the Revolution/invasion) was obtained from the most disparate sources: the Jewish banker Francisco Lopes Suasso lent two million guilders;[37] when asked what security he desired, Suasso answered: “If you are victorious, you will surely repay me; if not, the loss is mine”.’

          Do we resist as a nation, or do we just give in?

          It’s the $150 trillion dollar question, think carefully before you answer.

          I bet you’d all choose a life of convenience and material shit, the rights to freedom, life and (((Happiness))) every day versus kicking them all out, collapsing it and doing it like Alfred the Great, bunch of cucks.

          ‘Oh, but muh capitalism is so great, jets and TVs and nice clothes and faggotry and divorce and porn. CUCKS.

          • The Cominator says:

            I agree with you that leftists think they can do better then God or Gnon (whichever you prefer I don’t think we should fight over this) and I agree that utopianism is always pozzed.

            Deviation from Old Testament law isn’t pozzed though because not even ancient Israel could really live under Old Testament law. Much of the Old Testament was devoted to describing how Israel just couldn’t do it.

            • glosoli says:

              There is no Gnon, it’s just something as atheist made up, so yes, we will fight about that.

              Not even attempting to follow Jehovah’s commands and thinking you can design something that will work better is the very definition of pozzed to a Christian, you deny the authority of God, anything else you do is leftist.

              The Bible defines right-ness, not a blog.

              • The Cominator says:

                I’m not an Atheist myself I just don’t think we should fight about fine theological points until the leftist are crushed.

                If God had favored Old Testament law for Christians then Cromwell would have been defeated by the Scottish Covenanters (the Christian world’s equivalent to Wahabbi Muslims, which Cromwell was actually not he was a much more moderate and conservative Puritan then the truly fanatical Covenanters) and then the new Scottish Covenanter Empire would have spread across the world.

                • glosoli says:

                  Fair enough.
                  Cromwell did get his just rewards in Ireland though.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Cromwell’s campaign in Ireland met with total victory, even if he had one siege where he took heavy causalties.

                  Cromwell represented the best aspects of the Puritans, I say this as someone who was part Irish. Most of the atrocity stories were propaganda. Droghedra fell without a surrender, massacring the survivors was both in accordance with the laws of war at the time AND it FELL SHORT OF Old Testament military law (where everyone was to be massacred).

                • glosoli says:

                  It just have been the ‘most’ bit that did for him.

                  Did you have your Irishness surgically removed then?

                • The Cominator says:

                  There were definitely massacres in Ireland but the English massacres of the Irish were preceded by Irish massacres of Protestants.

                  The atrocities were almost all due to the nature of war at the time, not Cromwell ordering them. He DID order a massacre at Drogheda but given that Drogheda was a fortified city that fell without a negotiated surrender EVERY commander during that time period would also have ordered a massacre. It was in accordance with the laws of war at the time.

                  When towns surrendered to Cromwell there is no case of him ordering a massacre.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m no lover of Catholics, but I think Christians v Christians would not find favour with God. Hence, Cromwell did not leave Ireland alive, and the Irish have not had sovereignty in the north since.

                  You said you weren’t an atheist, so what are you? Christian or pagan, or Muslim?

                • “I’m no lover of Catholics, but I think Christians v Christians would not find favour with God. Hence, Cromwell did not leave Ireland alive”

                  Cromwell definitely left Ireland alive. Cromwell died at Whitehall.

              • Alrenous says:

                “There is no Nature’s God. Nature having a God is something an atheist made up.”

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      It means, broadly speaking, leftist degeneracy as well as the consequences and externalities thereof.

      • glosoli says:

        >Would someone define what POZ means. I thought it signified someone has HIV.

        Dan Kurt

        >Would someone define what leftist means. I thought it signified someone thinks they can do better than God?

        glosoli

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          You do realize that NRx, and especially Jim, are well aware of purity and holiness spirals? Do you really expect to reach us behaving in this fashion?

          • glosoli says:

            All you can accuse me of is sticking to the bible.

            Fire away, I’m guilty as charged.

            • StoneMan says:

              Zealous Puritanism was to the left of Charles II. That your zealous Puritanism is to the right of (current year) does not mean that you are on the side of Rightism.

              Read more Moldbug.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Left-right is useful and people who claim to have abolished it are always wrong, including third positionists and libertarians.

                Nevertheless, useful as it might be, the trap of left-right is Whig History, and you’re falling into that trap:

                “Zealous Puritanism was to the left of Charles II. That your zealous Puritanism is to the right of (current year) does not mean that you are on the side of Rightism.”

                Zealous Puritanism has its place. History can be seen to have drifted leftward in Europe over the past several centuries, but for human history overall, that can’t possibly be true.

                In the current year, we actually do need some authoritarian religious intervention. If that’s ‘to the left of X’, well then so be it.

                My attitude that influenced this article is that outright NATIONALISATION OF INDUSTRY has its place in the modern world for people like us. Religion’s tame in comparison to that, when it comes to ‘dude no left’.

                • StoneMan says:

                  >the trap of left-right is Whig History, and you’re falling into that trap:

                  One can reject the Whig meta-narrative while recognizing the particular historical memetic evolution of Whiggery. Perhaps Moldbug was wrong to place the blame entirely at the feet of Puritanism, but I don’t see how it’s possible to absolve Puritanism entirely. The Nrx worldview is simply incompatible with low-church-any-religion. If something is worth doing it’s worth putting someone officially in charge of doing it.

              • glosoli says:

                I’m not a Puritan, I wholeheartedly endorse polygamy for example.

                Moldbug is that Jewish guy? I’ll pass thanks.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Puritan theologians (like Milton) were in favor of polygamy. They didn’t have power long enough to get the full program implemented; the English rebelled against something as simple as honoring the Lord’s Day by not working.

    • pdimov says:

      Poz means embracing vices and redefining them to be virtues. It comes from the gay practice of deliberately seeking to infect oneself with AIDS (“pozzing oneself”) because to be HIV positive is supposedly superior/holier/more progressive.

      Celebrating and spreading degeneracy and feeling morally superior while doing it, in other words.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      “Would someone define what POZ means.”

      It’s a meme that started out as people deliberately getting infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

      It’s come to mean basically the embrace, celebration or promotion of activities which are superficially recreational but in fact damaging to society as a whole over the long run.

  12. viking says:

    “In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.” – maybe you should head over to the antiversity the jew ron unz built and read his take on the JQ you Moldberg alcolytes can cuck all you want but this guys a jew with a 250 IQ and hes calls Macdonald and raises him several orders of magnitude. There simply is no other issue that comes close to the main cause of what ails us. for instance jews are both capitalist and communist yet work together for jews because they have no hangups about communism being altruism or capitalism being a freedom proposition to jews both are simply weapons jews use to pwn white nations.the cuck/nrx enlightenment values that you would rather every last one of us die and our nation perish than betray make the jews work easier he laughs at your principles he recognizes only winning whats good for the jews.

    • glosoli says:

      https://infogalactic.com/info/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

      This is the ‘safe-to-view’ version of this (((guy’s))) evil plan:

      ‘He favored social democracy as an improvement on “the feudal aristocracy of the sword” but his ambition was to create a conservative society that superseded democracy with “the social aristocracy of the spirit.”[16] European freemason lodges supported his movement, including the lodge Humanitas.’

      ‘According to his autobiography, at the beginning of 1924 his friend Baron Louis de Rothschild introduced him to Max Warburg who offered to finance his movement for the next 3 years by giving him 60,000 gold marks. Warburg remained sincerely interested in the movement for the remainder of his life and served as an intermediate for Coudenhove-Kalergi with influential Americans such as banker Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch. In April 1924, Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the journal Paneuropa (1924–1938) of which he was editor and principal author. The next year he started publishing his main work, the Kampf um Paneuropa (The fight for Paneuropa, 1925–1928, three volumes). In 1926, the first Congress of the Pan-European Union was held in Vienna and the 2,000 delegates elected Coudenhove-Kalergi as president of the Central Council, a position he held until his death in 1972.

      His original vision was for a world divided into only five states: a United States of Europe that would link continental countries with French and Italian possessions in Africa; a Pan-American Union encompassing North and South Americas; the British Commonwealth circling the globe; the USSR spanning Eurasia; and a Pan-Asian Union whereby Japan and China would control most of the Pacific. To him, the only hope for a Europe devastated by war was to federate along lines that the Hungarian-born Romanian Aurel Popovici and others had proposed for the dissolved multinational Empire of Austria-Hungary. According to Coudenhove-Kalergi, Pan-Europe would encompass and extend a more flexible and more competitive Austria-Hungary, with English serving as the world language, spoken by everyone in addition to their native tongue. He believed that individualism and socialism would learn to cooperate instead of compete, and urged that capitalism and communism cross-fertilise each other just as the Protestant Reformation had spurred the Catholic Church to regenerate itself.[19]’

      n his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), written in 1925, he describes the future of Jews in Europe and of european racial composition with the following words:[45]

      The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. […]

      Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.’

      His plan seems to be going along nicely doesn’t. Gee, why would all those evil bankers support this, and indeed become the drivers of it? Surely not make more profits? No, that’s a stupid idea.

      • Yara says:

        Silly goy. The condition of contemporary Paris is not exactly as foreseen by a certain Austrian nearly 100 years ago, and UN-affiliated economic concerns definitely have nothing to do with it. Also, our true ruling elite is notoriously shortsighted, thinking only in century-long increments, viz. “complete Brazilianization scheduled for 2050, with new flexibility extending to 2100”. Finally, Jordan “Beta Orbiter Maximus” Peterson likewise has no affiliation with such global interests which do not exist, the CIA did not overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government, ISIS was not founded by Hillary Clinton, there were no dancing Israelis, Obama never cosplayed as Baphomet, and Larry Silverstein did not give the order to demolish Building 7.

  13. Koanic says:

    Some ways free markets invite pozz:
    1. Prosperity corrupts
    2. Prosperity attracts economic migrants or purchases slaves
    3. Prosperity encourages other acceptance, inviting immivasion
    4. Freedom plus prosperity causes geographic mobility, atomizing individuals, increasing corruption and reducing barriers to immivasion.
    5. Usury and free land markets imbalance the ancestral human tribal mechanism for maintaining social and genetic fitness.

    The Bible limits free markets. Free markets are one mechanism for achieving thermodynamic efficiency and spiritual harmony with Jehovah. Not always the optimal solution for every domain. Other mechanisms include religion and our evolved socio-biological behaviors.

    • peppermint says:

      (1) is a euphemism for leftism
      (2) is a euphemism for the behavior of leftists. Who likes fellafel? No one, but lefties love signaling, then blaming no one in particular for minority-owned businesses.
      (3) for leftist behavior
      (4) for ethnic cleansing. No one loves the open road enough to want a 2 hour commute each way to afford private school so the kid won’t get “bullied” – not bullied but simply abused – by “underprivileged” muds. Bullying is when White leaders make White nerds behave instead of acting like gaywads no one wants to be around. The suppression of bullying leads to Vox Day’s Gamma type.
      (5) is a euphemism for the government stealing land and then selling it.

      I’ll take you more seriously when you stop pretending the last 50 years in America is an example of free markets.

      • Koanic says:

        I’m not pretending that. 5 is not a euphemism for anything. You should ask questions instead of assuming you know what I mean, because you clearly don’t.

        • peppermint says:

          tis

          • Koanic says:

            Since you have doubled down like a gamma idiot, I will demonstrate that 5 is not a euphemism.

            Under capitalist land laws, real estate tends to be concentrated into the hands of people and institutions specialized at managing real estate, because that is economically efficient. However, human beings are fundamentally territorial tribal animals. Capitalist land ownership atomizes humans, destroying their tribal cohesion. It ruins the ancestral gene flow between tribes by blending everyone together. It ruins inter-tribal competition. It ruins the psychological bond between man and his patrimony. It ruins many, many things, which is why the Bible binds land patrilineally.

            There does not need to be any government purchasing or confiscation of land for these maluses to accrue and destroy a country.

            Flippancy is effeminate.

            • peppermint says:

              Right, that’s the leftist line since the beginning, Fapitalism, not state policy, drives consolidation of the means of (re)production.

              Farmers in America had coops, workers in America had unions, until Fapitalism came along and stole everything out of evil self-destructive corporate greed.

              Why is corporate greed self-destructive? Because it’s just pure evil. And being Christian, we can call things evil and then we don’t have to think about them any further.

              Why is it Fapitalist land ownership? Because it’s just the way things naturally are under Fapitalism, the only alternative to which is collective ownership, under which I can post on this blog all day and leave the actual work to my coworkers, and blame the harvest fairy / Holy Spirit if the crops aren’t what they would be if I was engaged.

              Yes, Fapitalism is a problem. Small-c capitalism, not so much.

              • Koanic says:

                You are still being a flippant gamma, unable to admit your ignorance, leaping to assume.

                The Bible permits what would be considered today ultra-extreme capitalism, with a few restrictions. One cannot charge usury to one’s countrymen. One cannot abuse and exploit one’s countrymen as chattel. One cannot make a whore out of a woman. And one cannot permanently alienate one’s countryman from his landed patrimony, unless it is in a city.

                > Because it’s just the way things naturally are under Fapitalism, the only alternative to which is collective ownership,

                Collective land ownership is illegal in the Bible.

                America is not the measure of all things, your historical myopia notwithstanding.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Sorry Lockeans, but Koanic is correct.

      In a world absent state-generated inflation, nobody would lament the loss of interest earned on savings accounts.
      Interest would be strictly a matter for loans, which would be viewed as gambling of a particularly dangerous kind. There is a case to be made for the total outlawing of all debt with the possible exception of government debt.

      Growth would certainly be slower based around a ‘direct investment, all the money up front’ model but it’d be a whole lot healthier in the long run.

      Usury in the narrower sense – that of payday loans, credit cards and so on – is extremely hard to defend unless you’re a libertarian bound by a fetish with ‘principles’: “I may disapprove of 16%APR loans to peasants but I do not have the right to violate the person and property of another through initiatory violence because we all homesteaded our bodies and blah blah blah blah BANG!”

      • peppermint says:

        You think peasants are making bank on savings accounts?

        The whole point of mutual funds and retirement accounts is to hopefully keep up with inflation.

        Which money is then stolen not directly by the government but by Fapitalism, which mysteriously discovers investment opportunities in minority mortgages and Green Power.

      • Koanic says:

        > In a world absent state-generated inflation, nobody would lament the loss of interest earned on savings accounts.

        I appreciate the support. To clarify my position, the Bible does not forbid interest rates on savings accounts, or bank loans. It forbids charging your brother usury. Corporations can charge each other and strangers interest, and can pay interest to citizens.

        Morever, it is clear from the context that the laws against usury are primarily aimed at protecting the poor. Rich guys doing business with each other is something that would probably fly under the radar.

        Corporations have achieved undue dominance due to the weakness of the aristocracy and theocracy. The aristocracy is supposed to extend to the individual freeholder, and the theocracy is supposed to be a hereditary priesthood cum judiciary supplemented by the less-hereditary prophets, who practice poverty and renunciation, and are divinely appointed, called, and fed.

        Corporations’ corrupting influence can be mitigated by a good king like David, Solomon or Trump. Or by a landed aristocratic anarcho-theocracy, in which personal violence penetrates the corporate legal fiction.

        • Koanic says:

          Correction:

          Or by a landed aristocratic anarchy, in which personal violence penetrates the corporate legal fiction. Or by a theocracy, in which the preachers whip up a well-armed mob to negotiate with the impious oppressors of the poor.

  14. newlyreacted says:

    Jim, what church denomination would you suggest for raising a family in, if any? My wife and I are trying for children, and I could use all the help instilling socially conservative values in them I can get.

    At heart, I’m something of a Jungian pagan, so I don’t have any personal hangups about the theology of it, only the cultural morals.

    I’ve been considering southern Baptist since it seems the last to start accepting faggots and trannies, but I know historically it represents a lot that’s wrong with Protestantism. I’ve also considered finding one of the stubborn old guard catholic churches that goes by the original mass, but I feel I’d be out of place as I have an anglo and scots-irish heritage.

    Thanks for any advice.

    • Koanic says:

      Just attend a service and use the sniff test. But frankly no church is better than a church of the Goddess, and they are almost all churches of the Goddess.

      Pastor Steven L. Anderson has a church that worships God. Sermons on YouTube. Calibrate your testosterone expectations accordingly.

  15. TBeholder says:

    How it was in Generation “P”? «On an absolutely free market, by definition, should be present services of limiting absolute freedom»

    > Libertarian Party […] also promotes poz […] So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz,
    It’s my impression that “Libertarian Party” in USA (and to large degree the informal movement — which is why “libertarian” Left and “libertarian” Right taking half of that “political map”) de facto is not a party of libertarians, but mostly soft cover for anyone from the mainstream cliques who wants to flank another team more than promote their own. They even can’t stop themselves from reflexively virtue-signaling, let alone propagating telltale memes.
    If so, “Libertarian Party does this and does that” is just a conflation of random moves, many of which are unrelated to anything considered “libertarian”.

    >The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy.
    It was to take power from aristocracy. Which was mostly pozzed and wagging tails before foreigners, and half of the rest were the same sort of clowns, but virtue-signaling in the opposite way.
    Hence “Will of the People” and other blathering progressives suddenly popped up, united only in hating Alexander II: landowners and their lackeys who lost their place and were incapable of jumping on the opportunities he opened for anyone interested and not pants-on-the-head retarded.

  16. Keep in mind that markets are merely devices to enable the division of labor / specialization: it is the later that leads to high productivity and thus prosperity.

    I don’t have a general solution except that this is the framework to think in. If you consider putting import tariffs on steel, likely it will cost more. If this is purely driven by higher living standards and wages in your country than the one you used to import steel from, that is likely an acceptable price to pay. But it could also come from reduced division of labor leading to reduced efficiency. Investigate the foreign firms. What is their size. How specialized the average worker is. How deeply did they manage to split up the production process to mind-numbingly simple mechanical tasks, which are good candidates for automation even if they did not automate it because their labor is cheap. Can your domestic firms, or customer-vendor supply chains approach the same size and thus the same level of division of labor?

  17. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Signing out……. will keep on reading but no more commenting as of right now.

    For the record, it should be perfectly obvious to absolutely anyone that no society with clear, powerful *and responsible* leadership would EVER tolerate 49% APR loans to sub-prime borrowers, pizzas containing 2000 calories each that don’t fill you up, 24 hour gambling with alcohol on site, or a housing market in which the vast majority of people can’t even rent, let alone buy.
    Neither would it tolerate warehouses full of cubicles with girls selling sight of their bodies to mass audiences for tips.

    None of this is remotely defensible, and while government intervention *by prog democrats* is certainly part of the problem, all of the above would be perfectly possible in a 100% laissez-faire society, be it ancap, covenant community or sovcorp.

    • jim says:

      > or a housing market in which the vast majority of people can’t even rent, let alone buy.

      This argument presupposes that socialists can wave a magic wand and create abundance. The housing market is failing because people are passing laws to make housing expensive in order to keep out members of groups likely to physically attack them. If we used other methods to maintain order, could repeal those anti housing laws, whereupon cheap housing would available, and you would be complaining about it the way you complain about availability of cheap pizza.

      Selling pizza does not make people fat. Buying pizza makes you fat.

      Carlyle rightly criticizes the free market in labor as harsh on those who lack the necessary skills and competence to navigate it. But he is not endorsing commies. He is endorsing slaveowners.

  18. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    The red pills keep on coming.

    In a high trust, healthy society (such as one hopefully swiftly established by the Jimian Reaction given half a chance), the libertarian argument against redistribution of wealth in the interests of fighting ‘inequality’ goes like this, and is 100% correct:

    Give a millionaire capitalist (or any proven capitalist) a million dollars and he’ll spend some, or even much of it but at least some of it, and even most of it, he’ll find clever uses for so as to get more wealth in the future. Adam Smith’s invisible hand will bring him to do things that are good for society and everyone in it, even though his motivation is personal gain.
    Give a pauper (or any proven consumer) a million dollars and he’ll spend every last dime and oftentimes be back where he started (or sometimes worse) within a few years.

    100% in a healthy society.

    In _our_ sick society? Not so much. The second part’s still true of course but the first part’s getting ropier by the year. So what’s the better alternative to the libertarian answer? To cave and redistribute so that everyone gets a slice of the proverbial pie?
    Not a bit of it: the second part’s true so everyone who receives in the grand lottery of redistribution is more likely than the current owner of the capital to just consume it, perhaps to the very short-term benefit of society (though Mises et al correctly make us sceptical even of that) but ultimately to its detriment.

    So what then?

    Simple: in unhealthy times, we need a healthy ruler ruling over a healthy government. Throne, Altar and Freehold, for sure – or Patchwork, or any similar scheme – even (in the short run) Dr Paul’s Constitutional Republic or the Jacobite simple restoration. Any of these would work at the very least in the immediate run.

    So what’s the difference, in detail, between the libertarian solution and the ‘healthy ruler’ solution? Wouldn’t a healthy ruler (like Moldbug’s SovCorp CEO) be basically the libertarian solution?

    No. We don’t need sick crony degenerates to invest 2% of the available capital and consume the rest. Better then 100% consumption by the plebs, for sure, but not good enough: not even close.

    The healthy ruler and the healthy government he rules (for it will be a he) needs to take control directly and invest 100% of the capital, or near as dammit. (Maybe a few power-works: a cathedral here, a 60 foot statue there.)
    Invest in what? It’s a healthy ruler, not the USG, so it’s not going to be counsellors in primary schools for kids suffering from gender dysphoria; it’s not going to be pozzed Olympics and it’s not going to be endless failed projects like the F35 or whatever it is.
    No, it’ll be whatever a wise capitalist would invest in. Maybe the wisest capitalists will be on the payroll.

    But this is not, and cannot and must not be, a matter of “the market decides”.

    The market right now is a poisoned well. It’s giving us peer-to-peer loans for wedding parties so that people trying to start a secure future can go into debt in order to consume in the present. That needs to stop.
    It’s giving us out-sourcing of every industry, precious ‘IT’ included.
    It’s giving us very strong liberals in positions of extreme power.
    It’s giving us rule under a rainbow flag.

    The market need not lead to Poz, but in the presence of Poz the market acquiesces without the slightest hesitation: if that’s what the masses are asking for, it’s our job to give it to them hard, lubed and sugar-coated.

    The market, freed from rule by the wise, is nothing more than a rudderless ship. It can no more survive the vicissitudes of the open sea by the vote of an electorate than it can by the vote of a marketful of dollars.

    We need to restore health, not freedom for its own sake. We already have that and it’s not working. It’s killing us, and when it doesn’t kill us it turns us gay. Us, not the frogs, Alex.

    • jim says:

      The good ruler cannot directly control any substantial party of the capital, or indeed anything. A business that has its fingers in too many pies is overwhelmed by detail and complexity, and suffers from the well known problem of lack of core competency, leading to well known Dilbert Pointy Haired Boss Big Corporation problem, and the well known Soviet Schlerosis problem, and the less well known problem of central paralysis that contributed to the American Revolution and caused the overthrow and murder of the Romanovs. (The latter being less well known because Whig history lies about it.)

      This problem is explained from the objectivist point of view by Ayn Rand, and same problem from the reactionary point of view explained in Throne, Altar, and Freehold

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        This is simply not true. When you’re imagining very large organisations you’re imagining extant corporations, and they bloat not because it’s an innate tendency beyond a certain size, but because of their nature. Remember to be that large today requires a certain proximity/affinity to government, and government today means USG/Clownword.inc

        Talk to the most austere Austrian you know (not a Randian romantic) and they’ll tell you there’s nothing at all wrong with monopolies (‘natural’ or otherwise) so long as they don’t violate the NAP (and you don’t care about the NAP any more than I do).

        Capitalists today are as infantilised as consumers are, and both require guidance. The core insight of NRx is that guidance is not cancer, that ‘freedom’ is not a right but a luxury.

        Sure, when we have the high trust society of the 1870s once more, businesses can be left alone to innovate and develop technological forward leaps, but we do not live in the 1870s; we live in globohomo gayplex clownworld, where the richest .01% are primarily *consumers* and where the priorities of the richest and largest corporations are *social* rather than economic.

        I don’t like that reality any more than you do, but if you don’t want this ship to be wrecked, it needs a rudder, not a Parliament of Dollars.

        • The Cominator says:

          The core insight of NRx is that modern social democracy is a well disguised theocracy.

        • jim says:

          The problems with attempting to supervise and control too much are obvious. The person in charge is overwhelmed by detail. I have personally experienced them and dealt with them, and seen others experiencing them and attempting to deal with them, usually unsuccessfully.

          This is explained in “I pencil”, and “The Fountainhead”, and is also standard lore and art in the higher levels of software engineering and in corporate governance.

          In software engineering dealing with the problems of excessive span of control is known as “factoring”, and in corporate governance as “core competence”.

          Complexity is apt to spawn complexity, and metastasize out of control. This has been the standard critique of socialism and the central problem of corporate governance for centuries, and has recently become the central problem of software engineering.

          It is nothing to do with moral character. The problem is that the overlord’s mind inherently has finite bandwidth. The overlord cannot really control all that and if he attempts to do so, finds, like the Romanovs, that he has empowered dangerously powerful bureaucrats dangerously close to the throne. The King cannot rule the Kingdom unless the peasant can rule his hovel.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        All I really hear is excuses as to why the King may not (by Lockean natural law) interfere with the sovereign rights of the bourgeoisie, even (or perhaps especially) when the bougies are literally selling booze&gambling in one ad, and STD treatments in the next.

        • jim says:

          Not what I said, not what any reactionary is saying, the opposite of what I said in “Throne, Altar, and Freehold”

          “rights of the bourgeoisie” is also classic academic Marxism, part of the Academic Marxist argument that the proletariat do not really enjoy natural rights, so will be better off with the (((Vanguard of Proletariat))) exercising total and absolute power over the actual proletariat.

          Your wording, “rights of the bourgeoisie”, is yet another example of you speaking in your native shibboleths, and failing to use our shibboleths correctly, revealing yourself as yet another entryist from Academia.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            No you’re wrong. It’s me accepting where Marx is right.

            Marx is wrong about the labour theory of value and he’s wrong (along with your beloved Locke) about the universal equality of Man.
            Marx wants to take capital away from the bourgeoisie because he’d rather place it in the hands of the ‘everyman’ so that the masses can make better use of it. Sadly they just spend it, and if they try to deploy it, they fail because they have no idea what to do with it, because men were not in fact created equal at all: not even close; in fact disturbingly EXTREMELY unequal.

            But Marx absolutely was right that the bourgeoisie was seizing power from the aristocracy as a class. They wanted a seat at the table of power because they had money based on their natural ability. They, naturally enough, wanted to be considered on a par with hereditary nobodies who had no clue about anything in comparison.
            (They were not reactionaries so had no idea of the innate value of hierarchy for its own sake.)

            The bourgeoisie claimed a seat at the table in the 18th century and this led inexorably to two things:

            1. Those immediately beneath them – the urban skilled proletariat (not to be confused with the aimless Lumpenproletariat) – wanted the same: logically and inevitably

            2. Those left starving and homeless by the loss of habitat brought about by ‘laissez-faire’ applied to labour inevitably began calling for real relief: at first this was universal, with no strings attached, then it developed into the ‘poor laws’ and the Workhouse. In the 20th century, we all know where it led. All of this was the inevitable consequence of the bourgeois power grab.

            Marx was right about economic classes, even though he was utterly wrong about literally everything else.

Leave a Reply