The left vision of the Eschaton

The left want to immanentize the eschaton. How exactly? What will the immanent eschaton be like?

This is to them a minor detail that can be dealt with after they have swept away the old order, like the Khmer Rouge plan for revolutionizing and radically increasing rice production.

The Khmer Rouge had, unlike our left, a vague glimmering of plan: They would revolutionize and radically increase rice production on the flood plain by centrally planning the flow of flood water over the rice. The narrow selfish self interest of the peasant leads to him making ditching and diking decisions without concern for downstream consequences. Centrally planned rice production would be vastly more productive, assuming an all wise and all knowing planner.

So in practice, they just had stuff torn down, not built – the dikes and canals they commanded went from nowhere in particular to nowhere in particular, and were never finished, or even seriously begun. But the Khmer Rouge did however devote immense energy and effort to the vastly more satisfactory task of destroying the previous infrastructure for producing food. The existing ditches and dykes are wrong. They reflect narrow selfish self interest. Away with them! Later on we will figure out the new ones.

The Khmer Rouge thought they could command a new infrastructure for growing rice on a flood plain into being in an instant. And thought that figuring out a new infrastructure for growing rice on a flood plain was a mere minor boring detail. Not only was the work to create new water flow infrastructure immense, they never had any clear idea of what new infrastructure was to be built.

So what do our leftists intend to destroy?

The left is angry with people like me, because I have a wife, sons, a house, and a garden, while they live in an urban commune with ten people and they beta orbit around some chick who weeps on their shoulder about the men who fuck her but will not take possession of her.

Men want gardens when they have obedient wives. It is the wife and garden combo that fills the left with covetous rage.

Green New Deal, Covid 19, and Black Lives Matter are all efforts to smash my life in the inchoate feeling that they will then have my life.

The riots are left wing females inspiring left wing males to attempt a shit test that they can never pass. Some shit tests, you fail by merely attempting to pass them, and the only pass is to laugh the shit test off. Of course, if you regularly pass shit tests by laughing at them, the chick will find a shit test that you cannot pass by laughing at it, that will force you to man up. Conversely, if you regularly pass shit tests by being ludicrously manly, you will get a shit test that can only be passed by laughing at it.

The Chaz would have been an effective reproductive strategy in the ancestral environment for the men, had they won, and an effective reproductive strategy in the ancestral environment for the women win or lose.

In the ancestral environment, the warrior chieftain patriarch of the Chaz, had he been victorious, would have assigned the conquered land to his warriors for homes and gardens, and assigned the women to himself and his warriors, and the women would have been set to work gardening and bearing children.

And had he lost, the evil white racists, having proven themselves more alpha than the lefties, would have taken the women of antifa as slaves, and set them to work gardening and bearing children. Either way, in the ancestral environment, the women of antifa would have won, and they would have had the exciting and romantic event of alpha males clashing to see who was more alpha. But in our environment they are instead headed for careers as strong empowered fat lesbian cat ladies of human resources.

If you talk to a woman about factoring a program, her eyes will glaze over, and if you talk to a woman about a positive vision of society, her eyes will glaze over. Her pussy is asking “How does this relate to one alpha male proving he is more alpha than another alpha male?” The only effective way to communicate our vision of society to women is to say “God says do it this way”, whereupon her pussy tells her brain “Top alpha says so, and my alpha says so”.

We are seeing the feminization of left wing discourse. Nature gives women tremendous power, and for successful reproduction, men have to organize and cooperate to disempower them. Because women have so much power, leftist talk is girly talk, hence the loss of interest in any coherent vision of the Immanent Eschaton. Immanentizing the Eschaton is now merely a shit test.

I have a house, a garden, and an obedient wife. When my late wife died, I found that a house and garden without a wife was mighty sad. Might as well live in a closet. Less to keep clean. Now that I have a new wife, I enjoy my house and garden a lot. We are growing veggies. Lettuce, capsicum, potatoes, chilies, eggplant, tomatoes. We have fruit trees. I have a nice view in the morning, and my wife makes me coffee when we wake up.

Leftists, because female power, have no prospect of a wife, a husband, children, a house and garden. Somehow, having a garden is part of being a family unit, and lacking a family unit, people do not want a garden. But they see other people who have what they do not have, and envious people grow angry, bitter, and spiteful. They want to lash out and destroy.

Male leftist’s testicles are telling them that if they destroy enough evil white racists, if they win the battle of Armageddon, they will have the power to command women, and women’s pussies are telling them that after the battle of Armageddon, there will be men worthy of commanding them regardless of who wins and who loses. Of course, if the left wins, they are both wrong. The commissar from Human Resources is going to be a morbidly obese lesbian cat lady, not General Bucknaked.

If we win, we will supply the women of antifa with someone who will look to their pussies like General Bucknaked.

665 Responses to “The left vision of the Eschaton”

  1. […] The blogger “Jim” (whose website, I caution you, is not for the faint of heart) explains why this is not a trivial crime, and recommends stern […]

  2. Nebraskan says:

    Problem: more assets man seizes, the more makes himself seem bland, so can focus on seizing more assets. Same camouflage that hides a truly rapacious man from his prey also hides him from his women.

    But if a man seized assets, he would appear strong to women, not weak. The problem is earned wealth. That makes you look weak.

    • jim says:

      A man who seized wealth would appear strong to women. It is earned wealth that is the problem.

      Huge problem, earned wealth is vulnerability and weakness, and women sense this in their guts, in their lizard brains, in the part of the nervous system that is distributed throughout their bodies.

      So, the solution is to take adequate defensive measures around your wealth, and act like a man with nothing to lose in front of fertile age women.

      • Oak says:

        This is one of the many areas where low IQ men’s concept of male status overlaps more with women’s.

        Low IQ men wear expensive watches, gold chains etc. not to signal earned wealth, but to place a visible bet on their ability to fend off other men and protect their stuff from seizure.

        Unless the wealth is on your person and therefore being protected by your implicit capacity for violence, it doesn’t really signal status for women.

        Their forebrain will still appreciate earned wealth they can’t see. But no tingles.

  3. Nebraskan says:

    Failing to notice reality is always offensive, but noticing is a crime when failing to not notice becomes the offense.

  4. Oscar_Cc says:

    To European Mutt:

    Thanks for the long reply, I am honoured that my comments pushed you to post (can not answer you directly after it).

    You are totally justified in your dislike of the mainstream left.

    >Regarding neoliberalism, even if public spending has not decreased, working class people have it harder these days, it is a fact (Spain never had a large welfare state anyways). Jobs are more precarious, and you compete against immigrants. Housing costs have kept raising. Public debt went up after bailing out banks.

    I have been reading Free Northener’s blog, so you might like this article about the “neoliberal-socialist” nature of current Western economies:

    http://freenortherner.com/2018/05/22/the-neoliberal-socialist-synthesis/

    “a material standard of living just tolerable enough to prevent revolt at the alienation and soullessness of the system while having only minimal drag on efficiency”

    Quite brilliant insight in my opinion.

    >Now, about my goals, I am no radical. I just want unemployment eliminated, which in a country like Spain with 20% rates should be a priority. A jobs guarantee program or something of the sort, and UBI when it becomes possible. I would not socialize the means of production or install cooperatives as the norm in the beginning (although apparently they work not that bad:

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/).

    Capitalists want workers to fear unemployment, so that they put up with abusive conditions at work. I don’t believe in Labor Law, but in scarcity of labor, makes workers have the upper hand.

    Also, HOUSING must be addressed (a big reason people have less children), and a system put in place that prevents speculation. Maybe curtail AirBnb or similar things.

    >Your comment about Moroccans is telling. I said it and I repeat it again, greed over cheap labor will always be the bane of white peoples, not Communist agitation. Answering your question, yes, I would deport as much foreign labor as possible. The French Communist party of the 1970 was very anti-immigration, for instance.

    >Civil laws regarding marriage and divorce payments should probably be changed, I don’t really oppose that.

    >Finally, about my condition, I think I will stick with the pills for a while, even though you are probably right about Big Pharma. I say this because for a long time I tried to battle depression by eating better (not much to improve since I get home-cooked meals at home), lifting, going to great lengths to avoid xenoestrogens, applying testosterone patches, etc… to no avail. I have never smoked nor done drugs of any sort. No alcohol. I try to walk for an hour or more everyday while I listen to podcasts.

    I will try however to curb carb consumption since I have been eating some extra bread and chocolates recently.

    Cheers.

    [P.S: To understand why despite being open to right-wing arguments I doubt I could ever call myself a right-winger, watch this Crowder video. He argues with a black man doing some graffiti and then proceeds to call the cops on him for nothing. This kind of “punching down” so typical of the right really disgusts me. The greedy economic elites are seldom held accountable, poor people are continuously scrutinized.]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZKGzleDFpw&feature=emb_title

    • jim says:

      > Also, HOUSING must be addressed (a big reason people have less children), and a system put in place that prevents speculation.

      Been tried one thousand times. Always ends up producing horrific hellholes. A system that prevents owners of houses from speculating in housing is a system that prevents men from truly owning and righteously defending their own house. Predators descend, the women despise their husbands, you get hell holes from which the men of fled, that no one does maintenance or repairs on. Criminals, rats and cockroaches take over.

      The housing ends up looking like Beirut after the civil war, except that the people hiding in the ruins of Beirut made a big effort to make their places livable, while people in government housing do not really try. People in those places always wind up with no wife or no husband, and a house without a husband gets neglected.

      Socialism is always disastrous, and socialism in housing produces disasters second only to socialism in food production.

    • jim says:

      > long time I tried to battle depression by eating better

      Depression is caused not primarily by food, but by the feeling that your status is fake and vulnerable, that you are an impostor. This feeling may or may not be rational.

      Act like a real impostor. Have a lower status but still comfortable identity or life role ready, and everything you need to bug out to it in your carryon bag. Prepare for the worst, and you will not mope about it.

      The best cure for depression is a job well done, and being appreciated for a job well done. When the worst actually does happen, and people take on a new, lower status role, and are successful at it because well within their capabilities, they usually cheer up. It is the conscious or subconscious dread that is depressing.

      Of course if your feeling is irrational, maybe that will not work. But preparing a bugout will force you to consciously think about stuff and realize what is rational and what is not.

      Depression is a response to real or imaginary threats that you feel powerless against. Well, if you actually are powerless to resist, you are probably not powerless to prepare a bugout.

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        Thank you, will take this advice into account.

      • Jim,

        But, obviously, the modern problem is feeling like an impostor at masculinity itself, precisely because everybody has to act this fake monkey dance of playboy-criminal hypermasculinity to women. The result is not knowing how much masculinity under the act is real. That is, lifting and boxing are cool but also fake, but the essence of masculinity is courage, it is facing danger, and how would someone who never ever did anything actually dangerous, not even a real fist-fight, would know how would he react to real danger? So there is this lingering insecurity of not knowing that in real danger whether one would act bravely or whether one would shit his pants and become a trembling mess of jelly, earning the contempt of all male friends and also never be able to fool women again.

        It requires some real danger to convince oneself that one is not an impostor coward acting like a man, but an actual man. Maybe the Fight Club was a good idea. Maybe the rumours that in the past some nations had the kind of military training where 1 in 100 bullets shot at each other were real, and some training casualties were not only acceptable, but desirable, to make it real. Hunting in the past was not undangerous, sometimes a boar or bear got missed by enough shooters to attack one of them. All I can show for real danger is some overly fast driving but that is not a real danger as I am good at driving. Any ideas?

        I don’t think this can be solved by having a backup identity.

        • jim says:

          > So there is this lingering insecurity of not knowing that in real danger whether one would act bravely or whether one would shit his pants and become a trembling mess of jelly, earning the contempt of all male friends and also never be able to fool women again.

          > It requires some real danger to convince oneself that one is not an impostor coward acting like a man, but an actual man.

          Learn and practicing efficient ways of killing people who are unskilled in the relevant martial art (which is pretty much all martial arts practitioners, because efficient ways of killing or crippling people are forbidden, so you win by fighting in way that assumes your opponent will never make such a move, so you learn and practice distinctly suicidal methods of fighting, so up against an opponent who knows how to injure or kill, the martial artist gets done like a total newbie)

          Thus the karate kid his going to be hosed when a mixed martial artist attempts to throttle him or hyperextend his elbow.

          The mixed martial artist has a highly effective defense when another mixed martial artist attempts to throttle him or hyperextend his elbow. But suppose the mixed martial artist is going up against a common street brawler. If the mixed martial artist is throttled, he is likely to use a countermeasure that threatens to send the person throttling him headfirst into the ground, whereupon another mixed martial artist will immediately let go. Unfortunately for the mixed martial artist, the common street thug is not going to let go until he is actually heading headfirst into the ground, and will let go in order to grab onto the nearest solid object, which happens to be the mixed martial artist’s head, with common street brawler’s thumbs and fingers positioned mighty close the mixed martial artist’s eye sockets, and probably in his eyesockets holding on as if to a bowling ball.

          The mixed martial arts countermove to the rear throttle relies on the fact that certain holds and certain blows that are absolutely instinctive in a brawl, burned into our reflexes by millions of years of evolution, are forbidden in mixed martial arts.

          Carry a weapon that is legal under your circumstances and jurisdiction. Recollect my frequent admonition that one must be mindful that range shooting is unrealistic and differs importantly from actual gunfights, though I have never been in an actual gunfight.

          This, of course, does not involve anything that actually requires courage. You obviously want to avoid actual fights, so when doing the dangerous guy monkey dance, you always have a run-away-like-a-yellow-bellied-coward plan at the ready. Though killing dangerous dogs with your bare hands is fine. You don’t get into trouble for defending yourself against a dog with measures that potentially or actually kill it or maim it. And you cannot retreat from a dangerous dog anyway, so no point in having a yellow bellied coward backup plan.

          This will not impress women, but it will impress yourself, and thus make it easy to hold frame that will impress women.

          But you also want to do stuff that requires a certain amount of actual courage. Climbing small mountains and going on wilderness trecks is manly Sailing far out to sea in a very small boat or kayak.

          • Karl says:

            It is true that martial arts training suffers from the fact that killing and maiming techniques can hardly be trained, but it is still better than no training at all. The martial artists has much better chances against a street brawler than a man with no training at all.

            I’m am aware of several cases where martial artists got into street brawls. They fared very well (boxing – at state level competions, karate, wingtsung, jujutsu – all at master level). Throws work reliably, especialls against opponents who are not used to being thrown. Regular punches and kicks that are allowed at full contact tournaments also work, although striking with a glove and a bare fist are very different.

            Doing martial arts seriously does require courage. Not the training, but going into the ring does and fighting at a tournament does impress women.

            Anyway, noone should mistake martial arts and selfdefense. If you have to fight for your life, you want to do it with a weapon.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Less deadly techniques are more deadly than more deadly techniques, because you can actually practice them.

            ‘What is the best move to play when you are in checkmate’; the best move is not being in checkmate. As the saying goes, ‘you fucked up a long time ago’.

            There is a whole universe of situational possibilities before terminus, and that’s where you make your bones. What sound makes more sense to one’s ears; a man with negative positional control achieving dominant position, or a man with excellent positional control achieving dominant position.

            If you are sitting on top of a guy in mount, he is in no position to try any funny business; any attempt to escalate with wandering fingers can be broken down like you’re fucking a hot chick, and you can escalate thrice as much thrice as easily.

          • Thank you.

            > going on wilderness trecks is manly

            Heh, it just occurred to me that there are wilderness areas conveniently located inside cities, teeming with imported, dangerous hominids, some from the desert, some from the jungle…

            >which is pretty much all martial arts practitioners, because efficient ways of killing or crippling people are forbidden

            Which of course what the Krav Maga guys are offering to fix, but as the whole thing is a business based on assymetric information when the customer has no chance to evaluate the quality of the service sold, there is a good chance it is fake.

            A better alternative is the WW2 Commando training manual, Capt. W.E. Fairbarn’s “Get tough!”, as that man was 101% not a fake, and the book can be pirated in good conscience as it went out of copyright long ago.

            • Karl says:

              Capt. W.E. Fairbarn’s “Get tough!” is a martial arts instruction manual. If you want to train the techniques described in the book (which are also taught in many martial arts disciplines) you will face the problems Jim mentioned above that killing or maiming your training partner is no option.

              The thought that reading a book can be BETTER than real martial arts training where you punch, kick and throw your training partner and are punched kicked and thrown is ridiculous.

              Maybe you cannot evaluate the quality of a martial arts instruction (Krav Maga or anything else), but customers who are practionioners of any other martial art or have to use what is tought in their jobs, e.g. law enforcement, can.

    • jim says:

      > He argues with a black man doing some graffiti and then proceeds to call the cops on him for nothing.

      Graffiti is not nothing. It is claim of ownership by the graffiti artist. It means this is his place, not your place, he is is the master here. If you hang out in a place with graffiti, you are likely to beaten or robbed.

      Graffiti is a threat. It is a claim of turf, a claim of territory, a claim that the people who put up the graffiti can get away with pushing you around in this place, just as they got away with the graffiti.

      Owners should shoot graffiti artists, and owners of public places that allow graffiti artists are abandoning their duty to protect their clients that want to use the place without hostile people injecting themselves in place of the neglectful owner.

      The graffiti artist is testing to see if he can get away with bad behavior. If he can, then it is his place, and he can kick other people out or mistreat them. Graffitied places are unlivable. You will not see people hanging out in them, because streetcorner man is likely to tell people that this is his street corner, and if he does, no one will stop him, just as no one stopped the graffiti.

      Graffiti artists should be killed or enslaved to live out their days under the threat their owner might capriciously carry out their suspended death sentence at any time.

      If a neglectful or irresponsible owner allows graffiti, or is unable to defend his property, he should lose his property to someone who can and will defend it. Property needs to be in the hands of people who can and will defend their rights.

      • Karl says:

        Defending property without state backing is hard. Defending property against a graffit artist who has state backing is even harder.

        There is no property unless there is group of men who agree on who owns what and will help each other defending property if necessary.

        • jim says:

          Yes.

          The state would disapprove violently if I killed an adulterer who cucked me, let alone a graffiti artist vandalizing my property, but they both need killing, and men whose rights are violated should be supported in their natural and instinctive violence by the state.

        • James says:

          Yes, but if you can’t defend your property you’re an evolutionary dead-end anyway. Work on getting yourself in a position where you have a chance of getting away with the use of force against petty thugs. Neighbors who will turn a blind eye or be witnesses for you, for instance.

          We are in a state of war for our survival. Normalcy is dead until the coercive power of the state is in our hands. That means taking some risks and doing some evil deeds, and risking being spotted by the eye of Sauron.

          Instead of faking courage, have courage, have a plan for the worst, and be ready to do your worst when the time comes.

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        I don’t like graffiti, or modern art in general. Kinda agree with the “broken windows” approach. Your proposed penalties might be a bit of overkill though.

        But that was not my point here.

        If the black guy had told Crowder how Democrats are the KKK party or the usual Conservatard bullshit he would have applauded him and not threatened him with the police. You know it full well.

        I see that pettiness all the time amongst conservatives. Blaming small people for their shortcomings first and foremost. That is what I find disgusting. Of course I oppose rioting and vandals.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Speaking of projection, pretty amazing you seem blind to the ubiquity of petty vituperation by people, in all sorts of interactions all over every day life, taking advantage of the dominant ideology in the discourse, because they can sense that power is behind it; that if the people in their crosshairs make too much of a fuss about it, they will come out on top, and things won’t go well for them.

          Those folk in the crosshairs, they sense it too. And even people wholly ignorant of broader social engineering outlets can pick up on the behavioral cues; ‘open season on these guys’.

          The desire by most species of humanoids for ‘acceptable targets’ to fulfill the need to punch down on is almost as inevitable as gravity. The great hack of liberalism with regards to facilitating leftist modes of behavior (backstabbing your neighbors) is that it furnishes rationalizations for indulging in this impulse, while denying that it is what it is.

          This in itself is also indicated by your hypersensitivity to the idea, ascribed here to folks nominally perceived by you as ‘right-wing’, when the best example you can find of ‘petty punching down’ is defending property from vandalism.

          An ideology is most dominant when it is no longer thought of as such. Ie, that it is perceived as ‘just the way things are’, a natural order that goes without notice. You see episodes like people bantering on a facebook feed, and then one of them hits the other with a ‘dont care didnt ask, plus youre white LOL’, and either, think nothing of it all, or even, to the degree you do think of it, the cortex nods it’s head in approval at the sick burn.

          Part of you understands where the power lies right now, understands who the acceptable target are right now, and so you instinctually go along with it as if it is the most natural thign in the world, unnotable and going without saying. Yet, you are also tormented by inchoate, primordial dissonance oozing up from the labyrinths of the id; that which twists feelings, state of mind, modes of thought, the provenance of which one can hardly see the connections attendant thereto. Because part of you also understands; you yourself are included in that category, as well.

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            Yes, I am aware of the PC climate going on in America, where you have to “tread carefully” if you don’t want to be accused of racism. I have never been there but from what I read online it looks serious.

            Perhaps my example involving Crowder and the black man was wrong due to the dude being precisely that, black. It just happened to pop up in my Twitter feed that day.

            My larger point is that the (mainstream) right discourages people from bargaining socially and instead blames them as individuals for their shortcomings in life. This is pretty obvious to anyone familiar with conservative discourse. The best example of this, involving white people, was Kevin Williamson’s infamous column “The Father-Führer”, back in 2016:

            “it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves.”

            Interestingly, the article mentions Neoreaction and Curtis Yarvin, it is a very good compendium in my opinion of what is mainstream conservatism in its purest form: an ode to plutocracy and disdain for plebs.

            “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.”

            https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2016/03/28/father-f-hrer/

            Honestly, read the whole thing if you did not back in the day, because few columns sum up so well what the mainstream right in America is.

            And of course I know that you here in NRx are quite different by Williamson, but I am sure that if you read the article you will find yourself agreeing with many things he says.

            • jim says:

              > My larger point is that the (mainstream) right discourages people from bargaining socially and instead blames them as individuals for their shortcomings in life

              You cannot bargain socially, unless you have elite backing.

              If a relatively small group are the mascots, for example gays or blacks, works out very well indeed. The elite screws the proletariat or the masses to the benefit of the small group.

              For the proletariat or the masses, they get screwed, because actually working out to their benefit would cost the elite too much. When a communist tells the agricultural laborer “land to the tiller”, he means land to the communists and forced labor for the tiller.

              How did Arthur Scargill’s coal union work out for the masses?

              Pretty well for Arthur Scargill, who had never actually worked in a coal mine, indeed never actually worked, but the coal miners got screwed.

              If a relatively small group are the proletariat, then the masses and the proletariat get screwed.

              > This is pretty obvious to anyone familiar with conservative discourse. The best example of this, involving white people, was Kevin Williamson’s infamous column “The Father-Führer”, back in 2016:

              Kevin Williams is not a conservative. He is a Democrat shill.

              Actual conservatives call them rhinos. We call them cuckservatives.

              • James says:

                “You cannot bargain socially, unless you have elite backing.”

                Precisely this. It isn’t the right that has made social bargaining illicit, but the Cathedral has made social bargaining asymmetrically disallowed for white people, especially white people with pro-social behavior.

      • My formulation: grafitti is planting a flag.

        • Oscar_Cc says:

          If probably was a bad example. I don’t like graffiti, if you want to ban it or the spray bottles, whatever. My point was about Crowder’s reaction after he failed to get the guy to agree with him.

          • jim says:

            I don’t want graffiti banned, and I certainly do not want to ban spray bottles. I want owners to have the authority to shoot graffiti artists, and owners to get in trouble if there is graffiti on parts of their property where they allow public access.

            Graffiti is a flag. If other people are running up flags on property that legally belongs to someone else, he is failing to exercise his property rights, and should eventually lose his property to someone who will defend his property rights.

            The difference between graffiti and public art is whose flag it is. If you look at a healthy society, the owner puts up his public art, glorifying himself ond his family in public parts of his property – his flag – thus ensuring that legal property rights and actual property rights are congruent.

            A big part of the reactionary ideal is formalization, that official reality should agree with actual reality, whether by enforcing official reality, or correcting official reality to conform to actual reality. Harvard never stopped being the seminary and headquarters of the official Church. When we are in charge, we will either flatten it, or make it once again officially the seminary and headquarters of the official Church. Either measure is formalization.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      Of course you couldn’t ever call yourself a right-winger, you’re a satanic subhuman who believes the state must sanction the murder of babies and forbidding such a thing is draconian.

      This is how disgusting you are, you attack people for calling the cops when someone is defacing property but loudly glorify murder of innocents who can protect themselves. Like every subhuman leftist, you stand with the criminal, the murderer, the sodomite, the whore, the parasite and extol their great “virtues”, while demanding the murder of every single productive member of society because they have the audacity of producing value which you want to steal.

      Niggers defacing property, good, entrepreneurs giving jobs bad. Medal to nigger, kill and loot the corpse of the entrepreneur. You’re evil and you need to hang from a post.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        can’t protect themselves*

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        How friendly of you.

        I don’t like graffiti, by the way. I was just pointing out the double standards.

        Also, when did I say that I did not like entrepreneurs?

        Stop projecting. You are like a SJW.

    • Not Tom says:

      I was mostly ignoring this thread, but since no one else has pointed it out yet:

      Capitalists want workers to fear unemployment, so that they put up with abusive conditions at work.

      This is almost true, but “capitalists” is used as a sneaky substitute for “managers”. Entrepreneurs don’t want this, because the conditions that give rise to unemployment and cause workers to fear unemployment are also likely to cause small businesses to fail.

      Only managers in corporations with some degree of state backing and therefore financial security are capable of this type of motivated reasoning, and not everyone who is capable will use it, only the parasitic types with high time preference (smarter managers would realize that their jobs are not as secure as they might be led to believe).

      The group of people who think and act this way are not the “capitalist class”, for they do not actually own any substantial capital; they are “managerial class”, but if they actually coordinate as a class then it is more accurate to consider them priestly class due to how they derive their power from coordination, and control capital without owning it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s a duck; these people you call capitalists are actually priests.

      I just want unemployment eliminated, which in a country like Spain with 20% rates should be a priority. A jobs guarantee program or something of the sort, and UBI when it becomes possible.

      Trump brought unemployment to historic lows and did so without jobs programs or UBI. Now that we have something very much like UBI (Corona “stimulus” payments), do you see it doing anything to alleviate unemployment? Is the problem getting better or worse?

      In any case, UBI will never be possible for the simple reason that it’s inflationary in direct proportion to the income itself. Everybody has an extra $2000 in their pocket so, absent socialistic price controls, markets would adjust to the new reality almost overnight. The inflation might not be apparent in a deflationary environment (which we’re currently in – credit bust) but that makes it more ridiculous and pointless – your remedy for joblessness is to pump more and more air into a balloon that has already popped.

      If you want people to have jobs, then get rid of the things that destroy jobs: business taxes and regulation. Reagan did it, Pinochet did it, Trump just did it again, yet still every leftist on the planet refuses to see any connection and somehow continues to believe that governments create jobs. This is one area where the lolbertarians are absolutely right: the one and only thing that any government needs to do to create jobs is stay the fuck out of it and stick to securing public order.

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        “Managers”, they certainly are a popular analysis figure in the right. I guess it owes to Burnham’s “managerial revolution” classic book. I know little about it so I don’t know what to answer. Perhaps you are right.

        What I had in mind when commenting above was a recent piece of news I saw in Twitter, in which some Spanish hotel owners were saying a minimun income recently introduced by the government was hurting their capacity to hire workers. Well, of course it does, since they pay peanuts!

        Thing is, as several people commented, the previous summer, when no such income even existed, they also protested, and they brought some Peruvians to fill in the vacancies.

        See the thing? I oppose such option of bringing de facto scabs to undermine our labor. Immigrant-loving leftists are simply useful idiots, and sadly we have lots of them around. I will start taking right-wing populists seriously when they REALLY oppose immigration, not just “illegal” one. Until then they are just slightly edgier resentment-baiting conservatives. So far Trump seems to have cucked quite hard on immigration.

        Are you going to side with the usual conservatard narrative about “crops rotting in the field” and having to bring in South Americans to collect them? I hope not.

        Now, about Trump and jobs. Your job market in America seems way more dynamic than ours. However, are there good jobs being created? If I moved there, speaking just English and Spanish and with no other skill, could I find a single job good enough to sustain myself decently? Because if the answer is no, then it does not matter if your unemployment rate is 3%.

        I recall reading that low-earning people needed several jobs to make ends meet in America. The “working poor” thing with people being govt-subsidized to work at Walmart, which is an aberration: nobody working should be poor, by definition. Also the healthcare nightmare stories. Again, I am not there so I can not tell for sure.

        Reaganomics strikes me as a disaster, no matter how good it felt in the short term. Same with Thatcherism. The guys at Fash the Nation did a podcast about Reagonomics recently, but I won’t link to it because I don’t know if you consider them feds or enemies.

        It really shows that most of you are recycled libertarians hehe.

        • jim says:

          > some Spanish hotel owners were saying a minimun income recently introduced by the government was hurting their capacity to hire workers.

          Obviously employers should not be allowed to bring in cheap labor from abroad, because the laborers undermine social cohesion and inflict costs on the wider community, which costs the employers do not pay.

          But minimum wage leads to it being difficult to enter the workforce, with the results that you are getting in Spain, where young people wind up permanently unemployed. Such people are justly discontented, and have no end of time on their hands for the devil to find work for.

          > Now, about Trump and jobs. Your job market in America seems way more dynamic than ours. However, are there good jobs being created?

          Yes. It is (or before Wu Flu was) a huge recovery primarily in well paid working class jobs. Primarily in well paid working class jobs in flyover country.

          > I recall reading that low-earning people needed several jobs to make ends meet in America.

          Americans tend to work long hours, but you can only work one full time job at a time, in part because your employer will not let you do additional jobs. Often people have multiple part time jobs, also called a “hustle”. Hustles, however generally add up to not working all that many hours. It may well be that people with many hustles work long hours compared to Spain, but not so much compared to people with full time jobs.

          > Reaganomics strikes me as a disaster, no matter how good it felt in the short term

          Reaganomics worked. How was it a disaster?

          You can link to enemy websites, provided that you paraphrase and summarize their argument. But don’t tell us “go visit this enemy website and be enlightened.” I hear no end of how Reagonomics was a disaster, particularly when Reagan was president. It was all ridiculously stupid and transparent lies, and I assume your link is just recycling those lies.

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            Well, perhaps “disaster” was a bit excessive on my part, call it “mirage”.

            Government did not actually shrink, public debt went up.

            In this article a combined analysis of both Trump’s and Reagan’s policies is made:

            “he wages of middle and lower class workers actually stagnated during these [Reagan] years despite the robust rate of employment. Many good manufacturing jobs were lost to workers in foreign countries as company executives found cheaper labor abroad. Some jobs were lost to technological advancement which caused them to expire. Other jobs were lost to the Reagan-inspired pirate capitalism of the day, such as hostile takeovers of underperforming companies by flush financial professionals seeking to exploit the lax regulatory environment and make a financial killing usually without regard for the well-being of company workers. The middle class was said to have been “squeezed” by trickle-down economic policies.”

            https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/13/trumponomics-is-21st-century-reaganomics-and-thats-bad-for-working-america/

            He also mentions the growing inequality, although I guess that does not bother you. I understand that some degree of inequality is natural, however the rich will always push for the least redistribution possible. It is normal.

            • jim says:

              > Well, perhaps “disaster” was a bit excessive on my part, call it “mirage”.

              > Government did not actually shrink, public debt went up.

              Cutting taxes not only cured economic stagnation and alarmingly accelerating inflation, but substantially increased government revenue as Reagan correctly predicted.

              Today, everyone, including the radical left of the Democrats, quietly and reluctantly accepts that Reagan was right. They may be setting buildings on fire and calling for the abolition of the police. They want to transexualize your nine year old boys. But they do not want to return to pre Reagan taxes on the rich.

              Reaganomics demonstrated that taxes on the rich were well over the medium term Laffer limit, that they are motivated by self destructive envy, not by the need to fund government, that if taxes on the rich get too high, the rich just stop making money.

              Reagonomics ignited one of the longest and strongest periods of economic growth in the US, following a long period of high inflation, high unemployment, and economic stagnation.

              Since Reagan demonstrated that America had been well above the Laffer limit, most of the world has refrained from pushing so far beyond the Laffer limit, demonstrating universal reluctant acceptance that Reagan was right. No one today, except the usual chaotic economic basket cases, taxes the rich and corporations as severely as America taxed them before Reagan.

              Reagan was not only right, but those loudly sneering at “voodoo economics” quietly agree that he was right.

  5. Oscar_Cc says:

    A bit late, but this fellow reactionary of yours endorses somewhat my theory of why children are expensive:

    http://freenortherner.com/2019/02/27/why-are-children-so-expensive/

    • Not Tom says:

      He makes it rather clear that the root causes are feminism and immigration, not “too few handouts”.

      Also the education bubble, with the salient point being not that it costs too much, but that it produces no value.

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        Yes, I have never denied that. But he dwells quite heaving on wages and housing costs, which also matter a great deal.

        • jim says:

          Empirically, we see that if men have the opportunity to be a patriarch, they will do whatever it takes.

          Poverty has near zero affect on marriage, fertility, and family formation, short of actual hunger or homelessness.

          There was famine in Japan during and shortly after the war, and massive amounts of housing had been destroyed. Yet the impact on fertility was down in noise, while the impact of emancipating women was enormous.

          • Dave says:

            I’d rather raise a large family in abject rural poverty than live alone in a luxury high-rise, but today’s women will accept no such trade-offs. A man can pretend to be gay and reproduce through gestational surrogacy (see Anthony Stralow & Ricky Martin) but the chance to father beautiful children without banging a beautiful woman does not appeal to most men.

            • jim says:

              You are wrong.

              Money helps a picking up chicks, but it is not what matters. What matters is perceived status, and women tend to perceive status by indications that were more relevant back when we looked like apes, than by indications relevant now.

              • Dave says:

                Whatever the mechanism, women used to think raising ten children in a three-room house was high status. They don’t think so today.

            • Oscar_Cc says:

              “I’d rather raise a large family in abject rural poverty than live alone in a luxury high-rise, but today’s women will accept no such trade-offs”

              I would wager that most men wouldn’t as well. (Almost) nobody wants to be poor, sorry.

              You have a very peculiar mindset around here. I certainly like being exposed to radical ideas.

              • Not Tom says:

                You have a very peculiar mindset around here.

                And you have a very peculiar definition of “poor”.

              • jim says:

                I would wager that most men wouldn’t as well. (Almost) nobody wants to be poor, sorry.

                Observed behavior: Men with no woman and no prospect of owning a woman do not care much whether they are poor or not. Japan’s infamous “Herbivores”

                What the left envies, hates, and seeks to destroy, is not nice houses with gardens, it is nice houses with gardens, wives and children.

                It is better to be a King, even if only a King of a mud hut and a wife. It is doubtless nicer to be King of a mansion and a wife, but being single in a mansion is a very poor substitute for being King of a faithful obedient wife and a mud hut.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  It can be, I am probably not representative of the average person because since I was a teenager I was totally convinced that I did not want a family of my own (despite growing up Catholic in house with a dominant father and a rather submissive mother).

                  I am a single kid too, that might play a role as well.

                • jim says:

                  And you are depressed etc.

                  Does not seem to be working out for you.

                  People don’t actually have the option of a faithful and obedient wife, unless they have good game and can plausibly appear high status, dangerous, and scary. Then, not pursuing that option makes you what Japanese call a herbivore – this is an adaption to defeat, not lack of desire.

                • Not Tom says:

                  since I was a teenager I was totally convinced that I did not want a family of my own

                  That is somewhat normal in teenage boys and tends to go away by around age 25-35, the top end being very late for a man to start a family, but not impossible as it would be for a woman that age.

                  If you’re older than that, well that’s just sad. You can rest assured we won’t be taking any advice on how to run society from people who don’t even intend to show up.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  >Jim: You might be right, I don’t really say otherwise, just stating how I personally feel.

                  I think it might be genetic since my father is not a very family-oriented person. Never felt particularly “loved” by him. Also introverted like me, with no real friends, kind of a lone wolf. I suspect he married and fathered me out of societal inertia, since it was the expected thing to do.

                  Having children strikes me as a massive responsability I am not willing to take (if I could, that is). You can start a business and go broke, but a son or a daughter are forever.

                  >Not Tom: I am 30. I was told I would grow out of it, but never happened.

                  I am always bemused at this fixation in the right with childlessness, as if such people are inferior in some way. Would you father children without being sure or out of societal pressure?

                  Prior to contraceptives things just happened, but not anymore.

                • jim says:

                  And by sheer coincidence you suffer depression.

                  Live with parents, have no woman.

                  How very strange that you are depressed🙃

                  You don’t “suffer depression”. You are sad.

                  Pretty soon you will graduate to living in a little box like these guys. The woman in the video is a whore, the man is a webmaster. They have enough money for a nicer lifestyle, but with the woman having no prospect of a husband taking ownership of her, the man no prospect of taking ownership of a woman, they might as well live in a little box. They cannot get together, because she would bang men more manly than he.

                  It is not genetic, it is not your diet. One is depressed by fear of terrible defeat. One is also depressed by actual terrible defeat. You are suffering terrible and humiliating defeat. You don’t have a home, a wife, and a garden for the same reason the people in that video do not. And so you are depressed and unmotivated.

                  Your depression is a rational, appropriate, and proportionate response to biological failure and defeat.

                  Read Heartiste from beginning to end. Get a small place to bang chicks. You cannot tell chicks.
                  “Come to my place” unless you have a place. Get laid. Get a faithful and obedient wife. Nothing cures depression like victory. Nothing raises testosterone like winning. And, with a faithful and obedient wife, you will find you want kids. And when you have kids, then will want a house and a garden. Get a house and a garden.

                  Or else you will wind up like the whore and webmaster in the video I linked to. Of course you are sad. You have a terrible life and it hurts. Which is why you envy entertainers and sportsmen, and expect us to envy them also.

                  Your depression is appropriate and proportionate sadness. Your leftism is envy, and your “depression” is that you have a reason to envy us, and envy successful sportsmen considerably more. Get laid, you will stop being sad and you will change your mind about politics. You will no longer be envious, and will be angry with those who will envy you, and who caused you to suffer so much for so long.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I am always bemused at this fixation in the right with childlessness, as if such people are inferior in some way.

                  I never said anything about inferiority – that’s your projection. I merely said that one would be foolish to take advice from another with no skin in the game. No wife, no kids, no prospects, therefore no skin in the game of social organization, no reason for those with skin in the game to listen to your opinions.

                • jim says:

                  Oscar_Cc:

                  > > I am always bemused at this fixation in the right with childlessness, as if such people are inferior in some way.

                  Not Tom:

                  > I never said anything about inferiority – that’s your projection

                  Projection reveals.

                  He feels envy, revealing that he feels inferior. His is the authentic voice of leftism that is speaking from its black and bitter shriveled heart, rather than giving us the script.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  “Envy” is the easy right-wing retort to any sort of left-wing talking point, common to both you and the “cuckservatives” you so much despise. I would argue that envy is perfectly natural, but this guy makes it better:

                  https://deponysum.com/2019/11/03/a-note-on-relative-incomes-happiness-the-need-for-status-and-envy/

                  In a way, it is the equivalent of woke SJWs crying “racist” or “fascist” to even mild criticisms of their ideas.

                  I don’t particularly envy famous showbiz people because their fame is a burden, a heavy one. You can not go anywhere without being recognized, and your life is painstakingly scrutinized. It beats being poor, of course, but not my ideal.

                  I brought them up to show how the spontaneous hiearchies of the “free market” you folks gravitate to might not be necessarily always the best for society. I don’t think I am particularly high IQ and I am not a scientist, so I wasn’t speaking about myself.

                  Anyways, sorry if I talked too much about myself, I am not a particularly reserved person.

                  About my leftism, it mainly has to do with my perception that unfairness has to be kept in check in some way. As you well know, the liberalized sexual market is dysfunctional, because it is very unequal. If you take the “might is right” mantra to the logical conclusion, you should not be worried in the least.

                  About the “skin in the game”, fair enough argument. I admit I projected a bit regarding the inferiority of childless people, but it is a common meme I see in the dissident Right. I honestly think a childless person like me can care more and do more for his tribe than breeder types, but that would be a too long discussion.

                  Ok Jim, I will try to heed your advice. I might have to move in a couple of months for a new job away from my hometown, so I would have to live alone at my own place. I don’t think it will work because I have already done that twice to no avail, but I am no quitter. The only problem is that dating takes a lot of time and effort and I am not keen on that.

                  I am acquainted with Heartiste, very witty and acerbic. As I said, I read a lot of manosphere stuff back in the day. I guess it works, but you have to be in the mood, which I am not. I guess this Varg Vikernes guy is your model:

                  https://twitter.com/WargarW/status/1282452521081069577

                • jim says:

                  > “Envy” is the easy right-wing retort to any sort of left-wing talking point, common to both you and the “cuckservatives” you so much despise. I would argue that envy is perfectly natural

                  But it is perfectly obvious that almost every left wing talking point is “You should feel as bitter, envious, and full of hate for my betters as I do.”

                  It is an easy retort because it is true.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  “No wife, no kids, no prospects, therefore no skin in the game of social organization”

                  About this I would say that even if it is lower than family men, I do have my own welfare to consider. Hence my worries about unemployment and exploitation.

                • jim says:

                  With absolutely nothing to lose, you have no reason to fear unemployment etc.

                  I just don’t believe you. It is a rationalization for envy.

                  50% of Americans love the fact that Trump has a flying palace with gold plated toilets and a way hot wife. And fifty percent of Americans are enraged. By and large, the Americans with productive jobs, wives or husbands, homes, gardens, and children, love the flying palace and the hot wife. The ones without, tend to be the ones enraged. Envy is common, but it is hardly universal. despite being declared a holy sacrament and the eleventh commandment. They hate Trump because they hate the people with wives, husbands, families, homes and gardens.

                  And I love the flying palace and the hot wife, and so do most people on this blog.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m pretty bitter about certain things (I’m too spergish to convincingly ape dark triad traits in normal circumstances) but not with the rich capitalists but with the left and the priesthood.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Hehe I know I won’t change your mind.

                  I don’t mind about Trump, really. I would have voted for him if I was an American (he would always be better than Hillary). 2016 was exciting, even from the distance.

                  Since I read a lot about America I should have paid more attention to the constitutional system, but it seems that the President is mostly a figurehead, with little real power unless there is a war. From what I read here you are keen on him becoming a sort of dictator, but seems far-fetched. Most in the dissident right seem kind of tepid about him now:

                  http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/02/08/trumps-chumps-2/

                  Obama was also greeted with great hopes and it seems to me that he achieved almost nothing, hopelessly blocked by Congress, where the real power seems to be, in that thick net of lobbyists and corporate agents.

                  Our reality here in Spain is very very different. I think sometimes I fail to get you guys due to that fact, and viceversa. In case you are curious you can check libertarian Caplan’s account of us:

                  https://www.econlib.org/reflections-from-spain/

                  Cheers (and I will try hard not to become the equivalent of the Japanese dude living in the cybercafé).

                • jim says:

                  > it seems that the President is mostly a figurehead, with little real power unless there is a war.

                  Congress has even less power.

                  Constitutionally we exactly the same system as it was under FDR, and FDR had dictatorial power, and ruled for life, and if he had had healthy family relationships would have been succeeded by his sons.

                  His successors lost power the same way the Sun King lost power. Try to rule everything and everyone, and power will slip from your hands into the hands of your dangerously overmighty servants dangerously close to the throne. And had FDR’s sons succeeded him, would have failed as the grandson of the Sun King failed.

                  > Obama was also greeted with great hopes and it seems to me that he achieved almost nothing, hopelessly blocked by Congress

                  Obama after election moved rapidly to the left, and our society has moved rapidly to the left. What great things do you think he had in mind but failed to accomplish? Stop the oceans from rising and create world peace? His program was to simply to surf the wave of leftism leftwards, which he did.

                  To stop the oceans from rising he destroyed America’s coal and oil industry, yet the oceans continued to rise at exactly the same rate that they have been rising since 1800. To establish world peace he color revolutioned most of the Middle East and bombed Libya flat, yet world peace continued to be strangely elusive. Do you think he should have done more than he did?

                  What more should he have done than he did? What should he have done? What vital measures did Congress stop him from doing? You want accomplishments, but every action he took had disastrous results, and he took plenty of actions.

                  > Our reality here in Spain is very very different. I think sometimes I fail to get you guys due to that fact, and viceversa.

                  Your reality is that you have a lot of social democracy in Spain, and as a result things are terrible, from which like a starving Venezuelan calling for more socialism in food, you conclude you need more social democracy.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Oscar_Cc

                  Hunter Wallace (aka Brad Griffin) of occidental dissent is an FBI shill. He failed the RedPill on women test administered by Andrew Anglin of Dailystormer.su.

                • jim says:

                  Occar_Cc hears the voices of enemy shills, and thinks it is our voice – hence he frequently thinks he speaking our language, when he is being incoherent and making no sense. That the alt right is unenthusiastic about Trump is as off the wall as “Capitalism is Demotic”

                  The Nazi distaste for capitalism is because Nazism is demotic, while capitalism is elitist, but we and Trump are having great success in curing that. They are all turning to Trump’s National Capitalism.

                  A tiny proportion of people produce most of the value. If no Shockley, no transistors and thus no internet. If no Musk, no re-usable rockets. It is right that those who produce most of the value should become wealthy. Twenty percent of the people produce eighty percent of the value, and technological advance depends on one person in a hundred million.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  [*deleted for shill links*]

                • jim says:

                  You are reading shill spam.

                  Not going to pay attention to that. It is just spam, waste of bandwidth. Those guys work for the FBI, the Democrats, or Soros. The inability of the shills to commit thoughtcrime, or acknowledge anyone else committing thoughtcrime, reveals that their output is scrutinized by a Human Resources department. They have a line, and robotically and unresponsively stick to their line.

                  You can tell a shill by the Woman Question, among many others. He cannot say, or acknowledge anyone else saying, anything forbidden on women.

                  Also anything forbidden on Blacks, Gays, and so on and so forth, but people are vastly more interested in the Woman Question than the black problem, which makes it a better test.

                  The shill position on all these issues is “Hail fellow white male misogynist racist homophobic deplorable. I hate woman etcetera too, even though woman are wonderful, immigrants are wonderful, etcetera.”

                  The alt right is the dissident right. The essence of dissent is the ability to commit thought crimes. The links you keep posting are not dissident right.

                  Blacks and Hispanics have destroyed quite a lot my wealth taking over housing white people built, but the woman problem matters far more to me. And to everyone. And because it matters to everyone, makes a good shill detector.

                  If they cannot talk about, or acknowledge anyone else talking about, that problem, their output is produced to script and is produced under supervision. If no thought crimes, not dissident right. If attempting to engage the alt right without committing thought crimes nor engaging alt right thought crimes, they are acting under supervision and direction. If someone was genuinely attempting to engage the alt right, even if he was not himself a thought criminal, he would be aware of alt right thought crimes and would engage them.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  And about the Shockleys of the world, I certainly care about them. In fact, the whole IQ thing is of interest to me, but as I said before I don’t see how the free markets highly reward them… more like paper-pushers and interlopers of all sorts, such as lawyers, marketing execs, etc.

                  I am drawn to an idea of an “hereditarian left”, capable of destroying once and for all the bootstrap meme of mainstream conservatives:

                  https://www.reddit.com/r/leftrationalism/comments/936nqo/hereditarian_left_link_roundup/

                • jim says:

                  The idea that bosses merely push paper is the Marxist idea that the workers create value. Workers do not create value. Work is necessary, but it is not the primary source of value.

                  As I am fond of pointing out, you cannot make a pencil except the boss tells you how to do it, and creates specialized tools to do it with.

                  This idea, that bosses merely push paper to oppress the proles, leads to economic catastrophes like the Great Leap Forward, when Mao commanded vastly increased steel production, while destroying everyone who knew how to make steel, and all the facilities for making steel, believing that the men who created those facilities were just paper pushers, and the facilities for producing steel were merely there to oppress the workers, “sweatshops”.

                  Capital and entrepreneurship, the wise application of capital, creates wealth. All the wealth of the world comes from those you are dismissing as paper pushers, so a fair few of them are doing more than pushing paper.

                  The computer on which you read those links was not creation of the workers. The chair on which you sit was not a creation of the workers. You not only could not not build the computer, neither could you build the chair.

                  Not only did your computer require capital and entrepreneurs to wisely and correctly apply that capital, the chair and everything on your desk required capital and entrepreneurs. In Soviet Russia, not only would you have a shit car, but a shit chair in shit project housing.

                  That the people operating private capital are, for the most part, not mere paper pushers, is proven by what happens when you get rid of them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  more like paper-pushers and interlopers of all sorts, such as lawyers, marketing execs, etc.

                  I am curious, it’s obvious you’ve never run a business but have you even visited one?

                  Take an hour out of your day and walk around a local plaza or strip mall. Does the local pharmacy have a lot of middle managers barking orders? Does the convenience store have a throng of lawyers in the back? Is the tailor or clothing shop surrounded by a ring of marketing execs? Do you see CFOs and VPs at the farmers market? In the world that exists outside the urban shitholes, where are all of these roles?

                  The righties you apparently dislike are the ones who prefer wide open spaces, small local businesses, minimal bureaucracy, and everything else associated with a lifestyle that revolves around kin, particularly family but to some extent friends and neighbors. They have little patience for parasitism, because their “wealth” comes from living below their means, therefore they can’t support very much overhead. There will certainly be some lawyers and accountants in town, but just like plumbers and carpenters, one of them will service many individual families. Individual businesses don’t have internal “corporate lawyers” who spend all day writing and reviewing incomprehensible contracts.

                  Is it really capitalism that bothers you, or are you just agitating to transfer wealth from one set of corporate bureaucrats to another set of government bureaucrats because you think the government bureaucrats will do a better job? It sounds like your beef is with large corporations, and while I personally have nothing against large corporations if they’re well-managed, it’s primarily leftists, left-leaning people and left-affinity groups like immigrants and blacks that provide the customer base for bloated megacorps.

                  It’s not Conrad the Corn Husker who’s buying iPhags, Amazon Echos, and Salesforce contracts; it’s white liberal bugmen living in white liberal suburbs of bloated “diverse” megalopoli. Conrad was probably pissing and moaning for days when he heard that a Walmart was opening up nearby. Maybe you should take a closer look at your class enemies sometime.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Oscar_Cc

                  It was Prophet Elon Musk that lead the way to the VTVL reusable orbital booster, not regular engineers and technicians. Before the StarProphet, with few exceptions, your typical grunt aerospace worker never acknowledged that spaceplane boosters suck and were unlikely to work.

                  Without the StarProphet, we would be stuck with one fake spaceplane booster project after another from Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  I am familiar with small businesses, my father runs one and I help him on occasion.

                  My maternal grandfather was a construction worker that would eventually hire some other people to work with him.

                  [By the way, he was a “bastard”, since he was born in the 1920s from a single mother, his father who employed her died young, and was repudiated by most of his father’s family, and prevented from getting his surname. Jim’s patriarchy in action, I guess. That is what you wanted, right?]

                  I am having a hard time pinning you down guys… on the one hand you say you favor a small-scale economy, centered around kin and family, small businesses, etc, but on the other hand you eagerly defend large corporations, CEOs… which seem like they tend to displace the former. Capital does not care about patriarchy, race, values of any sort, just profit.

                  “The computer on which you read those links was not creation of the workers”

                  I think computers and the Internet took off thanks to government intervention, starting with the war effort. I could be wrong on that.

                  Soviet science was first class except for the Lysenko blunder. Their consumer goods not so much because they were not a priority for the leadership. I think that was a mistake.

                  By the way, I am very critical of the communist experience in the 20th century. I am not sure however that 19th century capitalism was that great either. Do you think it was simply because patriarchy was in effect and even if you were a exploited worker you could “own” your wife in a slum?

                  Correct me if I am projecting, but it looks as if you want a vast army of low-status people around to serve you, kept content by the fact that they get obedient wives, while a minority lives in luxury… is that so?

                • jim says:

                  > > “The computer on which you read those links was not creation of the workers”

                  > I think computers and the Internet took off thanks to government intervention, starting with the war effort. I could be wrong on that.

                  You are thinking of ginormous amounts of money the government threw at electronic counter measures during World War II

                  The government sticks its oar in everything, but reflect on the Hewlett Packard story.

                  During the war, they conscripted Hewlett Packard to Harvard and confiscated their stuff to build radars, and yes, they built some good radar and radar jamming technology. Very impressive.

                  But modern radar and radar jamming technology is not based on that stuff. When Harvard had to compete with the private sector, did not go anywhere. Socialist America could out compete national socialist Germany because they had a private sector to confiscate and conscript.

                  During the war, Harvard confiscated Silicon Valley technology to create the Electronic Counter Measures unit, but nonetheless technology continued to be developed in Silicon Valley, not Harvard. When they let Hewlett Packard be, progress resumed back in Silicon Valley, not Harvard, despite the fact that money continued to be thrown at Harvard. Modern electronics are not descended from Harvard electronics.

                  The government threw a shitload of money at electronic counter measures, but that progress happened back where the technology was stolen from, rather than where money was chucked around, suggests that the shitload of money hurled around by government failed to result in technological progress.

                  Government supplied capital fails to result in technological progress. The government has been throwing money at rockets for years, but progress stopped when Wernher von Braun retired. How did the government find a Wernher von Braun? The Nazis kidnapped him from the private sector, and the US Government kidnapped him from the Nazis. If the military gets better rockets, their development will have been largely paid for by people downloading porn through Starlink.

                  Like government radar, NASA’s government rockets did not go anywhere.

                  If socialism could do science and technology, then the Soviet Union and Mao’s China would have had better stuff.

                  Wherever you see a military with decent technology, it is because they have a healthy private sector to buy it from or confiscate it from.

                  If socialism could produce high tech … https://blog.jim.com/images/socialism-vs-capitalism/cuba-singapore.png

                  The difference is so obvious and enormous that you can see it from space: https://blog.jim.com/images/socialism-vs-capitalism/Koreas.jpg

                  The difference is simple and glaringly obvious. Government cannot produce science and technology, except by buying it or confiscating it from private actors.

                  When the US captured Wernher von Braun it tried to build rockets and failed. It asked him how his rockets were built, it looked at his rockets, and it still failed. When it put him in charge, then it succeeded. And when he died, rocketry stopped advancing until space X.

                  Government funded him to build bigger rockets, probably bigger than the private sector would have or could have. But it funded him because he was already building rockets, as Hewlett Packard had already been building electronic equipment, which work was disrupted, not sponsored, by the wartime electronic counter measures work.

                  German rocketry started with the Verein für Raumschiffahrt (Society for space travel). German rockets were based on VFR work, and American and Russian rockets based on German work. And the Nazis shut down VFR, as the American Government shut down Hewlett Packard.

                  Silicon Valley was not born of the Harvard Group’s Electronic Counter measures. If it had been, Silicon Valley would be located in Harvard, where almost every member of the Electronic Counter Measures group was and remained. Rather, the Harvard group’s electronic counter measures were born of seizing what was in Hewlett Packard’s garage, much as the V2 and the space program was born of seizing what was in the garages of VFR members.

                  That Silicon Valley happened where the government stole technology from, (Hewlett Packard’s garage in Palo Alto) not where they stole technology to (Harvard) shows that government did not cause Silicon Valley.

                  Similarly, NASA could not build rockets, except they put a man the Nazis kidnapped from the VFR, and that they kidnapped from the Nazis, in charge.

                • jim says:

                  > Correct me if I am projecting, but it looks as if you want a vast army of low-status people around to serve you, kept content by the fact that they get obedient wives, while a minority lives in luxury… is that so?

                  Exactly so. But in our vision nearly everyone is a taxpayer or a soldier with a wife, a home and children, whereas in the vision of “equality”, they live in project housing, are farmed like cattle, and are enslaved to the factory or the collective farm, and are not in fact equal to the commissar.

                  The greatest inequality, and the one that burns the most, is not that Trump has a hot wife and a flying palace with gold plated toilets – no one really resents that, and a very large portion of the population loves it. The greatest inequality is that Jeremy Meeks pops all the virgins. The virgin shortage really burns. No one is hungry, but hardly anyone has a faithful and obedient wife. If there were a lot of people with no bread, maybe there would be resentment of Trump’s flying palace, but I just don’t see resentment of his flying palace.

                  We have an obesity problem, not a hunger problem. Our big problem is not unequal distribution of gold plated toilets, but female misconduct. The masses are not hungry for bread. Men are hungry for good women, and women hungry for men who can command and compel them to be good. There is sufficient bread that no one is troubled by Trump’s flying palace.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Interesting, I did not know about Harvard and Hewlett-Packard.

                  There is a book I want to read, “The Ghost of the Executed Engineer”, about the failings of the Soviet industrialization.

                  Was that famous author Antony C. Sutton correct when he said that there was no Soviet technology proper?

                • jim says:

                  Under the Czar, Russia produced leading edge planes Soviet cars and civilian planes were inferior out of date knock offs of western cars, built in factories built by American companies.

                  Their military technology was comparable with that of other governments, but there we are comparing socialism with socialism. The US went backwards in space until private enterprise started building rockets, and the Soviets went backwards at a slower rate. In civilian technology, we see a huge difference.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “And when he died, rocketry stopped advancing until space X.”

                  Not only that, the OSI then booted out of the country his main engineer, Arthur Rudolph.

                  https://infogalactic.com/info/Arthur_Rudolph#Denaturalization_and_departure_to_West_Germany

                  The inner party (and blacks) has never been very enthusiastic about space explorations. Recall Tom Lehrer’s “Werner von Braun” song.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @CloudsWrest

                  ”The inner party (and blacks) has never been very enthusiastic about space explorations.”

                  Their nigger bio weapons would be useless as a demographic weapon in a multiplanetary civilization.

              • Dave says:

                I’m now raising a large family in a rural house that wouldn’t pass a Section 8 inspection (meaning it’s not good enough for the government to house single mothers in). I was once a well-paid engineer & kissless virgin, and after getting laid off, I didn’t try very hard to find another job because what’s the point? Women make their own money now, so mine is of little interest to them.

                I had a colleague who made a lot more than me, owned a $70,000 second home in the Philippines, and took a three-week fuck-finding trip there once a year. Must have been a depressing flight home, knowing he’d be jerking it for the next 49 weeks.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  I am glad you are happier now with your new lifestyle.

                  Personally I feel that the responsability that having a family entails is not meant for me. I have never felt loneliness. Who knows, perhaps I will change.

                  I think the drive to make money expecting a sexual return is not typical of all men. I ask my father about this often, who is a go-getter type, and he tells me he would work hard even if he had stayed single.

                  The more I read the manosphere and the alt dissident sphere, the more I see common psychological patterns about the type of men that gravitate towards it. At the risk of projection, I reckon that we are very status-aware people, shaped by life experiences around sex and social relationships, plus probably introversion and a rationalistic mindset.

                  For instance, we relentlessly critisize the simps, but they are a bit the current version of the construction workers of yore who catcalled girls passing by. They have no conscience of simping, it is us who see it, probably because we fear becoming them.

                • Dave says:

                  When my dad was a kissless virgin engineering student, there was a war raging in Korea, and he knew that if he dropped out, he’d be drafted. I laugh to think young men could be motivated that way today. The draft letters would go out and no one would show up, or they’d all fake a mental illness or something. Our nation belongs to trannies, faggots, dykes, and niggers now — let them fight for it!

                  “I think the drive to make money expecting a sexual return is not typical of all men.”

                  More likely your father assumed that his hard work would be compensated later. If such men are not rewarded with procreative sex, they go extinct, and humanity evolves into a mob of violent imbeciles obsessed with sex and bling.

                  This is why I hope liberal democracy collapses soon, while there are still good men around to rebuild and repopulate.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I have never felt loneliness.

                  How would you know?

                  Loneliness isn’t a chemical state, it’s a perception. You can’t experience it without a frame of reference. To you it would simply feel like anxiety or depression.

                  If you’ve never had a cup of coffee then you won’t experience caffeine cravings, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t tired – you just don’t know what will alleviate it. Same basic idea, except that the physical circumstances of loneliness are much worse than the physical circumstances of tiredness, the former leading to complete death of your genes.

                  There’s even scientific evidence that a lack of physical contact leads to all sorts of physiological problems, not just emotional.

                  Women lie about this too, by the way. When one says she “don’t need no man”, it means she either desperately needs a man or just got dumped three hours ago, possibly both.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  >Not Tom:

                  I don’t fear loneliness because although I live with my parents, I have lived alone for over a year while studying abroad, and I have also worked in different cities in Spain. I was single and alone, and I did never miss not having a girlfriend.

                  I have to make an effort to keep contact with friends, since I simply don’t feel the need to go for a beer with them. The Covid quarantine came and went and I hardly noticed.

                  I also recall that as a kid in some school trips we did other kids would cry and call for their parents, which I never did nor understood.

                  I have read about those studies regarding the lack of physical contact, it might be true. In my case, so far I have noticed nothing. I started worrying about being a virgin around age 23 or so, not as a teenager. In fact, I recall watching the original American Pie movie and laughing at the whole plot despite being myself in the same position the protagonists were.

                  But I worried in the sense of knowing I was missing out on some important life experience, not because I felt lonely or missing some sort of connection. Simply knowing that youth is short. I think I obsessed too much about it for some time, voraciously reading manosphere stuff, and that might have triggered the depression.

                  And of course women like about this, although that might be one of their easier lies to spot. Girls love gossip and drama and you need somebody else for that.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  *lie

                • Not Tom says:

                  I was single and alone, and I did never miss not having a girlfriend.

                  As I literally just explained, you can’t “miss” something you never had. You can’t experience loneliness if you’ve always been alone, only depression and ennui, which you’ve all but admitted to having.

                  As Jim already explained, your rationalization of this as a defense mechanism is perfectly logical and rational. But it is a defense mechanism. The cold reality is that you are going to die and leave no heirs, that you are a genetic dead-end.

                  If you can come out and say honestly, “I know I am a dead end, I’m not happy about dying alone but that’s the hand I was dealt”, it would still be kind of lame and defeatist but at least there would be some hope for you. As long as you keep rationalizing defeat as a positive, there is no hope. You lie about yourself, so you need to lie about others, therefore leftism.

                  You’re not happy; you’re content and comfortable, and there is a huge difference. Happiness is a sense of genuine fulfillment, the sensation of winning in a fair competition. I know all about being an introvert, I would assume that at least half of the commenters here do, but being introverted does not automatically imply being a loser.

                • jim says:

                  Oscar_Cc

                  > > I was single and alone, and I did never miss not having a girlfriend.

                  Not Tom

                  > As I literally just explained, you can’t “miss” something you never had. You can’t experience loneliness if you’ve always been alone, only depression and ennui, which you’ve all but admitted to having.

                  He told us he is seriously depressed, and wonders why.

                  “Genes?” he thinks.

                  Mighty obvious to us why he is depressed. He is thinks he is a victim of sports stars and capitalists. Nah. He is more of the collateral damage inflicted by leftism.

                  He probably genuinely does not want a girlfriend, because he genuinely does not want a woman who would probably cuck him with someone more manly than himself, and that is all that is on offer.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Not Tom:

                  Well, your view of the problem is certainly novel to me. I had never quite looked at it from that perspective of comfort vs happiness.

                  Simplifying it a lot, what you are saying is “no girlfriend, ergo depression” if I got it correctly.

                  Well, perhaps it is just that. The problem would be that right now I could not care less about entering a relationship.

                  However, isn’t it possible to be a “genetic dead-end” and be happy? Celibate monks or Catholic priests come to mind.

                  [If I recall correctly Jim answered me about this a while ago saying that celibacy was not desirable]

                  Jim:

                  Good point about some girl “cucking” me. I certainly fear that, which from the data available seems probable.

                  I simply don’t want to worry about those things, or “game” or any of that dominance that you and guys like Xsplat talk about. I used to comment for a while over at Rollo Tomassi’s blog, and some fellow commenters there told me that dislike of rough sex was due to low T.

                  You talk about an obedient and dedicated wife, but that is unicorn-tier stuff right now I am afraid. It is akin to expect marrying a virgin girl.

                • jim says:

                  Virgins are hard to find, but obedience is relatively easy. It is natural for women to obey. It is also natural for them shit test, and you have to pass every shit test.

                  > what you are saying is “no girlfriend, ergo depression” if I got it correctly.

                  Yes, but that said, shit tests are hard, and if you fail, a girlfriend will not fix your depression, but rather failing will worsen you sense of being a loser with no point in living. Being celibate is tough, and being cucked is a great deal worse.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >Simplifying it a lot, what you are saying is “no girlfriend, ergo depression” if I got it correctly.

                  More like “no wife, ergo depression”.

                  You can say ‘i am not interested in getting a girlfriend’, because on a certain level, your limbic system is accurately apprehending that, generally speaking, for many men today, proximity, interaction, or entanglement with females of the species, today, exposes them to great risks, and little prospect of reward.

                  That is to say, it can sense that what is really desired is not even a possibility, is not even an option of the table; so why bother?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Well, perhaps it is just that. The problem would be that right now I could not care less about entering a relationship.

                  The way you word this – “entering a relationship” – betrays the short-term, high-time preference thinking behind it.

                  Healthy men in a healthy society don’t think at all about “entering a relationship”. The very concept of a “relationship” would be alien to most men throughout history. Men would occasionally worry about other, more powerful men (especially from other tribes) stealing their women, but would not give a second thought to the women themselves.

                  What you worry about is the bullshit way that society forces you to interact with women, concocting ever more creative ways to pass shit tests that are socially acceptable when the ideal response would be violent aggression. You’ve trained yourself to think of all the ways in which these “relationships” with women complicate your life and conclude that it’s not worth the trouble.

                  As we keep saying, this is rational, but it is not happiness. It is nearly identical to the rationalization of the cubicle worker who claims not to desire an office, or the renter who claims not to want to own property. The mind conjures up all the things that suck about it (the promotion means more responsibility, the home means more maintenance) and uses that to mount a defense against failure and hopelessness.

                  Man is incredibly proficient at rationalizing defeat and surrender. Of course we are! For most of our history, people who surrendered early tended to survive, and merely be taken as slaves rather than slaughtered. Conquerors would always reproduce the most, but losers who graciously accepted defeat had much greater survival odds than losers who didn’t know when to quit.

                  Coping is an evolutionary trait – for the losers. It’s a terrible trait if you want to win. And between the two stable points of coping and winning there are miles of failure and misery, but that is the path most people must walk in order to get from one point to the other.

                  Of course, some losers adopt leftism instead – in this context, coping plus cheating. That means rationalizing one’s failures while simultaneously looking for ways to “win” without ever learning any skills taking any risks. While that is also rational, in a sense, don’t expect it to earn any respect in right-wing circles. You’re not a gifted stoic, totally aloof on women, because women can sense and are attracted to that quality; you’re actually just risk-averse and that is never attractive.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Not Tom: yes, I am risk-averse generally. My mother also is, and I grew up mostly under her influence, so that might explain it. However it is hard not to be considering the horror stories one reads online regarding women.

                  About the phrase “entering a relationship”, yes, it might betray a “current year”/progressive mindset but that is the reality we live in. I am open to consider your model of traditional patriarchy superior yet I don’t see it coming anytime soon. We can LARP online all we want, that does not hasten its arrival.

                  And trust that when I say that I am not in the mood for getting married I mean it literally. In fact, right now I don’t miss sex at all. Probably the pills are responsible for it. Will see later on when I stop taking them.

                  Funny that you mention renting and cubicle workers, when it is precisely capitalism and precarious jobs what erodes rooted communities. You are not going to buy a house if your job is fleeting and can be removed any day. Cubicle bugmen are quintessentially capitalistic.

                  Spain is, by the way, a country with high rates of house ownership, but newer generations are not so keen into 40 year mortgages anymore. Perhaps you consider that negative.

                  I have recently discovered this woman, I guess she aligns quite nicely with your mindset:

                  https://thetransformedwife.com/please-repent-of-the-anti-child-mentality/

                • jim says:

                  > I am open to consider your model of traditional patriarchy superior yet I don’t see it coming anytime soon. We can LARP online all we want, that does not hasten its arrival.

                  On this blog I talk quite a bit about how to accomplish that outcome, individually and collectively, and I can see it working individually. I live what I write. So do some of my readers.

                  Not only do men want to own women, but women want to be owned. They resist because of hypergamy. Tt is a shit test. They want to be owned by the strongest man. And they want to be abducted into the strongest tribe, if they are not born into the strongest tribe. What the female response when the alpha male assigns one the excess chicks orbiting him to one of his lieutenants. They don’t fuck the lieutenant for very long, because of hypergamy and defect/defect equilibrium, but they fuck him for quite a while.

                  What Australia did in the 1790s and 1800s worked spectacularly well. The women shit tested the authorities, finding that the authorities stuck to their guns, the women internalized middle class wifely values.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Are, by contrast, these other women who say don’t want children “evil”? Or are they simply brainwashed into believing that?

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Q644-1lNE

                • jim says:

                  Women are the weaker sex, and so are blown by the wind.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      Finally, personal choice is why you can’t afford children. This is what my tweets harped on. People can’t afford children, because they are unwilling to sacrifice for them.

      There are major structural issues making children expensive, which I’ve outlined above, but on the individual level, you can probably afford children if you are willing to sacrifice. People have been raised and become accustomed to luxuries they can’t afford (hence the massive amount of consumer debt most have). This may be due to structural issues, but on an individual level you can probably afford kids if you sacrifice.

      Don’t go into debt for a useless degree; take trades or get a useful degree. If one of the parents stays home and engages in traditional money-saving practices (such as home-cooking and coupon-clipping), the family can avoid buying a second vehicle and paying child care costs. This will require buying a smaller house, children may have to share rooms and you may have minimal private space. Luxuries in entertainment and food may need be cut back. Cable cut. Home internet forgone for mobile only, or vice versa. It may require moving to a lower cost county or state.

      Your grandparents raised 6 kids in a small 3-bedroom house with no TV, 1 car, minimal entertainment or luxuries, home-cooked meals, and penny-pinching. You can too if you will it enough and are willing to sacrifice for it..

      Where is the agreement? Nowhere, this is just a bad faith attempt to repeat arguments which are obviously false, you’re subversive and dishonest. I had already noticed so I decided to ignore you, but you insist on crawling around so I’ll start stomping.

      Go back to your progressive spaces to talk about murdering babies, sodomizing children, let feral woman wreak havoc, emasculating yourself and fantasizing about killing and looting Amancio Ortega.

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        Don’t cherrypick what interests you. He says that at the end, after having mentioned at length stagnating wages and rising housing costs.

        I read different sources and thinkers, you choose to stay in your bubble.

        I have never argued in bad faith here.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Oscar_Cc

          While Free Northerner made some good points, he cucked to an obvious entryist (a Tradcuck named “Chad”).

          http://freenortherner.com/2014/08/03/of-gnon/

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          What cherrypicking?

          Finally, personal choice is why you can’t afford children. This is what my tweets harped on. People can’t afford children, because they are unwilling to sacrifice for them.

          There are major structural issues making children expensive, which I’ve outlined above, but on the individual level, you can probably afford children if you are willing to sacrifice.

          Do you need 44 font to read? Or are you just this stupid? Obviously when you make a clarification at the end of an article, it has the conclusion of all said and has the definitive weight. This is more bad faith and subversion, of course you’re a leftist.

          You don’t read because you can’t, you’re either too stupid or too brainwashed by progressive dogma, perhaps both, and in your mind the only thing you can think of are justifications to kill and rob Amancio Ortega one way or the other. Every single problem, “money”, “capitalist”, “merchant”, we know all about people like you because unfortunately you subhumans are turning the western world into Venezuela.

          In your mind the world is a right-wing tyranny and everything is the “capitalists” fault, your mind is full of pure delusion, worthy of an asylum and it’s no wonder retards like you vote for who you vote and end up starving after, but of course somehow it’s the capitalists fault. We don’t need to go to dark corners of the internet to read our enemies, the established power is our enemy and we live in their evil empire. What bubble? Brainlet

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            You forgot this, from the beginning of the piece:

            “However, as Nick B Steves has said, ordinary virtue should NOT require heroic effort.”

            Raising kids should not be “a sacrifice”. That is the entire point.

            Late capitalist consumerism is a primordial force behind people not “sacrificing”. Cheap travel, fancy new clothes, eating out… yes, female liberation too. It is just a coincidence that women happen to spend more money on everything.

            You mention Amancio Ortega again, curious fixation. Zara is no longer a Spanish company, it pays taxes in the Netherlands, because they have loopholes there.

            Venezuela. All the countries in that area are in a similar position. Colombia is a mess, has always been, but does not get reported about because it is a US ally. Socialist Cuba is far safer than all of Central America.

            Stop projecting. I did not say the world is “right-wing” tyranny (not your sort of “right-wing” anyways). But it also isn’t as progressive as you paint it. “Woke” all you want, but rich people continue to get richer.

            Capitalism is a system which rewards a football player with millions and a high-IQ innovative scientist with peanuts.

            If you are real elitists that should bother you.

            • Allah says:

              How do you explain third world countries that keep getting poorer and keep going lefter?

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                I don’t know if such thing is true, is Africa getting lefter? Latin America has had both lefties and righties in power these years, like Bolsonaro.

                I have seen woke leftism made inroads in Argentina regarding abortion, but I don’t know much about the other countries. In my view the ruling (white) elites of those countries will probably pay lip service to progressivism while keeping a tight leash on their corporate interests, as always.

                Just like the UMC in America preaches one thing and does another, as Charles Murray commented in ‘Coming Apart’.

                • jim says:

                  Venezuela has certainly moved insanely far left, and Bolsonaro is no more a right winger than Trump is. He just appears to be intolerably far right because the ruling elite of Brazil has moved far, far, far to the left while the voters moved considerably less far to the left.

                  The trouble is that you are measuring left and right relative to the current position of the ruling elite, by which standard “right wingers” will always get into power from time to time. But you should rather compare today’s “right wingers” with yesterday’s left wingers. 2008 Obama was, by 2019 standards, an ultra extreme right winger compared to Trump, though he predictably moved left as soon as the election was over.

                  Reflect on Nixon’s speech on Holocaust Denial. If Trump ever gives that speech, we will know he is Caesar Augustus, for he would be instantly arrested if he said what Nixon said.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              ” Capitalism is a system which rewards a football player with millions and a high-IQ innovative scientist with peanuts.”

              “How dare the merchants and their associates make more money than us priests!”

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                I don’t think I am high IQ at all, just curious and contrarian. Did well in school and never got bored, which high IQ usually do.

                My point is that all that hand-wringing about low IQ masses breeding in masse because they are subsidized or whatever goes out of the window the moment my argument is made.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Oscar_Cc

                  ” My point is that all that hand-wringing about low IQ masses breeding in masse because they are subsidized or whatever goes out of the window the moment my argument is made.”

                  What argument were you trying to make? “Middle management bureaucrats are innovative,” was that your argument?

                  Do you really think a bureaucrat scientist making peanuts while Prophet Elon Musk makes billions is unfair?

                • Not Tom says:

                  My point is that all that hand-wringing about low IQ masses breeding in masse because they are subsidized or whatever goes out of the window the moment my argument is made.

                  No it doesn’t – unless you’re referring to arguments made by other people whom we don’t care about or misrepresenting our own.

                  It is not the position of Jim, myself, or most/all of this community that breeding should be arranged specifically to maximize IQ. Most of us assert that it could be, contrary to the protestations of progressives, and that it would be better than the current setup, but still not the ideal one.

                  Reactionary canon is “elite fertility” which breaks down roughly into “the good, beautiful and true”. You have your own unshakable opinion of who the elites should be and are using that in a circular argument to “prove” that elites should be chosen along the lines you would choose.

                  But we like men who train for their entire lives to run ridiculously fast, throw ridiculously far, or lift ridiculous weight. These are all beneficial traits. Cognitive elitism is very important, but the system we advocate selects for eugenic fertility on all fronts, including intelligence. The only thing we don’t want men to excel at is parasitism.

                  The current order selects exclusively for parasitism. Sports, military, entertainment, all are getting worse along with the intellectual disciplines. You, like all leftists, assume that people who succeed through some non-ideal (in your opinion) path must have cheated the system, because that’s what you would do, or that the system is corrupt for rewarding them. You think it’s crazy, or a deception, that we want to reward elite athletes, because that’s what you would do, because how could anyone really want to reward them rather than take their stuff?

                  You’re here, and you’re responding rather than repeating the same stuff, so I’ll give you some credit, but you still don’t understand us. You’re still trying to fit what we say into a leftist framework, when the framework is the whole point. We aren’t being clever and we aren’t trying to deceive. We really don’t think there’s any problem with the top 1% of football players getting paid more than middling scientists working on new formulas for laundry detergent.

                  The scientists are doing good work, important work, but it’s more important to reward the best performers within their respective disciplines than to worry about which disciplines are more deserving. You can pick industry winners or pick individual winners, but very hard and maybe impossible to do both. Either is better than our current model of picking losers, but picking industry winners gets you China, whereas picking individual winners gets you Isaac Newton and Babe Ruth. If you want society to produce geniuses, you want a high average IQ but you also need to let men choose which interests to pursue.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Not Tom:

                  Thank you for your answer, I assure you I am arguing in good faith. Despite leaning left I spend more time reading alt-right websites than Jacobin or The Guardian, trust me.

                  There is a certain overlap between the alt-right and NRx, but you are not the same, it is obvious with regards to the JQ. Maybe here I have projected a bit from what I read over at AmRen (have been going through their archive these days and IQ & dysgenics is one of their chief worries).

                  What I still don’t get about the reactionary position is how you expect a such elites to rise up…

                  >Through the free market? You run into Spandrell’s IQ shredder problem, plus the fact that markets are by their own nature demotic.

                  >Through traditional luddite/Ted-Kaczynski-approved society? You end up like the Amish, easy prey for foreign powers.

                  I have stumbled upon a new blog, “Intelligence, Personality and Genius”, by a certain Bruce Charlton. He is a devout Christian and is acquainted with NRx as well. He mentions how an advanced society depends on geniuses, but they are going extinct.

                  He says that in the past the poor (and dumber) barely had any surviving children, while the rich (and smarter) had plenty, and that explains the rise of Britain. Now it is the opposite:

                  http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2014/09/who-are-poor-traditional-poor-versus.html

                  Do you want that sort of dynamic to come back?

                • jim says:

                  The plan is that tax payers and warriors will get superior protection for their authority to violently uphold their property rights, including their rights in their wives and children. (Throne, Altar, and Freehold) Thus husbands who are taxpayers or warriors will look more manly to women, plus women will not get any say in it anyway. They will be married off young by their fathers to some lad with good family and good prospects. If they cuck their husbands, they will be beaten, possibly killed, and the adulterer very likely killed.

                  This will give us differential elite fertility, as men that are high status in the male hierarchy be high status in female eyes will have more kids. The underclass will not get laid, because unable to get married, and thus unable to get social enforcement of their sexual relationships. Bastards will be rare, and if they should conveniently die, as tended to happen until 1950, no one will be unduly curious.

                  This will result in high total fertility, and differential elite fertility. Population will expand, but smart population will expand faster.

                • Not Tom says:

                  > What I still don’t get about the reactionary position is how you expect a such elites to rise up…

                  > Through the free market? You run into Spandrell’s IQ shredder problem, plus the fact that markets are by their own nature demotic.

                  The literal phrase “free market” is a modern invention with a different substance from old-fashioned capitalism, but to give you the benefit of the doubt and wave away the definition problems for the sake of argument, then the short answer is yes.

                  IQ shredders can’t really operate outside of a progressive framework. They require a great many catalysts, including forced integration, regulatory capture, weak trade/border controls (including at the state/provincial level), and a continuous supply of unowned women aged 18-30 who demand to live in urban shitholes.

                  Note that the typical happily married family always lives out in the suburbs or exurbs, or even the boonies. No one really wants to live in the IQ shredder, men just go there because they believe that a higher income will lead to a happy family, which wouldn’t be a problem if higher income actually did lead to a happy family. In practice, the men who are lucky enough to marry or even fuck in the shredder often find it hard to maintain because of the intense pressure to live a progressive lifestyle filled with idiotic and demeaning ideas like polyamory and juvenile trannyism. That’s what makes them shredders – not the fact that they collect high-status (or at least high-income) men, but that those men fail to reproduce.

                  In short, without progressive rule, IQ shredders don’t really shred, and if they did shred, they’d face net emigration. Even with progressive rule, smart whites are starting to flee the shredders. They are a natural consequence of progressivism, not capitalism.

                  As for “markets are demotic”, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, and assume you must have meant to use some other word like “democratic” or “demotistic”, but markets are neither of those things.

                • jim says:

                  > The literal phrase “free market” is a modern invention with a different substance from old-fashioned capitalism

                  It is a nice sounding phrase with a lot meanings, many of them dangerously slippery, and our enemies keep trying to embue it with evil and hateful meanings, to make those evil meanings sound nice. “Hail fellow libertarian”. The Transpacific Partnership was an evil plot to impose regulatory socialism run from skyscrapers in New York on the entire world, and dispossess Americans in flyover country, and dressed itself as “Free Market”, because everyone would be under subject to the rule of the same towers full of New York bureaucrats and lawyers, instead of local bureaucrats and lawyers.

                  It is often used to attack Trump’s national capitalism, but obviously for trade to happen between different sovereignties, you need property rights in objects and contracts that extend between two sovereignties, which means the sovereigns must come to agreement. And sometimes, often, they will fail to agree, so you get trade war, which is bad, but a trade war is better than a grossly unfavorable trade peace.

                  > As for “markets are demotic”, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

                  It is part of the same script as CR: “Hail fellow white male reactionary elitist. Capitalism is inherently left wing, so you, poor peasant with one cow, should help me kill the cows of the kulak with two cows, because he is a minion of faceless masters in Wall Street. You need to outgroup from people who resemble yourself, and ingroup with people who hate you and intend to destroy you.”

                  Oscar_Cc does not appear to be a script bot, but he got it from a script bot. I have never before seen it coming from anyone who is not an obvious entryist, and usually transparently robotic.

                • @jim even genuinely rightist Continental Euros have a tendency to misunderstand what capitalism means. “Rich foreign Anglos coming over here and pushing their own thing.” Indeed, the NY skyscrapers are seen as the symbol of foreign Anglo capitalism as back then it was genuine capitalism that built them. Hence if the IMF is bossing Euros around from the skyscrapers, they think the IMF is capitalist.

                  The old pattern of demons killing their victims and then wearing their skin. So if you see outsiders disliking the skin, maybe they just dislike the demon.

                  One should be somewhat charitable about this. Leftists hate capitalism, but there are people in Europe or elsewhere who really do not know what capitalism is and they often just hate the demons wearing its skin.

                  So one needs a test. I talk to fellow Euros about the idea of a local, embedded, integrated, our own fucking culture and not Happy Meals kind of capitalism. Those who like the idea are genuine rightists, those who do not are envious leftists.

                  But for Oscar my test is simpler: say Franco was okay or GTFO.

            • jim says:

              Capitalism is a system which rewards a football player with millions and a high-IQ innovative scientist with peanuts.

              If you are real elitists that should bother you.

              An elitist is happy when the talented get rich, happy when those who create value get to keep it.

              I am a real elitist, and I am extremely happy that Musk got rich and Steve Jobs got rich. Why should it bother me?

              There are few or no scientists these days, because if you do not peddle lies, you don’t get published in peer reviewed publications, and you don’t get tenure. Most of them are enemy priests who need a helicopter ride to the pacific, in order that real scientists can return to their real work.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                I was not talking about entrepreneurs like Musk or Jobs, which are equivalent to scientists to some degree.

                I meant sports and showbiz stars, top models, entertainment people, which are probably as high status as it gets.

                If IQ is so damn important, then our society (even if it went full libertarian/capitalistic) still would be quite dysgenic.

                Maybe we should learn from the Jews, who put their utmost social value on educated people throughout their history.

                • jim says:

                  Nothing wrong with top sports stars and entertainers getting rich and famous. Most of them starve, and only a tiny proportion of them get rich and famous. Pretty sure that if you equalized the rewards between the top ones and the rest, none of them would be happy with that outcome. They are all in the business because they hope to get to the top.

                  If you suppressed the top, none of them would be happy, and very few of them would dedicate themselves to their callings.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Oscar_Cc

                  Elon Musk is a prophet, the StarProphet. When the left attacks Elon, they expect him to respond like a merchant entrepreneur, but instead, Prophet Elon responds the same way Prophet Muhammad responded to the Quraysh‘s attacks in Mecca. Eventually, Muhammad had to flee to Madinah. And there, out of reach of the Quraysh, Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and verses reached a different tone than in Mecca. I suspect that when Prophet Elon does the same, with 26 months between launch windows putting him out of reach of the BaiZuo, his sayings may change in tone as well.

                • acrrdu says:

                  @Jim

                  Absolutely wrong. Gladiators and Minstrels, however talented/popular, are always lower status than Citizens. The ultimate accomplishment for a Gladiator would be to achieve Citizenship, achieved only by the cream of the crop. Most delusional “warriors” ended up crucified like Spartacus.

                  What USA has now is an inversion of values — Sportsball “stars” or cinema “actor” fags are clearly and demonstrably higher status than the average citizen, and not just in monetary terms.

                  You are being disingenuous when comparing the average “artist” with top achievers like Musk. Compared to an average castrato citizen, an average “artist” (who is actually one step away from starvation) is a pussy magnet, as any PUA will tell you. Compared to an elite “achiever” like Warren Buffett, an elite sportsballer is supremely higher status. Witness how the passing of Kobe Bryant was a National Tragedy.

                  Women have a sixth sense for status. Men don’t. It is foolish to equate money with status.

                  In a just society, God and Emperor are the highest status (even though Croesus may be actually richer than Kings), priests below them (because they’re supposed to interpret the Word of God), warriors below them (even though they’re the ones who hold actual power, they submit to memetic influence of the priests), merchants still below (even though they generate all the wealth that powers everything else, and have the most money), and Gladiators and Minstrels are little better than the dregs of society, like shooting stars that come and go (that was the initial import of the term “star”).

                  Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel was an honour for Michelangelo, not an honour for the Pope. A Royal Warrant to make shoes for His Majesty is an honour for the shoemaker, not for His Majesty, even though the “shoemaker” may in fact be a brand worth more money than Her Majesty’s Kingdom. In USland, the pinnacle of achievement is getting arsefucked by a famous “rapper.” Obama invited Jay-Z to increase his own status. Trump invites Kanye West to increase his own status. No-one invites Jeff Bezos to anything.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If priests are generally higher status than warriors than the society will fail.

                • acrrdu says:

                  @Cominator

                  This is where I differ from Jimianity. Your fundamental analysis of priest-vs-warrior status seems flawed to me. I don’t have a fully fleshed argument for it at present (maybe because I don’t know how to set up an anonymous dissident blog like Jim lol).

                • The Cominator says:

                  You only need look at history to verify Jim is right on this, compare India to Europe. India’s decline from the time of the Aryan invasions into shitting streets is the result of 1500 years of priestly supremacy. Western civ used to have warrior supremacy but at least since ww1 has had progressive priestly supremacy. East Asians can do priestly supremacy a bit better but total failure for us.

            • Not Tom says:

              rich people continue to get richer

              You don’t differentiate between getting richer due to investment and richer due to parasitism.

              As elitists, we want the elite to get richer and the parasites to get dead. As a leftist, you want us to believe that getting richer is proof of parasitism. You want us to believe that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is proof of capitalist injustice, not proof of Gnon’s will contaminated with creeping socialism.

              But this is, like, Marx 101. Even normie tradcucks aren’t fooled by this deception anymore, because they can personally see the middle class and virtuous elites like James Watson getting ass-raped by leftism while both the parasitic elites and the lumpenproles benefit greatly. There’s literally no chance of anyone here falling for “income inequality” bullshit, because we think income inequality is doubleplus good; the only area that we think could use a little more equality is the distribution of pussy, for which the solution is also a form of DEregulation (i.e. governments not doing everything in their power to obliterate masculinity and prevent men from ever passing any shit tests).

              It doesn’t matter if you own a mansion or a mud hut, as long as you get to be the king of it. That’s the difference between happiness and unhappiness: not material wealth per se, but the ability to secure whatever property you do own, including your wife and children.

              • jim says:

                > It doesn’t matter if you own a mansion or a mud hut, as long as you get to be the king of it.

                Very true, and I speak from personal experience, I and my family having been near homeless at one time, yet we were happy. I came to own quite a lot of stuff, and I was still happy. And then my children left and my wife died, and I had a nice house and no one to share it with, and I found the nice house was just a bother. And now that I again have a young wife to share my stuff with, my stuff gives me no end of delight. It makes me happy. Now it makes me happy.

                And we have ample statistical evidence that this holds true of men generally. Destroying most of the housing in Japan did not adversely affect fertility. War time hunger and poverty, and the postwar famine did not affect fertility. But when the option of owning one’s wife and children was taken away, that dramatically affected fertility.

                Similarly in America, the boom before the great depression had no affect, and the great depression had no effect. What did have effect was social approval for spanking one’s wife, the pause in the war on men between first wave and second wave feminism.

                Observed male behavior. If no woman, and no prospects, will live in a broom closet playing pornographic video games. Afghanistan reveals that if one has a prospect of owning a woman and a mud hut, one will build the nicest mud hut one can.

              • Oscar C says:

                My “the rich get richer” remark was a quick way of saying that progressivism is only superficial, that it does fundamentally change anything. A trap in which well-meaning leftists fall over and over again.

                “we want the elite to get richer and the parasites to get dead”

                Which elite? Which parasites? Are hillbillies in Kentucky parasites by chance? Why are “parasites” being imported? A Jewish conspiracy? You NRxers are not big on that take, so I guess you chalk it up to “liberal elites”… but wait! weren’t “elites” good to begin with???

                Sorry for the snark, but at some point it becomes unavoidable.

                I am not an orthodox Marxist, nor a particularly well-read person in economics. I broadly identify with the left-wing idea of a decent standard of living for the average person, and everything that moves towards it is good in my opinion.

                “because we think income inequality is doubleplus good; the only area that we think could use a little more equality is the distribution of pussy”

                So, inequality is not so good after all, since as we see after the sexual revolution, societies with a few haves and too many have-nots lose drive and are decadent.

                The best times for “Western civilization” (a conservative invention, but let’s use it for the sake of argument) were the post-WWII years, precisely because there was a de facto socialism. Not in America, because you did not need it (an ideal situation). It was possible because there was an alternative in the Eastern block, so workers had to be kept happy. Once the Soviets gone, they can get crushed again, and they (we) are indeed being crushed.

                Of course, as E. M. Jones says, “we are poor, but sexy” and you can go amuse yourself at the gay disco.

                “As a leftist, you want us to believe that getting richer is proof of parasitism”

                I don’t always agree with that, I think that there are people who are rich deservedly, but often not so much, particularly speculative capitalists.

                And the question of why so many high IQ people making crucial breakthroughs are rewarded so little is yet to be addressed. Funnily enough, it was probably in the Eastern block where scientists were high status.

                • jim says:

                  > > “we want the elite to get richer and the parasites to get dead”

                  > Which elite? Which parasites?

                  The elite should be recruited from the smart, the lucky, the productive, and the brave. The people that built America.

                  The parasites are:

                  A grossly swollen priesthood which is wasting everyone’s youth and fertility with prolonged and unproductive religious attendance at religious seminaries that teach them to hate themselves, but barely teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, let alone history, geography, and science. They are going to lose their jobs.

                  A vast horde of unproductive people living on welfare and crime. They are going to starve. Those who refuse to get a job or starve quietly will be killed or enslaved.

                  A swollen bureaucracy enforcing holiness on business. They are going to lose their jobs, and will have to find new ones. When Charles the Second cut the priesthood down to size, a whole lot of people who had formerly been active in religion became part of the new capitalism, creating wealth for everyone. Similarly, when Henry the Eighth dissolved the monasteries.

                  The judiciary and most of the lawyers.

                  A gigantically bloated health insurance and administration system that oppresses both doctors and patients.

                  The Human Resources Department

                  > > “because we think income inequality is doubleplus good; the only area that we think could use a little more equality is the distribution of pussy”

                  > So, inequality is not so good after all

                  Some inequality is good. We want the largest possible ingroup, since successful ingroups conflict and compete, and those that fail in competition die off, quickly or slowly, but we want to exclude everyone who will not work or fight for God, King, country, and family. They should not get wives, and since any loose pussy roaming around will be apt to be locked up, not much pussy. Everyone who works or fights for God, King, country and family should be able to get a young faithful obedient virgin wife, and some of the elite should have concubine or two on the side, but no so many as to impact the ability of the ordinary soldier or ordinary worker to get married and have a family.

                  > The best times for “Western civilization” (a conservative invention, but let’s use it for the sake of argument) were the post-WWII years, precisely because there was a de facto socialism.

                  During the war, the west was socialist, because total war. The military of necessity seized everything and conscripted everyone. Some countries, notably Germany, England, and Australia, continued socialism for a short period after the war.

                  America immediately dismantled war socialism, and in the process, dismantled the command and control part of the New Deal. Immediately returned to prosperity.

                  Germany on the other hand starved. Famine loomed in England. The lifts in the Treasury building stopped working. The lights were about to go out. Australia did not starve, because an agricultural exporter, and farmers quietly diverted food production from the official market to family and friends, and friends of friends, people ate because they got food parcels from connections to the countryside, but everything else got mighty short. In Australia, in 1949 the socialists got thrown out of office, and the Liberal Party was elected in a landslide on a platform of restoring capitalism, which it promptly did. The labor party remained out of office for a generation until it left the stain of the catastrophic failure of socialism behind it. In England, the socialists threw socialism overboard in 1949. In Germany, the government installed by the allies cheerfully got away with dismantling socialism, while their masters who were attempting to implement a plan to starve Germans to death stood paralyzed by loss of support from back home in England and America.

                  The postwar boom was the post socialism boom.

                  > > “As a leftist, you want us to believe that getting richer is proof of parasitism”

                  > I don’t always agree with that, I think that there are people who are rich deservedly, but often not so much, particularly speculative capitalists.

                  Wise speculators make money. Foolish speculators lose money. We all benefit from wise speculators getting rich, because the richer they get, the better the allocation of capital. Plus the best should be rewarded for their excellence. We support good speculators getting rich as we support good athletes getting famous and brave warriors being honored. The best should be rewarded for their excellence, by the natural rewards of their excellence. I and the Cominator are both what you would call speculators, though that is not a major part of my assets nor a substantial source of my income and assets.

                  A successful speculator’s success proves that he has better judgment on the wise use of capital. He deserves wealth for directing capital from unproductive to productive uses.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Which elite? Which parasites? Are hillbillies in Kentucky parasites by chance? Why are “parasites” being imported? A Jewish conspiracy? You NRxers are not big on that take, so I guess you chalk it up to “liberal elites”… but wait! weren’t “elites” good to begin with???

                  I am going to ignore the snark and answer honestly, because progressives are relentless in their misrepresentation of the concept of parasitism.

                  Alf, who is on Jim’s blogroll (https://gardenoftheinternet.com/) has just recently made a few posts on this, which might be worthwhile for you to read. But in short, when I and many others on the right talk about parasites, we are referring in general to anyone who follows the Always Defect evolutionary strategy.

                  It doesn’t matter what they defect on, and upon close inspection you’ll likely notice that people who always seem to defect in one area (say, they’re always late/absent for meetings) will tend to defect in every area (for example, they try to get others to do their work or make up excuses not to get it done).

                  In the area of status competition, Always Defect means being holier-than-thou. That is the cause of the left-singularity. As a “moderate” leftist, you’ve surely noticed that the far-left SJWs don’t only defect in status competition, they tend to subtract value from any project to which they’re assigned.

                  We’re not “importing” parasites, we’re turning productive citizens into parasites by making cooperate-cooperate equilibrium impossible, so the only choice left (aside from being a sucker) is defect-defect equilibrium, and in defect-defect equilibrium, you always defect.

                  But while it is completely healthy to see defect-defect equilibrium and choose not to be a sucker, a parasite is someone who looks at functioning cooperate-cooperate equilibrium – which is very hard to build, and very easy to break – and sees a whole slew of suckers ready to be scammed. And anyone who spends too much time in defect-defect equilibrium will eventually start to adopt this outlook – well, that’s just my opinion, but it holds up against observation.

                  Reactionary canon is that the optimal game-theoretical strategy to achieve cooperate-cooperate equilibrium is tit-for-tat, or tit-for-two-tats (“turn the other cheek”). Those whom we’d call parasites generally can’t learn this strategy because they couldn’t cooperate if they wanted to, because unable to produce value, whether due to incompetence or learned helplessness.

                  The worst thing you can ever do is put parasites in power, but that’s exactly what democracy always does. The coalition of people who want something (money, power, status, sex, etc.) is always larger than the coalition of people who have it, because fair competition among individuals distributed on a bell curve results in a Pareto distribution of outcomes. Parasites in power must implement a kakistocracy (Leninism, BioLeninism, etc.) because otherwise they’d be outcompeted by their own peers and subordinates.

                  Take a good close look around you, and you can’t fail to notice that parasitism is not merely ubiquitous and spreading, it’s actually running the show.

                • jim says:

                  Better answer than I gave – I succumbed to his frame, which was to categorize existing groups as parasites and not parasites.

                  One should always hold frame, as you did. I have known some useful and valuable people even in Human Resources.

                  When we take power, a large proportion of the existing priesthood will keep their jobs, teach the new faith, and somehow fail to remember that they ever taught a satanic of faith of evil and covetousness.

                  > The worst thing you can ever do is put parasites in power, but that’s exactly what democracy always does. The coalition of people who want something (money, power, status, sex, etc.) is always larger than the coalition of people who have it, because fair competition among individuals distributed on a bell curve results in a Pareto distribution of outcomes.

                  That is an important insight that needs to go into the reactionary canon.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Thanks for both lengthy explanations, Jim & Not Tom.

                  I would not personally identify as a “socialist” in the strict sense of “public ownership of the means of production”. My view is that some redistribution of wealth has to happen, and that the state should intervene to establish things like a job guarantee, social assistance, etc. Whatever works. Call me a social-democrat if you like.

                  You will probably not agree with this since it is from The Guardian, but that is what I am thinking about: “how more equal societies reduce stress and improve wellbeing”

                  https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/20/the-inner-level-review

                  Since I am Spanish, I am heavily influenced by the reality here, which is basically very high unemployment since the late 70s. Housing costs are high everywhere, not just the big cities. Some of our provinces, like Cádiz down south in Andalusia, have had ~35% unemployment in recent years. That is where I am coming from.

                  I did not know about that “Always Defect” concept, sounds interesting. Will look into Alf’s articles.

                  Just a final thing: I am not so sure democracies tend to empower the downtrodden… poor people usually vote much less than rich people, it is well documented. Even more so in America, where you have to be registered to vote and voting day is a working day (always Sunday here, for instance, and registration is automatic). Maybe relatively productive people (middle class) are convinced to vote for parasitism.

                • jim says:

                  Reflect on unemployment levels in Singapore compared to Spain and Greece. More social democracy, more unemployment.

                  Arguing for even more social democracy on the basis that capitalism is failing Spaniards is foolish, when high levels of social democracy necessarily and predictably result in higher levels of unemployment, just as socialism results in famine.

                  A Spaniard arguing for social democracy is like a Venezuelan arguing that they have a famine and mass starvation, therefore obviously need socialism in food.

                  Spaniards are hitting themselves on the knees and testicles with a hammer. Their knees are broken and and their testicles are crushed, and you are telling us that this is clear and convincing evidence that they need to hit their knees harder and get started on their heads.

                • Oscar, really, in your Spanish case it is very simple. You had it far, far better under Franco. He might have been overly harsh during the civil war, I don’t want to get into an argument about that, but after he won, he ruled far far better than anything you had before that.

                  All this talk about socialism or not socialism or partial socialism or whatever the fuck is utterly pointless, Oscar. The question is, do you admit the economic *trajectory* has been better under Franco or not?

                  And I emphasize *trajectory*, because the question is not if people live better today than back then, this cannot be compared due to different levels of technology. You have to look at the delta, the derivate function. The change between how people lived when Franco took power vs. 5 years later, vs. the change in any other 5 years after he died, which change was better?

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Yes, the Franco era had less unemployment, and affordable public housing, so it would be an improvement to go back to it.

                  However the irony is that that the State was heavily involved in the economy, labor laws were much stricter (incredibly hard to fire a worker), and public enterprise was common.

                  In fact, a recent book called “Socialist Franco” has appeared, where some sympathizers make the case that he was a socialist in practice:

                  https://sndeditores.com/product/franco-socialista/

                  In this article from a newly created Communist magazine, it is explained how public businesses were dismantled in the afterward years by the nominally Socialist Party, partly to enter the EU:

                  https://www.larazoncomunista.com/post/el-robo-del-patrimonio-nacional-espa%C3%B1ol-durante-la-transici%C3%B3n-privatizaci%C3%B3n-y-desindustrializaci%C3%B3n

                  Despite being ideologically opposed, Falange sympathizers have been talking a lot about it on Twitter.

                  Last but not least, Franco is decried by libertarians here since they see in him the origin of state interventionism and regulations that to them cripple our economy.

                  My view of Francoism is that after the destruction of the war and the ensuing isolationism, in the late 50s the Spanish state was almost bankrupt. So a Stabilization Plan was put into motion and the economy was opened to foreign investment, developing rapidly due to the fact that the West was in full swing at the time, our wages were low and tourism skyrocketed. That is Franco’s success in a nutshell. He got good times and let the experts handle the economy.

                  And yes, the current Left should claim the positive parts of his legacy, and also highlight how rightists here cherrypick what they want from his regime.

                • jim says:

                  Franco found that socialism failed economically, and backed off from it.

                  You always run out of other people’s money. Same story as postwar England. Famine loomed in England, the lights in the Treasury building went out, the lifts stopped working, and they tossed socialism overboard in 1949.

                  Australia, German, England, and many others continued war socialism after the war ended, only to abruptly change their minds in 1949 as they hit the rocks. Germany ran out of other people’s money early in the war, which is why they starved the Greeks and murdered the Jews, but Britain, Australia, and England ran out of other people’s money in 1949.

                  And similarly, Franco abruptly changed his mind when he hit the rocks.

                  And, comparably, today’s Spain and Greece The more socially Democratic countries of Europe are in deep shit economically. Social Democracy is not socialism, Spain is not Venezuela, but it is mighty bad for the economy. Bad for Spain now, was bad for Kansas back when. Bad for flyover country under Obama.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Singapore is and always will be an exception. A sort of Asian Gibraltar. However I would certainly copy certain things from them, such as the selection process of their civil servants.

                  I am not a believer in democracy either, I just think that people in the right tend to wrongly believe that the masses unfailingly vote socialism. Thomas Frank in “What is the matter with Kansas” thoroughly debunks this. I don’t see where the American flyover country has benefited for voting GOP by the way.

                  Other European countries have welfare states, often way more generous than ours, and they have less unemployment.

                  If I was in power, I would nonetheless apply some libertarian measures such as job market liberalization and the like, just to see if unemployment would really fall, or people simply need 3 jobs to make ends meet.

                  In America, from what I read, it is probably easier to hit 6 figures, and live in a suburban house with a garden. However some people I know here, who have been several times through surgeries and need dialisis, would probably have died broke there.

                  Regular leftists are painfully ignorant of the need of strong borders to maintain a welfare state, but that is another question.

                • jim says:

                  > Singapore is and always will be an exception.

                  A whole lot of Asia is successfully walking the path that Singapore and Hong Kong walked.

                  > I don’t see where the American flyover country has benefited for voting GOP by the way.

                  When flyover country voted for Trump, massive benefits economically. The economy of the US went down the hole during Obama, but it was flyover country that suffered by far the most. Oil. Coal. Jobs. Note the triumphalism of the Democrat argument “Those Jobs are gone and they are not coming back”. Trump in power in America, Republicans in power in Kansas, the jobs promptly came back.

                  It is obvious that Trump primarily benefited flyover country, because under Obama people were flooding from flyover country to the great bicoastal megalopoli, and under Trump they are flooding out of the the great bicoastal megalopoli back to flyover country.

                  Lenin famously said “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them”. But after he hung them, found himself mysteriously short of rope, and had to contract with American businesses to send American experts to recreate what he had destroyed. For example the Soviet crap cars were built on old American designs in factories built by imported American experts.

                  In “what is the matter with Kansas”, the authors wonder why, when they destroy the economy and jobs of people they hate and despise, those hateful and contemptible people mysteriously and inexplicably stop voting for them.

                  The left was economically ruinous for Kansas, and looked down on the people whose lives they casually destroyed from their lofty heights. The Republicans were economically good for Kansas, as Trump has been good for flyover country.

                  Kansas got pissed with the Democrats, because the Democrats casually caused a huge amount of economic damage, Kansas liked the Republicans because the Republicans fixed the damage. The Democrats in Kansas, like Obama, perceived the creation of wealth and value as sinful and hateful, and like Obama, casually destroyed wealth and value, and in “what is the matter with Kansas”, they wondered why Kansans became ungrateful for the the immense destruction they inflicted.

                  Wondering why Kansas was ungrateful is like wondering why flyover country is ungrateful. Why can’t those Texans see that they are oppressed by fracking🙃 Why were they not grateful for us destroying their economy🙃 Why were Kansans unhappy despite the fact we shut down all those horrible sweatshops and prevented so much horrible suburban housing from being built🙃 Under the Democrats, people moved out of Kansas because no jobs, and the Democrats saw that as a good thing. Under the Republicans, large numbers of people (a lot of them Democrat voters fleeing the state governments they had voted for) moved into Kansas, and it never occurred to the authors of “What is the Matter with Kansas” that Kansans might be voting for Republicans for the same reasons as a flood of people from blue states were moving into Kansas. The way Kansans voted in the ballot box reflected the way people voted with their feet.

                  “What is the matter with Kansas” asks “why were Kansans not grateful for us saving them from all those horrible sweatshops and all all that horrible suburban housing?”

            • The Cominator says:

              The problem with prohibiting passive investment income (and I love passive investment income and live off it) is you can’t really shut it down without shutting down the more socially useful parts of investing.

              • Pooch says:

                Any passive investment tips?

                • jim says:

                  Too passive, and you get ripped off.

                  On the other hand, too active, you will discover you have failed to do the taxes and paperwork correctly, (I got burned last tax year) and should any problems with the tenant occur, you will find that your agent likely has a connection to a “consultant”, who has a connection with the judge who will be handling the case.

                  The agent, given half a chance, will rip off both landlord and tenant, but active investment requires time, knowledge, and connections that you cannot afford to cultivate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I don’t do real estate… I do stonks which is passive in the sense you don’t actually manage the companies.

                  You need to have somewhat of a good idea of the potential limits upwards and downwards of some medium priced securities (5-15 bucks) if you do given that the vix is likely to remain high near term I suggest buying them and selling covered calls generally around 60 days out and roll over the calls a couple weeks before the expiration date.

                  Call selling can make you like 5-6% a month on your money steady now in the right stocks with little risk this condition will probably disappear after the election, you almost never should buy call options you almost always want to be the covered call seller. You need to know very specific information the market doesn’t to buy calls AND the timing and unless you are an insider that is rare.

                  The only risk is a massive fall in the undelying security (you could have another 20% correction soon, if the dems win just get out and short the market) but the market should continue trending up given the combination of zero interest rates and all the money the government has printed recently.

                • jim says:

                  Selling puts and covered calls exposes one to long tail risk and to other people who have inside information that you don’t. So you can make six percent a month for many years, doubling your money each year, and then you get a long tail event that wipes you out.

                  When you sell puts and calls, you are betting against volatility. And most of the time that is a pretty good bet. Usually there is not volatility. Except, sometimes there is. So you get a steady stream of small wins, and sometimes, infrequently, huge losses.

                  Conversely, when you buy puts and calls, you are betting on volatility. Most of the time you will lose money, and once in a while win big.

                  It is lucrative to buy puts and calls if you know something big is coming, and most people do not know.

                  When you sell puts and calls, you are providing liquidity to the market, and there is always a demand for liquidity, because sometimes by shear chance a lot of people just happen to want to sell a stock at the same time, and sometimes by shear chance a lot of people want to buy a stock at the same time, so if that is the main thing driving stock fluctuations, you get random fluctuations within a band, and you are going to make money selling puts and calls.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Selling covered calls literally can’t wipe you out, only neutralize a potentially huge equity gain, which you probably don’t care about if you’re only using the shares to generate passive income.

                  Selling naked calls can wipe you out, and the upside isn’t much better than a spread, so you should almost never sell a naked call.

                  Naked puts have theoretically huge (but not limitless) downside but practically not that huge, even in high volatility. Still, it costs almost nothing to convert it into a safer spread.

                  Jim, I think you’re confusing naked options and covered options. Covered options have capped downside risk, and you can cover either with shares or with long options.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim I was talking about COVERED calls, you are not really betting against volatility too much if you sell around 60 days out as the decay value with time overwhelms almost any increase you’d get from volatility. In most stocks you can sell calls even with some gain that will expire worthless around 85% of the time… at current volatility levels you can make 5ish% a month on your money doing this.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, but with a covered call, and unexpectedly high volatility, you wind up missing out on the rises and biting the drops.

                  But I agree, in normal times, the steady wins on covered calls outweigh the rare steep drops and missing out on the rare steep rises. I am not criticizing the strategy. Just keep some of your assets in a strategy appropriate for abnormal times, same as you keep a cache of dried food and ammo.

                  It is a good steady money earner in normal times, but exposes you to abnormal times. I keep some of my assets in the form of covered calls, but not a lot.

                  On the other hand, since I have an Equity Line Of Credit on my real estate assets, in order to leverage them, and have some small amount in covered calls, that makes me a little bit long in covered calls. But mostly I am long in real estate, and and to a lesser extent long on unexciting and comfortably boring index funds. Its a defensive and conservative strategy. A bolder strategy would be wise for a younger man.

  6. loclun-midwyt says:

    Hey Jim

    Seems like the bet you made on the markets improving back when HCQ+zinc showed up has probably paid off.

    Will you be making bets on the election? The odds right now are very tempting.

  7. ten says:

    Are you reading Yarvins “Gray mirror of the nihilist prince”?

    It is or will eventually be behind a paywall.

    https://graymirror.substack.com/

    It isn’t on UR power levels, but more like his clear pill series, which are remastered excerpts of some ideas from gray mirror.

    Which is to say, now he must tip toe and play ball with the progs, ever pressing his natural allegiance to their tribe and their natural superiority, yadda yadda.

    I find it interesting nonetheless, and illustrating to some things he has said lately.

    For example, in a podcast he said he has familial obligations to endorse Joe Biden. Wat mean? Gray mirror makes it clear he regards the Trump insurrection as not nearly enough to slay the dragon. He draws up a bunch of categories of dissidents and collaborators to power, and discards every form of dissidence as useless, except as punching bags for power, ultimately reinforcing it. So he advocates more passivism and detachment, rather than dissidence.

    Then he uses the terms menshevism and bolshevism for those wanting to band-aid and patch up their sadly faulty system, contra those who want to flip the table, and argues menshevism is a shit position to hold in every revolutionary moment, and dissidence is a shit position to hold in every non revolutionary moment, while implying trumpism is menshevik dissidence.

    His familial obligation to endorse Biden means he thinks Trump will fail, and his movement will be butchered, and he must insulate his family from the coming storm.

    BAP criticized Yarvin (while being accused of himself being Yarving. This is apparently an actual conspiracy theory) in a short twitter thread, arguing as is done here that the Clinton crime family et al. would not have sailed steadily onwards until the eventual fall of the regime, but would have unleashed every madness they could conjure at the fastest possible pace.

    I don’t see how americans, leading the rest of the west, would be worse off after a failed Trump insurrection than with no resistance at all, and things seem to be going rather well for Trump, considering the titan of a dragon he is dueling. I do however see how it is greatly in Yarvins interest to not side with Trump publicly, because now the edgy literature and critical theory kids can read him and invite him on their shows, providing a possible shelter from the storm (on the other hand, if they would come for scott alexander, they should also come for Yarvin).

    • Not Tom says:

      I don’t see how americans, leading the rest of the west, would be worse off after a failed Trump insurrection than with no resistance at all

      That may be so, for “Americans” as a group, but individual Americans, especially those who live or have families in blue states, might find themselves very worse off indeed if Trump fails to consolidate power and his successor decides to go after all of his former public supporters, just as they will undoubtedly go after him and his family.

      And why shouldn’t they? Under the Cominator plan, at least, anyone who ever publicly supported Hillary is fair game, and the left, as a group, tends to be considerably less merciful toward its enemies than the right.

      I doubt they’d go after every individual Trump voter, mainly due to problems of scale, but they’d certainly have their eyes on anyone as influential as Moldbug and there’d be plenty of random violence against individual supporters to supplement it.

    • Encelad says:

      Yarvin has repeatedly said that the current regime is “stable” and fortunately so, implying that the falling of the Cathedral would necessarily happen in a French revolution-style bloodbath. This is in contrast with Jim’s opinion, who believes we are about a decade away from a leftist singularity. This might be the reason why Yarvin doesn’t consider the possibility of a successful restoration and instead he is trying to buy time. He said something about “we are at the beginning of the beginning” where we have to push our alternative vision through art.

      • jim says:

        Moldbug is now a Namefag

        Namefags cannot speak, or even think, the truth. With those whom he depicts as Mensheviks being purged, obviously not stable. Like a shill, he is saying one thing and saying a very different thing.

        Not only can namefags not speak the truth about what is happening with white flight and the collapse of marriage and family, they cannot even speak the truth on biology and medicine, and increasingly cannot speak the truth even on matters of fundamental physics. I expect the problem to come soon to mathematics.

      • Tom Hart says:

        If you cross The Fourth Turning with Glubb Pasha, America falls by 2025; judging by current events, we’re right on track. Glubb said empires last about 200-250 years, bringing us to 2025 in America’s case—counting this regime as starting in 1776. America has been in a malaise since at least 1976, the bicentennial, with the moon landings capping the high point before everything started to slide: oil shock, Watergate, failure in Vietnam, stagflation, drugs, crime waves, family collapse, general lassitude etc. Glubb’s take coincides with the view of The Fourth Turning, a book which predicted an event like WWII or the US Civil War by 2025; the authors suggested a plague as another possible catalyst for the turning.

        We’re currently witnessing the consolidation of the Fourth Great Awakening that started in the 1960s, the children of that religious revival (the hippies, Age of Aquarius etc) are now elder adults supervising the first generation completely immersed in that awakening’s worldview; nothing they say today didn’t already appear in Wolf’s Radical Chic (1970), except back then there were millions of older people from generations that didn’t buy the revival—they’re all dead now.

        The Great Awokening actually happened in 1968; this is the consolidation phase, all the teenagers pulling down statues have known is this iteration of Puritanism—younger groups still had grandparents and some parents from the pre-awakening time. The cycle of generations will go on after the collapse, as it has done for centuries, but the empire will have fallen. The fall of the Cathedral will look like the US Civil War or WWII, a moment to be met with some trepidation.

    • covector says:

      I read Yarvin’s Menshevism as referring to the Haidt / Mounck / Pinker axis of the Left, which wants to continue running USG OS v2012, and purge the dangerous malware that has somehow found its way into the \System folder in 2020.

      Back in 2012, when I would read some sneering Vox piece (or whatever was the style back then) I would console myself that I would live to see the day when the author was replaced by someone younger and more vicious, and now this is happening across the board and you can see the Mensheviks’ tardy attempts to control the blaze. The fire of course is hottest in Academia, and the result is a loss of status for the old guard, who feel that they should be on television and not Lilith Sinclair (as if Titania McGrath had been summoned to corporeality by the spirit in the air).

    • pdimov says:

      >Which is to say, now he must tip toe and play ball with the progs

      He always did that. It didn’t annoy me then because I was, effectively, a prog; meaning, I still accepted the prog world view, in which we all were marinated.

      Moldbug’s strategy has always been to slip the red pill gradually without engaging an immune response. He does the same now, but it probably isn’t going to be as effective, because progs/normies already know who he is and what he does.

      • The Cominator says:

        Its not possible to avoid tripping the prog immune system nowadays because thry believe far too much insanity at variance with reality. When they think there are 50 genders there is no reason left in them.

  8. Icon says:

    [*deleted for still ranting about Jews on the right while still strangely unable to name one particularly infamous Jew on the left*]

    [*deleted for being an obvious shill whose Human Resources department answers to George Soros*]

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      The writer of the article not so much:

      According to two reports, this was not Red Bull doing what the left is doing – firing people over the ideas they hold or what they do in their own private lives. This was not the left’s neo-McCarthyism.

      “Attacking your enemies is wrong”

      Cuckservatives are disgusting, almost as disgusting as leftists. I’d even dare say old leftists are more palatable than cuckservatives. Cuckservatives are insidious traitors that help the enemy more than old guard leftists do, as they refuse to do anything about it and happily join the left attacking people that would. Because “attacking your enemies is wrong” and “I stand for my principles”, their principles being benevolence and aid towards those that want to sodomize your children, turn your women into whores and neuter you.

      It is the moral duty of any decent man to do all possible harm and even kill a leftist if able. Like the father that kills the snake to protect his family and himself.

      • The Cominator says:

        “It is the moral duty of any decent man to do all possible harm and even kill a leftist if able. ”

        Thou shalt not suffer a leftist to live and let gnon’s will be done in America as it was done in Indonesia by Suharto, Deus Vult.

        About the cuckservatives we should of course not do this to them that WOULD lead to a purity spiral as people would be accusing enemies of cuckservatism… but the true cucks should be forced to do the unpleasant work of carrying out the great helicopter ride.

        • Not Tom says:

          but the true cucks should be forced to do the unpleasant work of carrying out the great helicopter ride

          That does seem like a fitting punishment. Of course they’d have to be closely supervised to ensure that none of them try to salvage their cargoes, the penalty for which would be to get handcuffed to said cargo and released right along with it.

      • jim says:

        What we saw there was the management cucking out, but no cucking out short of total left wing takeover and the total repurposing of the corporation from promoting Red Bull to promoting rioting, murder, and the burning of cities, was acceptable. Whereupon the management suddenly found its balls. The left overplayed its very strong hand.

        Management felt that its interest were better served by promoting Red Bull than by organizing and encouraging to have its customers beaten up and their homes burned down. This is reminiscent of the Board of Cathay pacific discovering that the management and CEO of Cathay Pacific had organized the shutdown and of its airport and threats to the safety of its passengers, myself among those passengers.

        As we approach the left wing singularity, tidal forces increase, with the left most part of the left moving left faster than the not so left part of the left, the leftmost become increasingly dangerous to the not quite so left – Scott Alexander was going to get the Tucker treatment. The far, far left, attacks the far left, even as the far left is rapidly moving further leftwards.

        This eventually results in the left singularity being halted short of infinite leftism, as sooner or later, someone important decides “Yes, I do have enemies to the left and I have no choice but do whatever it takes to stop them.”

        The quite orthodox left wing boss of Red Bull, like Cromwell, saw the darkness. Which makes him far right by 2020 standards, though he is and was quite left by 2016 standards.

        • Karl says:

          The left singularity is halted by a man or group of men who have motive and opportunity to halt it. The closer a society is to the left singularity, the more men have motive and the fewer have opportunity.

          To the extent that leftists are capable of planing, they are usually careful to rob men of opportunity to resist before giving them motive to stop the madness.

          Recently the cathedral has created a lot of dissidents. I guess half of the cathedral denies this, the other half thinks it doesn’t matter.

          • jim says:

            Halting the left singularity is likely to be coup complete.

            Nothing less will suffice than doing what RedBull and Cathay Air did: Apply Vox Day’s remedy for corporate cancer to the state itself.

            The Board can fire the CEO at whim, and the CEO can fire anyone else at whim. Totally legal and ample precedent. But Trump is going to have to take the power to fire Harvard. Cromwell walked into Barebone’s parliament with soldiers behind him. Trump is going to have to walk into the Supreme Court with soldiers behind him. That may be difficult.

            It has to become as dangerous to be too far left as it is to be too far right. That, merely stabilizing the left wing singularity to current levels, as Stalin and Cromwell did, is a quite drastic measure, and the more dangerous it becomes to be too far right, the more dangerous it has to become to be too far left, and the more drastic a measure it is.

            • Karl says:

              Firing Harvard is difficult as there is no formal emplyment contract that could be terminated. Financial attacks like taxation or even asset confiscation would hurt Harvard, but not solve the problem. Government might also scrutinze Harvard’s staff and arrest any member that has plausibly commited a crime. Such arrests might also help, but would not solve the problem as the activities that are causing the problem are not illegal.

              The Supreme Court seems much easier. That is just a few people that can be dealt with individually. No need to march with soldiers into the court. Don’t think Stalin or Augustus marched soldiers into courts. They just made sure the judges understood that some decicsions would not be accepted and trigger violent retribution.

              • jim says:

                Actually it is quite simple to bring Harvard under control. Make all funding to all Harvard activities go through the CEO, like a regular corporation. You don’t give a research grant to the purchasing officer at Walmart, and if you did he would be purged so fast it would make your head spin. Give him the necessary power to dissolve all committees that exercise power and make decisions, as part of the abolition of peer review. The curious discrepancy between peer reviews of research on expensive recently patented medicines, and peer reviews of research cheap generics and ancient never patented medicinal compounds would make an excellent justification for cutting off the lifeblood of peer review, as is the radical difference between what gets published on medicines in Russa, and what gets published on medicines in the US.

                People can relate to corporate corruption of peer review on medications more easily than to the endless and increasingly rapid rewrites of history, or the Global Warming scam. It is easy to see how corporate funding corrupts the process, less easy to see how foundation funding corrupts the process.

                Then you have a friendly chat with the board, and make sure to get the right CEO.

                At some point in this process, probably will need tanks on campus, but you can arrange matters so that by the time you need tanks on campus, the tanks are legal, because the CEO asked for assistance because buildings were on fire.

                • Karl says:

                  If all funding goes through a Harvard CEO, the part of Harvard that does scientifc research (or is supposed to do research) would be transformed into a company that sells scientific research services. That is a valid business and it might well improve the quality of scientific research, especially medical reserach, but the part of Harvard that sells eductation would be largely unaffected.

                  The education part is in my opinion much more problematic than the part helping with the marketing of expensive medication of dubious effectivness.

                  The far left never was in hard science or medicine, but rather in law and so called “social science”. They’d go one doing what they have been doing before even if a CEO of Harvard had control of all research funding.

                  How could your CEO prevent a law professor teaching leftist law?

                • jim says:

                  > but the part of Harvard that sells education would be largely unaffected.

                  Time for a second dissolution of the monasteries

                  > How could your CEO prevent a law professor teaching leftist law?

                  Close the courts.

                  Extend the solution applied by Australia’s border patrol and Duterte’s death squads more generally.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I can’t imagine the faculty of the Kennedy school of government or say any women’s study professor will be alive for very long if anyone with the power and inclination to use the military against Harvard…

                • Not Tom says:

                  The education part is in my opinion much more problematic

                  Is it, though? The “indoctrination” meme is tradcuckery; true-believer leftists are who they are. The education system functions as a sort of recruiting pipeline for Cathedral professors. Take away the professor’s primary funding, and he isn’t going to have very much work for the recruits – in fact they’re likely to turn against him, as we already see happening in many universities with stagnant or declining membership.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Indoctrination via the pressures of conformity and authority is very real… I’ve seen people who I had once thought were borderline redpilled (not completely of course) become completely brainwashed.

  9. Eli says:

    Jim, I’m being off-topic again, but I discovered Craig Wright (who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto), including some of his writings, after watching the interview with him on Valuetainment, on YouTube.

    In particular, I read those two articles of his:

    https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/satoshi-and-the-sophists/

    https://medium.com/nchain/the-history-of-freezing-in-bitcoin-13f0cf1a89d9

    It looks like you might have had some run-ins with him online (judging from his mention of “James Donald” in the 2nd link).

    It looks that you and him have strong disagreement regarding what a true virtual currency should look like. The way I think he sees it, is that a sovereign has both the right and duty to be able to trace transaction, because he, unlike you, believes in the republic. Whereas you understand that we have anarcho-tyranny driven by the insanity of a holiness-signaling spiral, and that the days of the republic, at least in its current form, are numbered.

    Do you see that his and your views are irreconcilable?

    (I guess, I too would be in favor of full ledger traceability, if we had a stable monarchical system, which we don’t currently have.)

    • jim says:

      Enemy agent. Not Satoshi. “Hail fellow cryptographer, hail fellow cryptocurrency builder”

      Does not have coherent views on a crypto currency should look like. Has a script. Too ignorant of cryptocurrency to understand or care about this stuff. I do not recall ever having had any previous interaction with him.

      Bitcoin does anonymity fine provided you use a tumbling service. A good cryptocurrency should have support for peer to peer tumbling built in, rather than layered on top. ZCash is fine, and is based on some supergenius cryptography that inspires me with awe, though I doubt its practicality to replace federal reserve as the world international currency. The trouble is that shielded ZCash transactions have disadvantages and high overheads, so most people do not use them, doing unshielded ZCash transactions, thus exposing those that do use shielded them to metadata scrutiny, making ZCash worse than useless as a privacy currency, while still being too unwieldy to replace the US dollar.

      ZCash is a typical product of cryptographers too much in love with clever cryptography to worry about about the practical application of their brilliant ideas.

      Tumbling bitcoin also attracts attention, so we need to implement peer to peer tumbling in ways that make it indistinguishable from messaging and file sharing. Monaro, unlike tumbling, and unlike shielded ZCash transactions, does not attract undue attention. I favor tumbling, but hard to get it right without attracting undue attention. Tumbling needs to be be built into the payments and reputation system, so that any transaction can become part of a tumble.

    • notglowing says:

      Craig is absolutely not Satoshi.
      He’s a con man and an idiot to boot
      His technical ideas about cryptocurrency are as stupid as his political opinions on it.

  10. RedBible says:

    A bit of a gears shift from the other comments about China, but I’m noticed a rising “opposition” to the TikTok app, since the company that owns it is based in China and is almost certainly passing on all data that it receives to the CCP. Now, I already don’t like site and apps that give data to government agencies (like Google, Facebook, etc.) but I’m seeing this come from people and groups that seem to only care that TikTok does it.

    I’ve speculated a few reasons for this. One would be that the Cathedral doesn’t like people using a platform that doesn’t give their “FBI Friends” the info, but this one seems the weakest. The next possible reason would be that they don’t like the fact that certain types of “pro-Cathedral” style videos have been shadow banned, but that’s been happening for months already, so I don’t think that’s it.

    But the last reason I thought of I think hits the mark. Recently there has been a new wave of banning of various “right-wing” accounts on social media platforms. The Cathedral doesn’t like the fact that TikTok doesn’t censor people based on their whims (since they answer to China), and their afraid of lots of right wing content finding it’s way there (since it’s a popular app with kids and growing).

  11. mikesmith says:

    jim: > Vaccinate all the young people, and then the disease will not be able to spread to older people.

    There you go, Jim following his script, herding you to the vaccines. Will he herd you toward the digitial IDs too, and the digital currency, and the tattoo on your hand?

    I think so. Can’t wait to meet you Jimbo.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      “Herding us to the vaccines” because you think they are mind controlling nanites or something? I really want to read this one.

  12. Frederick Algernon says:

    Some more big questions (this comments section is really good and covers a wide range of topics, so why not more fuel?)

    1) Thoughts on the American Pioneer Corps, American Contingency, Warrior Poets Society, and any other demi-militias?

    2) Thoughts on China’s massive debt structure?

    3) Thoughts on international actor’s involvement in America’s current social unrest? I’ve heard that China is fueling Antifa & friends, Russia is fueling their opposites, and Qatar is attempting to buy the Intelligence Community.

    • jim says:

      Warrior poet will be on our side, but most American demi militaries are pozzed, and are likely to be on enemy side if things go all the way to civil war. Most of their membership will desert, many of them to our side.

      Observe what happened in Portland. For six weeks the Portland police, obedient to the Mayor’s orders, stood around like potted plants while Antifa and Black Lives Matter smashed stuff and intimidated people. Then Department of Homeland Security cops showed up with a presidential order to restore order in their pocket, backed by soldiers who are disinclined to tell anyone anything about their orders or their chain of command, and the Portland police immediately proceeded to “cooperate”, “coordinate”, and “collaborate” with Department of Homeland Security cops in ways that looked curiously similar to obeying the presidential order and disobeying the mayoral order.

      Trump and Barr have been campaigning for the support of the individual cop on the beat, and when push came to shove, it worked.

      China’s debt structure is not “massive”. Private borrowers have to make high down payments. State and quasi state debt is not big compared to American state and quasi state debt. China is substantially less indebted than the US. During the Obama years, the US was in grave danger of a debt crisis. China is not.

      > 3) Thoughts on international actor’s involvement in America’s current social unrest?

      Not happening. The state department and the Democratic party manufacture their unrest. They don’t manufacture our unrest.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Do you assert Demi-militias are pozz’d due to WQ? Is there another reason? If it is solely WQ, I would rebut that balloon flight would put valuable women very quickly in kitchens, nurseries, and gardens. It is a rare female that can roll with paras- and militias. Units with little to no support can’t afford to drag around dead weight. I think DMs will be fertile recruiting grounds due to the plethora of in-the-flesh observations of much of what you preach. We shall see. If it is something else, though, I’d be interested in learning about it.

        I need to re-locate some essays to validate this claim, but IIRC China has been propping up every failed China™ endeavor for a very long time and a market correction is inevitable. But I am way out of my depth in the finance world.

        I guess we will have to agree to disagree on foreign influence operations. I’m not disagreeing with Cathedral meddling overseas, but it strikes me as a bit naive to assume that foreign entities with the means, motive, and opportunity would just not act on them. So much money in the Gulf. So much institutional ability in the Steppe. So much infiltration by the Whale. Why would they not seek to destabilize the US if they could?

        • jim says:

          Foreign entities spend stupendous amounts of money influencing US foreign policy In particular influencing the Cathedral to refrain from overthrowing them, and sometimes, influencing the Cathedral to overthrow their enemies. What is happening now in the US is an internal struggle between internal factions each seeking power, and foreigners don’t have a dog in this fight. And if they do have a dog in this fight – for example China is wants Biden to return to power, because highly bribable, does not want Biden to return to power because he has promised war on China and the overthrow of the Chinese government, and does not want Biden to return to power because he is senile, does not know what day it is, does not know where he is, and cannot recognize close family members, thus power will fall into the hands of unpredictable people, who are likely to launch a crusade to make the whole world, including Russia and China, progressive, they are poorly placed to do much – for example the Democrats are in a vastly better position to organize riots, stuff ballot boxes, and intimidate their opponents than the Chinese. Whatever foreign factions want is unlikely to have much impact compared to what internal factions want, and if a foreign faction backs an internal faction, and the other faction gets power anyway, the consequences are likely to be devastating for the meddling power.

          Safer to stick to bribing the state department.

          • someDude says:

            Does there exists a foreign entity that wants the US to plunge into civil war and continue in the state of civil war for a very long time? I would say a foreign entity like this does have a Dog in the Fight. And is it not possible that such a foreign entity is Russia? Wouldn’t Russia want the US in a state of protracted civil war? Wouldn’t that be in Russia’s interest?

            And couldn’t Russia do this by funding and logistically supplementing the weaker party?

            • jim says:

              The drift towards civil war is driven by the Democrats rapidly moving to ever more radical policies. Are the Russians emitting mind control rays?

              Given that the Democrats were drifting towards war with Russia and China before they lost the 2016 election, then if civil war happens, it would be in Russian interest to support the Republican side in a civil war – but supporting the Republican side right now would hardly be effectual. What could they do other than piss the Democrats off even further? What could they do that would have any significant effect?

              The Democrats have been frantically searching for Russian support for Trump, came up empty. In the event of civil war, foreign intervention is more plausible.

              • someDude says:

                Hmmm, I guess foreign intervention is effectual only when the weaker party is only slightly weaker. And what you are saying is that the Republicans are way way weaker than the Democrats. Okay, Good point.

                How about the Russians picking a faction from within the Democratic party and backing that one? I guess a successful interference needs the following ingredients

                1. Two sides that hate each other more than they hate Foreigners

                2. Two sides with a small enough power differential that foreign intervention actually makes a difference. But a power differential large enough that the weaker party is tempted to take Foreign help in return for selling out some of the country’s vital interests.

                3. Two sides where both sides are willing to eliminate the other.

                In America, I see 1, but I don’t see 2 and 3. Reactionaries are willing to wipe out progressives, but they are so weak and so few that Russians will not be interested. Republicans are strong on paper but they don’t have the stomach to Gulag the progressives.

                And even within Democrats, I see that the Antifa are willing to do whatever it takes to wipe out the old guard. But I don’t see the Old guard willing to cooperate with Trump to protect themselves from the Antifa. So Antifa does not need Russian help and the Old guard won’t take it even if it will save their hides.

                You’re right. No foreign power would get much bang for their buck at the moment the way things stand. So as you said, Bribing the state department is easier and less risky.

                • jim says:

                  > How about the Russians picking a faction from within the Democratic party and backing that one? I guess a successful interference needs the following ingredients

                  That would work, and if they backed the leftmost faction, would be invisible, since no enemies to the left, and indeed it used to be an open secret that the communists were backing the left faction. The left faction would get invisible communist cash, and visible luxury trips to communist countries that have a nice climate and nice beaches, primarily Cuba, where they were wined and dined. Much like the drug companies giving trips to doctors who prescribe high priced substitutes for well tried and effective generics, and funding people involved in peer review of drug studies and giving substantial gifts to their universities, which gifts have the string attached that they have to be administered by the people doing peer review on drug studies. (Which is funding is also strangely invisible.) Similarly see “A big fat surprise” for benefits received by people involved in making diet recommendations. The priesthood gets no end of benefits from interested parties, and similarly officials in the State Department, hence America’s wildly incoherent foreign policy.

                  Given the desire of the left faction to make war on Russia, and persistent state department efforts to color revolution Soviet aligned countries, most infamously Syria, you would not really expect Russia to fund the left faction today. China might, because if the left faction returns to power, American trade policy will once again be for sale.

                  Biden is China’s guy. He is senile now, and a puppet for the faction around him, which contains no end of would-be Lenins, so China has motive to fund the faction of the people around Biden.

                  As the Cominator points out, China did help the radical faction of the Democrats through Wu Flu, but that was rather indirect, and the consequences could not have been predictable to them.

                  OK. Who is taking us to civil war? Obviously Antifa. Soros is funding Antifa. Looks to me that Nancy Pelosi and the State Department are the ones actually running Antifa, but that is hard to know and harder to prove, while it is easy to know that Soros is funding it. Soros’s wealth was not a grant of favor by foreigners, but of the American government, and of foreign governments subject to American domination.

                • European Mutt says:

                  Russia will back whomever will allow them to make trade deals with European countries. At the moment it is not clear who that will be so I agree they won’t support anyone. Biden would make them look better in comparison than Trump, but Putin’s not gonna take that risk. Not his style.

                  The MSM is right about one thing: Russia wants to end American hegemony. They project their own motivations upon Russia of course and assert that they want to conquer whatever America deserts. Not so. The Russians just want to buy tech and sell oil and some of their own tech in Europe, perhaps acquire some nice vacation properties. German engineers work better without Russian tanks in the streets and also the Alps are a lot more serene when fighter jets aren’t flying over them.

                  The only thing they might in fact subdue is the middle east (upon which I predict Israel is going to spontaneously switch alliances), but they probably have a better idea about what to do with it than anybody in the US.

                • Allah says:

                  Russian influence is mostly confined to topics that Russia cares about, such as American isolationism, Ukraine, EU. It is the rightists that Russia supports, not the leftists.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Muh Russia is a deep state/dem lie and its a very harmful one, Russia is America’s natural ally absent either country having a stupid universalist religion.

                  After what the Chinese did with the Covid hoax allying with Russia is more crucial than ever.

          • The Cominator says:

            China massively helped Biden through the way they acted to increase the Wu Flu panic.

            1) They may or may not have deliberately released it in the 1st place.

            2) Letting it out of Wuhan but then locking down Wuhan in a retarded way that scared everyone. And fooled a lot of people on our side into thinking this was much more of a worse virus than it actually was.

            If they wanted to be neutral why do this?

  13. Pooch says:

    Pelosi just called the DHS in Portland “stormtroopers”. I think we have our SS.

    Also Chicago PD just layed some beatdowns on Antifa attacking a statue that looked incredibly organized and well funded. That extra Soros money going to use but still got defeated.

    All good signs.

    • jim says:

      Pelosi complains about “kidnapping protesters”, because they are not grabbing random expendables. They let the mob riot, and then they go in and snatch one particular member of the mob who is on their little list, and whisk him away, while stuff continues to burn and windows continue to break, but the mob suddenly and mysteriously no longer knows what to do or where to go.

      The left is highly centralized and coordinated, even though leftists are always double crossing each other and plotting against each other. Take out a few key personnel, and barely controlled chaos becomes uncontrolled chaos, as for example, the recent beheadings of statues of Christ. That was not on the schedule till after the 2020 election, after they shut down all white Christian Churches because Covid-19, or Green New Deal, or rising sea levels, or some such.

      Long before Lafayette Park, Trump and Barr were campaigning for loyalists among the cops – which campaign got a huge boost from “Defund the police”. In the days before Lafayette Park, Barr hastily assembled a team of loyalists hurriedly brought together from all over America, and cleared the park. The Park police had been collaborating with arsonists and rock throwers, not that that stopped the rock throwers from throwing rocks at them.

      Looks like Barr did not then disband that team of loyalists, men, who when they get an order, will carry it out effectively. What had happened was that the Park police were disinclined to do their job, knowing it to be politically incorrect. So the press was rejoicing that Trump was cowering in the White House basement. Nah, he was preparing a counter strike from the White House basement. And now Pelosi is crying because that counter strike is still unfolding.

      • The Cominator says:

        If you think they will obey any order are they a big enough group to carry out a knight of the long knives…

        Trump needs to secure better control of the military though really I think.

        • Pooch says:

          Read somewhere DHS has the most combined officers of any department.

        • James says:

          The military seems to be very mixed on Trump. A lot of high profile and top brass types really have it out for him, and they set both the internal and external propaganda. I have military friends from various branches, and they’re all at least purple pilled on Trump, but it doesn’t seem like enough for me. He needs good combat officers with good heads on their shoulders backing him, and I’m not sure he has them.

          He’s surprised me to the upside before, but he has also had a lot of supporters betray him over the years, so that’s kind of a weak point of his.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            He has Erik Prince’s mercenaries. Hard men with military experience in leading men in combat. The only men that matter in the branches are Army and Marine Corps infantry and armor. The pointy end of the stick overcomes all else. They will follow Trump, because the alternative is obedience to the truly pathetic. Fighting men respect strength and balls, and Trump has both in spades.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              I am not military, but it would appear that some very brave and honorable white men have been propping up the Cathedral since 1945.

              • Don’t know what it counts for, but I abandoned the left when it became clear that the left hated strength, courage, and manliness, all things that I deeply valued. Those virtues did not get sliced off the salami publicly (though among leftist academia they were long gone) until the last ten years. It is no longer possible to be a manly leftist the way it was in 1945.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Good point. But the fact remains that private security, police, and military are cut from the same cloth, and these groups are all that stand between “today” and Tomorrow, in my opinion. So long as operators are willing to take Cathedral Coin, the Restoration is merely a dream. This blog focuses on the Priests, and it should. Which blog is focusing on the warriors?

                • jim says:

                  Warriors need a priesthood for cohesion. They have a hostile priesthood and a hostile officer corps. They don’t like either one, and their officer corps cannot be fixed without an allied priesthood.

                  The recent war crimes charges focused on paladins, warriors who subscribed to old type warrior Christianity, warriors with priestly characteristics, warrior priests. They wanted to get rid of the old type Christians from the army. They targeted warriors on the basis of their faith.

                  My judgment, and the judgment of those conducting the war crimes prosecutions, is that we don’t have a warrior problem. The people conducting the war crimes trials obviously do have a warrior problem. Observe the Portland police obeying Trump and not obeying the Mayor of Portland. We have a priest problem. It is the nature of warriors to accept whatever priesthood is assigned. They will be very happy to get a new priesthood. We are amply supplied with old type Christians and Trump supporters among the rank and file at the tip of spear. We probably have a good supply of suitable priests hiding among the tip of the spear. Start with the guys the prosecutors targeted.

                • Pooch says:

                  Are warriors reading blogs?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Yes, we read. Proper warriors are educated men, but with a different focus than priests. Understanding politics is vital for the warrior elite because it is the operation of mass cooperation, which is just as important for managing an army as managing a country.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  We do.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Spam link. I am not going to carry unexplained links to enemy videos of enemy lies. If the video says something worth hearing, say it here and we will discuss it here.

                  You are not a shill, and are not writing to script. I just suppressed that comment and put you on moderation because I don’t want to carry enemy ads for free.

                  You can discuss enemy ads here, and even link to them in the discussion, but no bare links to enemy ads.

                • Oscar_Cc says:

                  Sorry, did not intend to spam. It is a propaganda video from a rising Spanish left-wing platform called “Worker Front” (Frente Obrero). They have a more masculine and not “soyboyish” demeanor and looks.

                • jim says:

                  Old type Leninists are more masculine than modern type leftists. Modern bioleninism emasculates. Instead of wealth being sinful, masculinity is sinful.

                  But old type leftism still failed at marriage and family, though less disastrously than modern leftism, and failed at the economy catastrophically, far more disastrously than modern leftism. Famine in Venezuela, famine in Russia, autogenocide in Cambodia, famine in China, famine in Germany, famine loomed in Britain. Australia did not have famine, but the economy sucked the way the economy of recent Soviet Russia sucked.

                  If recent Soviet Russia did not have famine, it is because they winked at private gardens and all that, much as war socialist Australia winked at private distribution of food. That later Soviet Russia did not have famine does not indicate they figured out how to do socialism right, but that they made a bunch of unprincipled exceptions around food.

          • iov says:

            Obama systematically removed any top-level GOFO who did not actively and plausibly support his socio-political agenda, beginning no later than the dismissal of Peter Pace. Unfortunately, Trump has not acted to reverse the effects of this. Since top GOFOs are completely responsible for selecting their replacements, advancement past O-6 is now effectively subject to a leftist political litmus test.

  14. polifugue says:

    Jim, what is your opinion on the canons of Saint Basil?

    Noteably the Second Canonical Epistle, listed here:
    http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-186.htm#P11346_2161892

    On Twitter, I had an exchange with a Christian who proclaimed that “rape” is a sin, and when I asked him if a husband had the right to enforce his marital duty and pointed to 1 Corinthians 7:5, he said that it was a sin, and another follower of his said I was going to hell for being a rapist.

    He pointed to Canon XXX and XXII, stating that the former forbade marriage by abduction and the latter affirmed mandatory female consent to marriage.

    Are these canons of Saint Basil compatible with what this blog promotes? Much of what is written seems rather blue or purplepilled.

    • jim says:

      Your friends interpretation seems like radical text torture to me:

      XXII: That they who have stolen virgins, and will not restore them, be treated as fornicators; that they be one year mourners, the second hearers, the third received to repentance and the fourth be co-standers, and then admitted to communion of the Good Thing. If the virgins be restored to those who had espoused them, it is at their discretion to marry them, or not; if to their guardians, it is at their discretion to give them in marriage to the raptors, or not.

      Implication 1: Stealing non virgins and keeping them is AOK and is not fornication. Presumably, if you let them go afterwards, is fornication.

      Implication 2: Stealing virgins, and then negotiating a deal with the father after stealing the virgin is AOK, and, the deal being made, then not fornication.

      Implication 3: Marriage by abduction is fine and dandy, and getting a virgin that way is AOK provided you subsequently make peace with the family, but if you fail to make peace with the your inlaws, not OK.

      Due to a severe and acute shortage of virgins over ten in our society, it is open season. Come the restoration, I plan for the faithful to rescue them en masse from the fate of becoming cat lady human resource administrators. You will be surprised how quickly they will stop complaining.

      Canon XXX, however, has contrary implications, and your friends interpretation is plausible in the modern social context.

      That they who steal women, and their accomplices, be not admitted to prayers, or be co-standers for three years. Where no violence is used, there no crime is committed,except there be lewdness in the case. A widow is at her own discretion. We must not mind vain pretences.

      This is confusing, because “lewdness” does not sound sensible in context. Obviously if someone steals women, there is going to be what modern Christcucks would call lewdness. Similarly “vain pretences”, “discretion”. He is talking in euphemisms about euphemisms, so I would guess that its meaning is no longer clear, due to euphemisms changing meaning. It is consistent with the modern Christcuck view, but euphemisms could have lots of meanings. So one has to be careful about a interpreting a euphemism loaded directive, rather than ignoring the signals that he is politely saying something impolite.

      Should be read in the context of XXII, which is about stealing a woman for marriage. So, I would read XXX as stealing a woman for not-marriage, or maybe the whole gang going at it, hence the heaping helping of obsolete euphemism.

      In XXX he is not speaking plainly, therefore we should be wary about reading modern meanings into it.

      When he discusses virgins, he talks about making it right by marriage. But in XXX, no mention of marriage, so he is addressing the case where marriage is not on the table.

      If one applies the interpretation a modern Christcuck would give it, it is strikingly inconsistent with XXII, therefore, addressing something different.

      I would read this to be consistent with the old testament. Stealing a woman for marriage is OK, and not terribly bad even if she is a virgin, it is the letting her go afterwards that is extremely bad. I interpret his euphemisms as stealing a woman then letting her go.

      And if Saint Basil is inconsistent with the Old Testament, which is a plausible interpretation, but not how I interpret him, so much the worse for Saint Basil and the better for the Old Testament.

      • udptct says:

        Canon XXX is easy.

        That they who steal women, and their accomplices, be not admitted to prayers, or be co-standers for three years. Where no violence is used, there no crime is committed, except there be lewdness in the case. A widow is at her own discretion. We must not mind vain pretences.

        “Steal” women refers to fornication or rape. IF no violence is used (meaning the woman was not violently coerced) it is only a crime if it is adulterous, that is, the woman is someone else’s wife. This is what “lewdness” means — adultery. The very next statement clarifies this further, that a widow is effectively a free agent and can fornicate at will (“at her own discretion”), implying that a non-widow is definitely not at her own discretion regarding fornication.

        “Vain pretences” might mean one of severl things, but the one most relevant here (in relation to widows) seems to be that St Basil is condemning the oft-prefailing mindset that a widow must live a chaste and pure life till the end of her days. Here I disagree with him, in that I believe a fertile-aged issue-less widow must either re-marry, or join a convent. Too much trouble has been started by young widows.

        Disclaimer: I’m not a Christian. There is no God. Jesus was yet another Jewish prophet who created trouble and caused Jews to be thrown out of Rome. Christianity vs Islam is a retarded fight over whose Middle-Eastern prophet has superior holiness. I view Christianity as a tool that enabled Constantine to save half an Empire, while also as the very same tool that caused the collapse of the Western Empire. Christian doctrine is obviously inferior to Islam over the woman question, the question of equality of the races, and the Jewish question. Islam is a far more potent tool than Christianity in the hands of someone like Constantine/Suleiman the Magnificent. Much of Christian doctrine seems inherently pozzed, but the Church Fathers somehow seem quite based.

        • Sam says:

          “Jesus was yet another Jewish prophet who created trouble and caused Jews to be thrown out of Rome.”

          Jesus accurately predicted the Jews were going to get thrown out of Israel and told people what to do in order to not die horribly. Not just another guy trying to become the one to toss out the Romans.

          “Christianity vs Islam is a retarded fight over whose Middle-Eastern prophet has superior holiness.”

          It isn’t a fight over holiness, its over conquest. Do we get to kill them and take their stuff and their women or they get to kill us and take our stuff and our women.

          “while also as the very same tool that caused the collapse of the Western Empire.”

          Not seeing how that follows.

          “Christian doctrine is obviously inferior to Islam over the woman question, the question of equality of the races, and the Jewish question.”

          Islam had a feminist outbreak (Iran). Islam’s position on race is worse; it imported black slaves and screwed them leading to an intelligence decline. Islam and Christianities position on the Jewish question is the same.

          “Islam is a far more potent tool than Christianity in the hands of someone like Constantine/Suleiman the Magnificent.”

          And Stalin had more power then both.

          “Much of Christian doctrine seems inherently pozzed, but the Church Fathers somehow seem quite based.”

          Probably because it has been rotting for a long time.

        • jim says:

          Because you are not a Christian, it is easy to for you to read the Christians of seventeen centuries ago as not preaching twenty first century progressivism, which is how I read them.

          For twenty first century progressive Cuckstians, rather harder.

          But you are wrong about Jesus Christ. Jesus called out the holiness spiral that led the Jews to war with Rome, predicted where it was headed, and in the end it unfolded as prophesied.

          Had they accepted Christ as King and high priest in the line of Melchizedek after he briefly seized the temple, they probably never would have been evicted from Israel.

        • polifugue says:

          Regarding widows and “vain pretenses,” Saint Basil is not saying that a widow is a free agent who can fornicate at will. That would not only be against the policy of the church, it would be against his own positions on widows in his other canons, referring to widows practicing continency in Canon XVIII and remarrying in Canon XLI.

          Canon XXX on widows refers to the subject of the canon itself, those who steal women. When a man steals a woman, there is no crime committed unless there is adultery involved, and if there is a widow involved, violence being used is not a crime, vain pretenses referring to that of a widow “remaining celibate,” not vain pretenses of men. Saint Basil did not come from a time when people believed in proto-feminism. 21st century Christcucks confuse “restore” with “return,” as if returning her to her guardian makes her a virgin, and as if women are not in fact property.

          Regarding Christianity itself, I decided to remain a Christian before knowing it to be true. Upon viewing countless Protestants like William Lane Craig get destroyed by atheist after atheist, I avoided listening to debates and reading atheist writers in order to prevent myself from apostatizing. Hume and his contemporaries, in my view, completely destroy everything classical apologetics has to offer. Eventually, I found that only Orthodox theology works as a system that can replace modern unbelief, being wholly distant from Thomism. If you still have within your heart the desire to search for God, Orthodox theology will be your best bet.

          https://tinyurl.com/How-the-West-Became-Atheist

          • jim says:

            It is not clear to me what Saint Basil was saying, but fourth century Christianity was pretty based on women, and it is not at all obvious that he contradicts the Old Testament, so I read him to be consistent with the Old Testament on abduction.

            We don’t want abduction, but we don’t want uncontrolled women running around either. So we don’t really mind women under the control of weak men winding up under the control of strong men all that much, provided it is regularized by indissoluble marriage.

    • Yul Bornhold says:

      XXII says nothing about *the woman’s* consent.

      • jim says:

        Saint Basil’s directives need to be read in the context of a society where men owned women regulating the conflicts between men over ownership of women, not in the context of a society where women own themselves. In their own social context, the Christcuck interpretation conspicuously fails to fit.

        Read in Saint Basil’s own social context, they are consistent with the Old Testament position of discouraging abduction of women, but retroactively regularizing and legitimizing abduction, provided it ends in lifelong marriage.

        • Yul Bornhold says:

          Recently attended an Eastern Orthodox wedding and one of the (very few) questions the priest asked the bride was whether she consented. Part of the formal liturgy, not something he threw in.

          Theodore Dalrymple mentioned a difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages, implying Pakistan and India. I wonder whether a formal consent might be a wise idea for marriage, inasmuch as, if girl hates guy enough to scream ‘no’, she’d have probably cuckolded him anyway. Ayaan Hirsi Ali hid in Europe to escape marriage to beta husband because her father wouldn’t listen to “I hate everything about him.”

          Or maybe it’s just a Muslim problem. They come off as overwhelmingly beta. All the stories you ever hear about women hating arranged marriages come from Mohammadens; not Indians, Burmese, etc.

          • jim says:

            Old testament strongly encourages, but does not require, informal consent.

            Informal consent is obviously a good idea. Formalizing it is the beginning of the end.

          • polifugue says:

            Liturgy can differ between dioceses. In which diocese was the church?

            Here is a link to a Russian Orthodox liturgy of second marriage:
            http://sergei.synology.me/text/trebnik/MARRIAGE_Second_Marriage_Eng_Rus_web.pdf

            The Orthodox Church is my home, but there are demons within the house of God just as malevolent as those in Protestant or Catholic churches.

            It should be noted that there are exceptions to these generalizations.

            The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) is a church I can recommend here. I attend a parish of this church, and my priest put up a Facebook post last week that commanded wives to obey their husbands. The monks and priests are wonderful, and they have a beautiful monestary in Jordanville, upstate New York. Their churches do not have pews or organs, all the liturgy is in chant, and the service is in Church Slavonic.

            The Greek Orthodox Church (GOARCH) and Orthodox Church of America (OCA) are pozzed, both using separate communion spoons and requiring masks in church during the Coronahoax. The Christcuck who sentenced me to Hell for marital rape came from the latter. Bother are liberal or cuckservative Protestant churches with icons, consisting of followers whose spirituality revolves around the magic words “DONT JUDGE” and condemning Christians who have genuine moral concern.

            The Antiochian Archdiocese is a neutral church, nothing much to say. Other churches (Romanian, Serbian, etc.) churches are small and I do not know enough about them to make an opinion.

            The Orthodox Studies Department at Fordham University is the most evil tumor in the church. Funded by the State Department, their mission is to destroy Orthodox Christianity, bringing the church in line with the Cathedral.

            The Armenian, Ethiopian and Coptic churches are schismatic groups, 4th century radical Leftists who split off after Chalcedon. Think Strannik, more retarded in some ways and less retarded in other ways.

            In addition, just because a church says “Russian” or “Greek” it its title does not mean it is part of the diocese. There are “Russian” Orthodox churches part of OCA, and churches with no ethnicity in name that are part of others.

            It is important to understand that the liturgy differs between dioceses. I am not familiar with the marriage liturgies of every diocese.

            As a disclaimer, Orthodox Christian laity are neither based nor redpilled, and can be just as bad as everyone else. I converted because of the theology, and stayed because of the clergy and the monks. Assume that laity are at best Christcucks unless proven otherwise.

          • Caratācos says:

            When the priest ask both parties for consent it is *before* the benediction (“Blessed is our God…”) that marks the beginning of the *betrothal* service. The marriage service itself starts at “Blessed is the Kingdom…” (like the Liturgy it was once part of).

            So not only is the consent asking done in a suspiciously modern English register and absent from the Greek (http://glt.goarch.org/texts/Euch/Wedding.html), it is also not even in the service proper. Definitely tacked on sometime in the last 50 years.

  15. R7 Rocket says:

    The Harvard priesthood devotion to feminism is so strong, their shills cannot see RedPill on women questions… and even if their priests notice that feminism is catastrophically preventing societies from producing future generations, they cannot deviate from it. Not even one inch.

    Prof Stein Emil Vollset said: “Responding to population decline is likely to become an overriding policy concern in many nations, but must not compromise efforts to enhance women’s reproductive health or progress on women’s rights.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-53409521

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      They want to die and they want to take everyone else with them. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

  16. Frederick Algernon says:

    Has anybody here delved into the assertions and forecasts of Peter Zeihan? I have found that there is a dedicated hate-base for the guy, but I find many of his arguments and observations compelling. I consider myself a part of the Geopolitical school, meaning geography is the primary deterministic factor in cultural formation and potential outcomes.

    • jim says:

      Opened a link at random “New Wave of Covid19”

      The supposed rise in covid 19 deaths is largely that on one day, New Jersey mysteriously reported thirty times the usual number of covid-19 deaths.

      This guy supports misinformation. He spreads stuff intended to deceive. He gets impressively glowing reviews from all the usual suspects. He glows in the dark. Blatant enemy agent of influence.

      “China, the beginning of the end …” It is the color revolution script “weak, weak, weak, weaker, weaker, weaker, he is falling, falling …”

      They have been singing that song ever since China went capitalist adopted socialism with Chinese characteristics. Has peak oil arrived? Have the glaciers melted. Is the North Pole clear of ice in summer? Have the oceans risen? China was supposed to fall thirty years ago. The Northwest passage was supposed to open for business eight years ago. Oil was supposed to peak twenty years ago.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Appreciate the perspective, Jim. There is a lot of dross in his presentations, but I do agree with the idea that geography is the predicate upon which so much rests.

        You seem to have quite the soft spot for China. I don’t share this sentiment. I have a massive complex of integrated biases, so I admit that I may be unfair, but there just isn’t enough in the positive column to outweigh the negatives, from my perspective.

        I think both the US and China will balkanize in the next 20-50 years, maybe even 10-15. May GNON grant the worthy the spoils of unrest.

        • The Cominator says:

          My soft spot for China disappeared entirely when they seeded covid and then panicked everyone by doing a retarded lockdown to fuel the hysteria, that the Chinese reacted in such a draconian way is what scared everyone…

          But if the said blogger supports covid hysteria he is either a glowjogger/shill or a moron and as such not worth reading.

          • Karl says:

            Impossible to panic someone else. You can argue that their Wuhan lockdown scared everyone, but if you blame them for that, you are blaming Chinese for things they are doing to Chinese in China. Remder peace of Westphalla?

            In my opnion, the Chinese have the right to lock down any Chinese city any time for any reason or no reason at all.

            Blame the Western men for panicking, not the Chinese!

            • The Cominator says:

              Not willing to be so charitable given that they spread it and created panic to help the Democrats.

              That is something I cannot forgive… leftism and aiding and abetting leftists is a sore spot for me.

            • James says:

              China hates Trump, because Trump refuses to bend over to them on trade. That alone is reason to distrust them.

              The reality is that our interests and the interests of China are not aligned. They would gladly sell each and every one of us out to leftists if it meant rendering the US ineffective in the Pacific. Remember that.

              The Chinese government may see the world more similarly to us than Harvard, but that doesn’t make them our friends, that makes them more powerful, since our way of seeing the world is more accurate.

              Somebody with an accurate world view who is in geopolitical opposition to you is made more dangerous by that accurate world view, not more friendly.

              • Karl says:

                I agree to the first three paragraphs, but the last is wrong because it ignores motive. The most bloody wars are religious wars. Religious wars are not waged by two parties that have an accurate world view.

                Do you think that a sane and rational government with nukes is more dangerous than a mad progressive government that is on an unholy mission to purge all evil rightist thought from this world?

              • jim says:

                You can do business with people who have an accurate view of the world. Gold is cheaper than blood.

                You cannot make a deal with holy warriors. You will have to kill them, or they will kill you.

                A Chinese businessman is likely to cheat you. But he is not likely to attack you. You can get a good deal with a Chinese businessman if you are careful and determined. And America can get a good deal with China if it is careful and determined. But you cannot make a deal with holy fanatics because they refuse to communicate. Since we cannot communicate with words or text, in the end, communication will be carried out with bullets. They will kill us, or we will kill them. China will be willing to do business with whoever wins, but will find they have trouble making a deal if our enemies win.

                • Halion says:

                  Speaking hypothetically, let’s say that I am the dictator of a third world country and I want to have full sovereignty over it. But I find myself in the worst possible world: I am dominated economically by China and culturally by The Cathedral. Who do I get rid of first and how should I do it?
                  I had thought that the best thing would be to expel all journalists, NGOs and foreign foundations first, and then reach an agreement with the State Department: they do not condemn me or impose sanctions and I am in charge of removing myself from the Chinese presence in my country.

                • jim says:

                  Sounds like a plan.

                  But there is a huge problem that the state department is too corrupt, incoherent, and disunited to have any one policy. The are not agreement capable.

                • Halion says:

                  I thought there was a consensus against Chinese influence in the Blue Empire… although of course, supposing it works, nothing will prevent them from carrying out a humanitarian intervention after having done the work.

        • sdsghg says:

          I don’t have a soft spot for China (either CCP or LARP RoC). I would much rather see eg Tibet as a loose federal republic rather than in the tight reins of CCP.

          However, I concur with Jim and give credit where its due. Post-Deng CCP has powered Chinese growth marvellously, In my fantasies I imagine the return of the Son of Heaven to his throne, even though this would be very bad for my country.

          China is probably the only modern country where, for example, the local police actually works in your favour against bandits and foreigners. The local Govt extracts tithes, sure, but also shares in the spoils. Being loyal to the Party will get you very far in China. If you are an able, high quality worker, the Party will help you set up your business and will even help you compete abroad. If you are the lowest of the low dregs of society, the Party will at least ensure that you get a dead-end job at a coal mine where you can afford two square meals, a small apartment, and a wife with child. I see absolutely no reason why an average Chinese citizen would ever want to betray the Party that has always been good to him. Not many countries can say that about their governments. Any “democracy” certainly can’t.

        • China has maintained exactly the same form of government since the Qin Dynasty, and has returned to this form under new names after a historically insignificant generation of leftist madness and mass murder. It will go to great lengths to bring itself to par technologically with its strongest competitor but I’m fairly certain that we will not see a single innovation out of China. Barring nuclear war or mass population replacement, it will continue on into history as it has for two millenia.

          • jim says:

            Not so.

            Ever since the Qin dynasty, the Empire has been struggling with the problem that a feudal state has difficulty deploying large and effective armies, but a centralized state suffers from dangerously overmighty servants dangerously close to the emperor. They have become better at threading that needle, but never very good at it.

            Ever since the Song dynasty they took the view that any private wealth or private status, any wealth or status independent of the state, was a threat to the state. They took the basically Marxist view that any private wealth was just someone squeezing the peasants, and all squeezing should be done by the emperor and his bureaucracy. Which was a big error, because the Mandarins were a threat to the throne, and the merchants were not.

            Hong Kong was an island out of time, preserving old type capitalism as it was dying in the west. And then the Chinese proceeded to import large chunks of that thought system, that the private accumulation of capital, and private judgement in the wise application of capital, mattered.

            This is a radical break from what has been imperial orthodoxy ever since Song.

            This, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, “It is glorious to get rich”, is a radical change. Not just a radical change on Mao, a radical change on Song.

            But they are starting exhaust the possibilities of technology that they can copy, steal, or purchase. They are trying to innovate, and having little success. I don’t think the problem is cultural. The Chinese prize innovators and creators, because they have so few of them. Observing Han Chinese engineers in the west, I think Han Chinese are genetically incapable of innovation.

            If I was in Xi’s shoes, I would launch a breeding program, importing white innovators and giving them Han Chinese harems, (there is some noticeable Hong Kong innovation, perhaps due to the genetic influence of the pirates and drug smugglers that founded Hong Kong) but I fear that is outside his mental horizon. Fifty percent white, fifty percent East Asians suffer from certain mental instabilities, but their innovative capability is all white. It looks like the capacity for innovation is genetically dominant.

            • Dave says:

              When hapas make the news, it’s for insanity and/or idiocy — Michael Fay, Elliot Rodger, Daniel Holtzclaw, and Matthew de Grood. Where are the great hapa innovators? Will Keanu Reaves, Brandon Lee, or Jon Gosselin found the next Netscape?

              Besides, you don’t need white women to make white babies, you only need their eggs, which they will gladly sell to fund their worthless educations.

              • jim says:

                > When hapas make the news, it’s for insanity and/or idiocy

                There is a lot of insanity and malajustment among hapas, but the sane ones do not make the news. Most of them are OK. All of them are a bit fragile, but most of them manage alright.

                They are not half way between whites and Asians, they are white in some regards and Asian in other regards, which creates tension. And one of the ways in which they are white is that they are as creative as whites. And China is very short of creative people, and knows it.

              • Dave says:

                But this is China we’re talking about — they could dig up graves, steal teeth from famous innovators, and CRISPR up some genius babies, leaving nothing to chance. All tubers and most fruits sold in supermarkets are clones; someday clones might utterly dominate the tech industry too. 22nd-century sexism will mean that if your existence began with two people having sex, your resume goes straight in the trash.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              “If I was in Xi’s shoes, I would launch a breeding program, importing white innovators and giving them Han Chinese harems”

              Maybe Xi prefers it the other way around, having some pinkubines…

              • jim says:

                The problem with that is creative genes in female do not result in much creation, so hard to select good pinkubines. Also, one male white genius with a harem could produce a whole lot of kids with one parent who is a creative genius, while one pinkubine of uncertain creativity could only produce a limited number of kids.

                • Dave says:

                  All attempts to breed for a specific trait will fail if you don’t breed for it in both sexes. If it’s a trait that’s hidden in females, find a proxy that isn’t, or select females based on their close male relatives.

                  If you breed successive generations of white men with Chinese women, the end result will be Chinese people with an unusual Y chromosome.

                • jim says:

                  nuts

                  Your biology is based on progressivism, not reality.

                  You cannot breed for genes that the generate the capabilities you are interested in by selecting on women, when the capabilities you are interested in are expressed primarily in males.

                  Also, since the offspring of male whites and female Han tend to be adequately creative, the genes that the Han are missing are not on the X chromosome.

                • Dave says:

                  Progressivism says that genes don’t matter. I say they do, and that half a child’s genes come from the mother, so you need to marry a woman with the traits you want your children to have, or the daughter of a man with those traits.

                • jim says:

                  In this case, the daughter of a man with those traits. If China was to breed creativity back in, would have to start with male creative geniuses in order to produce such daughters. And such men are all white males

                • Dave says:

                  Don’t any male creative geniuses already have daughters? Linus Torvalds, but his daughter’s a lost cause. Jordan Peterson — no, that’s another dumpster fire. Seems like creative men are too busy creating stuff to raise their daughters properly.

                • The point is that a creative genius’ daughter may or may not have those good genes, but it is impossible to tell, since the nature of having two X chromosomes means that the expression of one will compromise the expression of the other, which is part of why women do not end up all that genius or creative. She may or may not have her father’s gene, and may or may not pass it to her son, but you are adding a level of uncertainty by breeding the daughter when you are almost certain to get some offspring with the desired gene by just breeding the genius father.

                • jim says:

                  A lot of genes critical for genius and personality are on the X chromosome, so women, having two X chromosomes, tend to be more average than men. Fewer fools, fewer smart women, no genius women.

                  But since half Asians normally have white fathers and Asian mothers, and are still OK at creativity, most of the genes that matter for white creativity are on some other chromosome, since the male children of an Asian mother have all Asian X chromosome.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Dave

                  ” Seems like creative men are too busy creating stuff to raise their daughters properly.”

                  Failure to acknowledge that women’s emancipation is the problem. Care to explain?

                • Dave says:

                  Aidan, what does “just breeding the genius father” mean? Cloning him? I’m looking to breed geniuses with the daughters of geniuses, but not finding many sane examples of the latter.

                  R7, Torvalds bragged for years that he neither know nor cared what his daughter was up to while he toiled away on Linux. In a more patriarchal, Jimian society, he could have entrusted her upbringing to others without them turning her into a raving feminist.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  The problem isn’t Torvalds, the problem is women’s emancipation.

                • someDude says:

                  @Dave
                  *Seems like creative men are too busy creating stuff to raise their daughters properly*

                  This is just an extremely silly statement. The whole point is that Men are “not allowed” to raise their daughters properly. It’s illegal. It can still be done, but the obstacles are formidable and even with the best of efforts, results are not guaranteed. Things could still go the other way.

                  Im with @R7 Rocket here. You’re not allowed to be angry at the Cathedral. So you take it out on men. It’s all Men’s fault. It’s very charming when a pretty girl tells you that everything is now your fault now that she is in a relationship with you.

                  But it’s extremely tiresome when the Big gay Empire tells you that.

                • Dave says:

                  I don’t blame Linus at all — he was too busy building something great to realize that every organ of society was conspiring to emasculate him and dyke out his daughters. It’s hard to see the truth when you’ve spent your entire life immersed in Marxist propaganda. When you’re an innocent lamb who’s always been well taken care of, and a nice goat says, “Hi, I’m Judas, please follow me this way!”, what’s a lamb to do?

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  It’s very charming when a pretty girl tells you that everything is now your fault now that she is in a relationship with you.

                  But it’s extremely tiresome when the Big gay Empire tells you that.

                  You just put in words a sentiment in my mind I had never been able to fully understand until now, so true.

                  A woman shit testing you with feminist slogans is actually kinda fun, to throw it all out the window in front of her and showing her who’s boss. You both get to enjoy it, never had a problem with it.

                  But feminism as a political movement gives me so much cancer it makes me pray for war and blood.

                • someDude says:

                  @Atavistic Morality
                  Yes, it is fun when a pretty young woman does that. It is NOT fun when a Fatty does that. It is not fun when an Aging feminist does that. In the case I mentioned, I’m not sure she was shit testing me. I think she was just trying to endear herself to me. Women have a way of doing these things that have a strange effect on us. Like playing with their hair or doing that thing with their heels.

                  She was having a bad hair day and complaining about it and I jokingly said, “Finally, one thing that is not my Fault.” And that’s when she sat on my lap and said, “No way. Everything is now your fault including hot weather, humid weather, clogged traffic, air pollution, riots, war, strikes….” and thats when we both started laughing.

                • jim says:

                  When a young lady gives you an easy shit test, she is still delighted when you pass it.

                  When they shit test the tribe for weakness, and the tribe fails, they are disgusted, I am disgusted, and you are disgusted.

                • someDude says:

                  Wait, What? That was a shit test?

                  I had no idea. I thought it’s just one of those things women do to appear cute.

                • jim says:

                  They are cute when they give you an easy shit test.

            • I would call that a difference in policy, not in form. It is hard for me to extricate what a Chinaman tolerates for utility’s sake from what he truly believes. If China had supremacy and no rivals, might go right back to thinking that private wealth is a threat to the state. The reasons why east asians both betray each other and purge people they consider too close to the throne come off as arcane, savage, and needless even to a reactionary-formalist western point of view. That might be in the DNA as well.

              Even seeing the necessity or use of domestic innovation might be beyond the Han’s mental horizon, as a matter of genetics. Doesn’t seem to me like they try, fail, and then decide to steal. Looks to me like “lets make something new” does not ever enter their minds. The man who takes the first step is 外道, a heretic, the guy who gets purged first.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                @Aidan:
                “Looks to me like “lets make something new” does not ever enter their minds.”

                Someone here explained that Chinese avoid “chaos” at all costs. Just suck up to whatever and whoever the power is and figure it out from there.

                Maybe the “innovators” are the ones who start all the commotion and get righteously put down and purged out during the every-X-century upheavals.

                As opposed to old Europe, where tribal warfare was constantly going on, and innovation helped your crew survive, this time.

                Because Europe has all kinds of funky geography, islands, mountain ranges, peninsulas, and all that. No one takes over all of that at once. Meanwhile China is “the great slave trap between two rivers.” Winner take all over there.

                And that makes me wonder if, given internet, and jet travel, and containerization, and super-panopticon mass AI surveillance, if we’re all going to end up Chinese one way or the other. Yellow Pill.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Mister G r u m p u s

                  “And that makes me wonder if, given internet, and jet travel, and containerization, and super-panopticon mass AI surveillance, if we’re all going to end up Chinese one way or the other. Yellow Pill.”

                  The 26 month no-travel period between launch windows for Earth to Mars will get in the way of that… until nuclear rocketships are invented.

                  Right now we are in the launch window for Earth to Mars which ends this August.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  My comment got stuck in moderation

                • jim says:

                  You issued two seemingly identical comments, both of which got stuck in moderation. Because they seemed identical, I released one and deleted the other.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  @R7:
                  “The 26 month no-travel period between launch windows for Earth to Mars will get in the way of that… until nuclear rocketships are invented.”

                  Excellent point.

                • jim says:

                  If nuclear rocketships become workable, we will settle the Kuiper belt and the stars, and the times will become longer, not shorter.

                  A nuclear thermal rocket, a fission powered rocket with hot hydrogen exhaust, does not bring Mars a whole lot closer, while it puts the Kuiper belt within reach. Its specific impulse is a bit more than twice that of Musk’s rockets – which means we would still have the twenty six month Mars window.

                  A helium three fusion powered rocket has very slow acceleration, but can continue accelerating for a very long time, so does not bring Mars much closer at all, while bringing the stars within reach.

                  We don’t have enough helium three on earth to be very useful. There is rather more on the moon, but probably not enough for large starships. We are going to have to cloud mine Saturn or Uranus. Probably Uranus. It is easier. Probably will need a settlement on one of the moons of Uranus, or a floating city of Zepplins on Uranus itself. If settling Uranus itself, settlers would probably live at thirty atmospheres pressures, breathing a mixture of fifty percent hydrogen, fifty percent helium, and six parts in a thousand of oxygen. The gravity at that level is slightly lower than Earth gravity, and the temperature is earthlike. Just the outside air has no oxygen. You could go outside with an oxygen cylinder and a face mask – except for the fact that it is a mighty long fall.

                • ten says:

                  Grumpus:

                  While you do qualify your statement as regarding the yangze and yellow river area, the north china plain, for which the statement (because of slave trap geography, the winner takes all) is true, never in chinese history has china been confined to this area, nor its local rulers been the default winners of interchinese conflict. Chinese genesis occurred in the rocky, mountainous areas further inland along the yellow river and around the black dragon mountain, conquering the north china plain breadbasket and gradually sinifying all surrounding areas, which are in no way more accessible than anywhere in europe.

                  Also, chinese unity has been aspirational for three millennia, never real. I don’t have data to compare european tribal warlikeness to chinese but their entire history revolves exclusively around schism, war and reunification, while ours just never got around to the unification part.

                  I don’t think it’s an effect of geography. I think it’s maybe an effect of most chinese leaving small tribe seminomadic hunter gatherer lifestyles many, many millennia before most europeans did.

                  Middle eastern farmer incursion 9k years ago marks the first point of european settled life, living side by side with hunter gatherers until the aryan incursion and northern bell beaker reexpansion into southern europe largely inhabited by MEF, which marks the end point of european hunter gatherer life, in groups of maximally 150.

                  Meanwhile, in south china, they had pottery for grains or rice 22k years ago, and lived in much larger groups.

                  Selection for complacent npc-ness and compliant submission to any warlike hilltribe that happened to be the biggest and baddest at any given day started 2-5x earlier there than here, and i think that is a more plausible reason than geography.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              @Jim:
              “… but I fear that is outside his mental horizon.”

              I’m not under-estimating Xi on any damned thing. Remember that Minister Mentor Lee of Singapore said that there is one politician on earth who we should least underestimate, and it’s Xi.

  17. The Cominator says:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/world/coronavirus-update.html?fbclid=IwAR3EgHhj02MkznDSq9LnTVuz9PYbQ5Zzgi23oj7HeSKR1vaGeb6nitKSkGE

    Trump does something he should have done long ago and has taken away the CDC/NIH ability to manipulate the data.

    • Pooch says:

      Trump needs to shut the fear down somehow. It’s just a cycle that builds on itself that forces people to go get tested which leads to more cases…

      • jim says:

        The number of deaths has been declining steadily, as Trump regularly announces.

        This is, like global warming, fraudulent panic, the artificial manufacture of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

        It can only be shut down the same way Global Warming will have to be shut down, by a massive purge of the priesthood, which will probably require troops and armored personnel carriers on Harvard campus. It is a coup complete problem. In the meantime, Trump continues to remind us that the increase of cases is a result of increased testing, not actual increased cases.

    • Oak says:

      Covid has really exposed how normies are just leaves in the wind.

      The original modelling implying that people would die for lack of medical care was shown to be wildly inaccurate within weeks of the data coming in. But the narrative didn’t even change and people just went along with it without even knowing what they were arguing for anymore. I don’t know if normies think the virus will just get bored and disappear if we slow it down enough, or if their ability to generalize is so poor that they think that the rate of infection/deaths is the same as the final death count, but it seems to be more the latter as I’ve witnessed people argue that the (marginally) higher death rate in Sweden is somehow relevant despite zero risk anywhere of hospitals overflowing. As though if two cars travel 100 miles, one at 70mph and one at 40mph, the former somehow still travesl a greater distance.

      Could’ve really done with Trump’s ZFG attitude on this one.

      • The Cominator says:

        They are blatantly just flat out lying about Florida making it out to a kind of Northern Italy now when that is absolutely not the case.

      • Pooch says:

        I see a lot of normies thinking things won’t be normal until the vaccine comes. Trump seems to be taking the bait and rushing it through hopefully in time for the election. Setting himself up for failure if he doesn’t deliver (even if the vaccine is totally unnecessary anyway)

        • jim says:

          The vaccine is not going to be ready. Firstly, that is too damn fast to test a vaccine – flu vaccines are often more dangerous than flu.

          Secondly, even if they had a vaccine and could ascertain that it was safe, they are not going to do so before the election because they do not want to.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          The idea of vaccines for rhinoviruses is a meme in the first place.

          ‘We need a cure for the common cold before we stop trying to destroy the economy’ good joke.

          • The Cominator says:

            Yes vaccines don’t really work for viruses that are not antigen stable.

            • jim says:

              Wu Flu appears to be antigen stable. But the problem is that vaccines for flu frequently produce undesirable, and sometimes fatal, effects in older people, by interacting with their immune system in very bad ways.

              We know how to quickly produce a highly effective vaccine for Wu Flu, no problem. Not killing the people vaccinated, there is the problem.

              We have the Wu Flu genome, so can easily produce proteins and protein fragments characteristic of Wu Flu. You test them against the blood of people who were infected with Wu Flu, and their immune system was easily and quickly victorious. Those protein fragments that are attacked by their immune system are your vaccine. Those fragments, if injected into people, will likely trigger their immune systems to prepare to do the same thing as the immune systems of those that recovered did.

              Unfortunately, we also know that old people with Wu Flu are frequently killed by their immune system’s response to Wu Flu, and therefore might well be killed or harmed by their immune system’s response to the vaccine. This is a common problem with flue vaccines.

              One solution would be herd immunity. Vaccinate all the young people, and then the disease will not be able to spread to older people.

              • BC says:

                One solution would be herd immunity. Vaccinate all the young people, and then the disease will not be able to spread to older people.

                That’s a really interesting idea. Why hasn’t it been done before with say the flu vaccine?

                • James says:

                  The main reason is that “the flu” is not a single virus, but a lot of different potential viruses that each have their own protein signature and thus require their own vaccination. In a typical year, you get coverage for 3-4 different strains of flu in a vaccine that are expected to be the most effective. They aren’t always right, either — the most common strain may not even be on the list you’re getting vaccinated against.

                  “The coronavirus”, meanwhile, is actually a single strain of a class of cold viruses that is marginally more contagious and lethal, which its own viral signature. Since it’s a single strain, we can widely vaccinate against it.

                  Because “the flu” is countless potential strains, we cannot widely vaccinate against it.

          • Pooch says:

            Agreed. Trump keeps talking it up though.

  18. Anonymous Fake says:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-26/korea-shatters-record-for-world-s-lowest-fertility-rate-again

    South Korea’s fertility rate isn’t 1.1, it’s 0.92 and still trending down. I trust their own statistics more than the UN, because of course nerds who fail to reproduce can at least do the numbers right. The priests don’t.

    Selling housing in South Korea ought to be like selling sand in Saudi Arabia, or selling ice to an Eskimo. It’s not because capitalism is fake and gay and socialism is closer to the truth in this literally vital area. Capitalists refuse to do anything about the schools or housing or providing fairly priced health care, but they sure are good at running sweat shops or casinos.

    And notice how capitalist economic “growth” never means women don’t have to work anymore. It always results in billionaires adding more zero’s to their accounts, completely fake profits.

    • jim says:

      The difference between South Korea and North Korea is unexciting, and is quite obviously caused by female emancipation, not capitalist housing. Females in North Korea are substantially less emancipated, as is obvious from the absence of North Korean cat ladies in North Korean academia and government.

      If we look at countries that actually have high fertility, such as Timor Leste, you see a total absence of government housing. Less cat ladies in high status positions, more homes and gardens. If more cat ladies in high positions, then fewer homes and gardens.

      The government attacking private homes and gardens adversely affects fertility. The government attacking marriage adversely affects fertility a great deal more. Socialist housing is a major attack on our ability to have children. The right of women to withdraw consent to sex at whim is an even bigger and much more damaging attack.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        It appears to be the case that any effort, initiative, or movement that either directly or indirectly reduces responsibility to provide, freehold, is a bad thing. Public housing, social welfare, and domestic law enforcement, are all bad things.

      • iov says:

        The South Korea case has convinced me that jim is right about the critical role of “female liberation” in the terminal decline of societies via failure to reproduce. South Korea, while not completely /based/, is by and large and certainly by comparison with the United States or certain European countries free of globohomo poz-loaded propaganda. Sure, they get a little bit, but it’s just splash damage. Yet their TFR is currently .8 and trending downward. Why? Because the Sinic obsession with “education” is applied in a gender-neutral manner. That’s it, that’s the entire story.

        (For sub-replacement fertility. It’s possible that given changes in settlement patterns, contraception, and incomplete extirpation of girls’ schools etc we might see a re-normalized Korean society with a TFR of, say, 2.5-3.5 instead of six or seven. But this is perfectly sustainable.)

        • Dave says:

          “with a TFR of, say, 2.5-3.5 instead of six or seven. But this is perfectly sustainable.”

          This does not mean that a couple with three children has done their duty to preserve the race, because so many children are autistic, retarded, or otherwise unsuitable for reproduction. Catholicism performed admirably at finding socially useful non-procreative roles for genetic defectives, but could only sustain this when healthy couples had 8-10 kids.

          • Not Tom says:

            Catholicism performed admirably at finding socially useful non-procreative roles for genetic defectives, but could only sustain this when healthy couples had 8-10 kids.

            Sure, when the average life expectancy was 30 years. We don’t need that many children to meet labor demand. Previctorian England did extremely well with a TFR about half that.

            • Dave says:

              If typical families have 8-10 kids but half of them don’t marry or reproduce, the true TFR is “about half that”.

              If anything, the demand for 130+ IQ labor has increased in the last 200 years, and will increase further. As we are not yet genetically engineering baby geniuses, we need as many or more babies than before to supply enough right-tail geniuses to keep the robot factories working. One must dig a lot of dirt to find a diamond.

              What we are then supposed to do with all that dirt, the non-genius babies, is an interesting question. Puffing up their self-esteem with worthless diplomas doesn’t seem to be working very well.

              • European Mutt says:

                Moldbug said put them in make-work programs. I concur.

                BUT this is not going to be an issue for about 50 years. Because machine learning/robotics progress is stalling and software is getting buggier as political correctness and the feelings of women and niggers take priority over working code. The restoration is still not here and tech is a lagging indicator of civilization anyway so we are definitely going to have a dip in tech levels of some sort. So if we are lucky in 50 years we will be in a position to worry about people being outcompeted by machines.

                Our universities and colleges already ARE make-work programs, but they deliver negative economic and social value. We have enough time to turn that around. In the meantime we can send people to factories to make cars or something. In fact, most Western countries could get rid of unemployment right now just by eliminating payroll taxes and regulations. Suddenly workers are twice as cheap for the employer but still get paid more.

  19. Bruce says:

    Jim, the following Z-Man post, particularly the last three paragraphs, seems to very much align with what you say.

    https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=20892

  20. info says:

    [*enemy spam*]

    • info says:

      [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Twitter lets commies spam “hail fellow reactionary, you should hate bad orange man too”, but I don’t

        • info says:

          Zero HP Lovecraft a commie? Terrorhousemag also another commie?

          Come on man.

          • jim says:

            The devil can quote scripture to his purpose. Lovecraft is no commie, but commies can dress themselves in stolen fragments of his clothes.

            • info says:

              Sure that is true of commies. But there is no evidence otherwise in the twitter feeds of those accounts.

              Its a heads up on what’s going on. Denying it won’t make it go away.

              • jim says:

                Looked to me that there plenty of evidence that those accounts were commie shills.

                Not least that they were posting on twitter. If they were what they pretended to be, would have been instantly kicked off.

                • info says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  The shills of twitter say “Hail fellow cisgendered white male misogynist racist. Orange man bad!”, but they glow in the dark, and no one listens to or discusses what they say except their fellow glowniggers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Your deleted messages to him should say

                  “Still voting Trump you fucking glowjogger”.

                • anon says:

                  I missed the deleted posts so I may be missing some context. Zero HP Lovecraft on Twitter, a shill? I would be quite surprised if that were the case. I very much doubt that any shill’s script has room for the short story God-Shaped Hole, the first scene of which depicts a documentary about 7′ tall studbots that women bang in the near future.

                • info says:

                  I don’t see how presenting evidence of enemy movements is a problem. If it is as you say enemy spam.

                  This is what is going on. Regardless. Closing eyes don’t make enemy go away.

                • jim says:

                  It is enemy misinfo, and we are sufficiently supplied with misinfo.

                • info says:

                  Enemy misinformation? Motive behind this group?

                • jim says:

                  I am not interested in discussing the doings of insignificant enemies. Shills are a boring distraction.

              • jim says:

                I see no end of evidence that they are commie shills in those twitter accounts, not least that they are allowed to post on twitter.

                • Mike says:

                  I’m not going to claim that Twitter is the place to get all of our red-pilled news and sources, but come on Jim. They’re not all shills, Spandrell has a Twitter account.

                • jim says:

                  He has a twitter account because he says nothing interesting on his twitter account.

                • accrdu says:

                  Spandrell doesn’t post anything to his blog either. https://bioleninism.com/ gives me a 502 Bad Gateway.

    • info says:

      [*deleted*]

  21. Eli says:

    Somewhat off-topic, but overall related.

    I was recently showing around Boston and the North Shore area to my girlfriend. She noticed the “Congregational” churches and asked me to explain what “Congregational” meant. I gave her some very general info, but was left unsatisfied with my own explanation.

    So, I had to dig a little deeper. Some time ago, I mentioned on this blog the great debate between Eliphalet Pearson and Theodore Parsons, both of Harvard. They were disputing the issue of natural inequality of men. Pearson was cogently arguing the sane position, that men are not created equal.

    What turns out, however, was that the natural law-focused debate was taking place shortly before the great split at Harvard. In short, the old founders of Harvard, which included the great benefactor Thomas Hollis, were “Old Puritans,” which can also be referred to as “orthodoxy” (a relative term) or old Calvinists. The usurpers were the “New Puritans” who subscribed to Unitarian beliefs (or some termed them as practicing Arminian heresy).

    Pearson was an orthodox Calvinist. While he did eventually become president of Harvard, he was so repulsed by the Unitarians taking the upper hand, he had to quit his post.

    So, I think the final nail in the coffin of sane old Harvard was the moment when Henry Ware, a Unitarian, took the post that was originally intended to be occupied only the old Calvinist guard.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=uTIBAAAAYAAJ&lpg=RA1-PA100&ots=gGCgQTejAx&dq=thomas%20hollis%20merchant%20harvard&pg=RA1-PA95#v=onepage&q=thomas%20hollis%20merchant%20harvard&f=false

    As per above, the great benefactor of Harvard, Thomas Hollis, originally endowed the Hollis Professor of Divinity, restricting it to Congregationalists, Baptists and Presbyterians.

    When the Overseers of Harvard in 1805 nominated Ware to be the new Hollis Chair, that, IMO, demarcated the line where the old guard lost and Pearson left. Unitarian deism was now in charge at Harvard and it was the start of the evolution of Progressivism, now rooted in the usurped bastion of learning and wearing the skinsuit of past founders, a sect that denied revelation and focused on continual reinterpretation of scripture and outright lying and denial of reality, to suit the anarchic needs of a certain kind of anti-civilizational holiness signalling.

    ( I found this book to be quite helpful in my learning:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=SSqCtDmbN78C&printsec=frontcover )

    So, am I correct to refer to Congregationalists as “Old Puritans” and “Puritan Orthodoxy?”

    • Mike in Boston says:

      Be any of that as it may, the Harvard Square church that dates to the 1600s and descends directly from the Congregational side of the 1805 split is today as pozzed as they come.

      • The Cominator says:

        Fake congregationists.

      • Eli says:

        It looks to me that all Congregationalist churches — certainly, in New England — are now pozzed. Some, ashamed of their past, particularly in Boston/Cambridge or next to Ivy universities like Yale, even changed their names to become something arbitrary, like “Church of Christ,” hired female priests, and serve as prayer sites for Jews, Muslims, arbitrary (non-)denominations, and probably, I wouldn’t be too surprised, Hindu pagan rituals. Maybe, next on the agenda is baptism with blood, followed by tranny orgies.

  22. Anonymous Fake says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      I am tired of responding to you, because you never respond to my positions or my arguments, but just move on as if no one disagreed, and issue a new comment blandly asserting your position, as if there were not a thousand prior posts and prior replies disagreeing.

      Engage the evidence and arguments I present. If you will not engage in any conversation, it is just spam. Respond, damn it! Argue.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Your entire view of the world is about status as a means for reproductive success. This view is consistently obliterated by liberal elites who see family and children as low status. As far as I can see, everything revolves around the schools and the prestige of school districts in the most important ZIP codes. Family and child rearing do not matter at all. Winning wars is worse than pointless.

        We have to make either demographics for Western Civilization matter, or blogging matter. Tearing down Harvard isn’t happening.

        • jim says:

          Nah, “nice schools” is merely code for “schools where young black adults will not beat up my kids”. But they cannot say that, except in code, or even quite think that explicitly, because crimestop. It is not “the most important zip codes”

          It is whites building houses, and then fleeing those houses as hostile aliens drive them out. In the wake of the recent riots, I see the exodus from San Francisco suddenly turning into a flood. Do you think the San Francisco zip codes have suddenly become low status?

          San Francisco kept its blacks under control by thuggish policing, with cooperative black elites looking the other way. And capitalists proceeded to build big shiny towers. And then the black elites stopped looking the other way, and suddenly rent payments on those shiny towers stopped coming in.

          Everything revolves around Ivy league universities, not high status zip codes. People are not fleeing certain zip codes because low status. They are fleeing certain areas because of the likelihood that they will be beaten up or killed, and that should they attempt to defend themselves or their property, they will go to jail for a very long time.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            When children are committing suicide or becoming transsexual (biologically the same thing) because of academic pressure and the desire for prestige, there’s more than “lol blacks” going on here. Their own parents will beat and drug them if it makes them better students, and what the schools actually teach doesn’t matter. Maybe boomers were only interested in playing ignorant about race as a status symbol, but that’s no longer believable. The “good schools” meme has now overgrown its origin, and being stuck in racial conflict is a guaranteed loser move.

            If housing were socialized, then no more extreme school pressure on children. And lots more children. And suddenly, no more racial conflict because the best people start reproducing again. And no burning Harvard required. It would be a bonus, for sure, but not realistic.

            Banking, housing, and voting are the three demons we must slay to secure the existence of our people and a future for our children.

            • jim says:

              Nuts.

              Socialist housing has been done, has been done by leftists repeatedly, over and over again with a variety of excuses with uniformly catastrophic results. Socialized housing means everyone in gigantic public housing hell holes, and we can observe that people in those horrifying hell holes have their children taken from them and subjected to greater social pressure not less, plus violence and rape. If you have your own home, you have more control. If you have public housing, you are powerless, and your enemies cannot restrain themselves from destroying you, your family, and your children.

              Observe any public housing project. Rotherham’s public housing projects come to mind.

              If a man owns his wife, his house, and his garden, he can and will defend it, and the state is reluctant to openly defy his right to defend. If the state owns his housing, he is powerless, and those favored by the state predate on him and his children without restraint.

              Been done, times without number. We know how that one works. Public housing projects wind up as ruins full of women and children without men, because the men have all fled, and no one wants to do repairs and maintenance that someone else can destroy. Compare Hiroshima a generation after it was bombed, with any public housing project a generation after it was built. If a man lives in public housing with his wife, his wife treats him with contempt, because he is powerless and afraid. So he leaves, or she throws him out. And no one takes out the garbage, so it is occupied by rats and cockroaches more than it is occupied by people. Public housing projects start off new and shiny, and swiftly degenerate into post apocalyptic hellscapes, for lack of men able to defend. They wind up ruined worse than housing in Beirut during the civil war.

              After a previous housing debacle, the public housing socialists said to themselves “well that was because the public housing was low status. Let us try luxurious high class public housing for high class people, and make of the housing a magnificent high class art work”. So they built Brasilia. Same result as every other housing project, all the way back to ancient Rome.

              Of all the things to socialize, housing is the most disastrous to socialize. Burns the socialist every time.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                Compare North Korea vs South Korea demographics. South Korea basically does everything right compared to North Korea EXCEPT controlling the cost of housing, and this has resulted in demographic collapse. Sweden is another notorious example of being hopelessly degenerate, but still having higher fertility than most Southern European nations simply because they offer housing to the minority of people who actually want a family.

                And if students in school weren’t put under pressure to perform based on what housing values want, they could learn so much better and their grades could better be tied to future wage demands rather than speculative asset inflation.

                You really seem to have an atheist’s view of school as a replacement for family, rather than as a form of work that deserves compensation. Good students deserve good jobs in honor of their hard work, rather than being abused so their parent’s housing values can appreciate.

                Go figure that South Korea has one of the worst academic cultures in the world too.

                • jim says:

                  South Korea has a TFR of 1.1.

                  North Korea has a TFR of 1.9

                  The difference is not socialist housing, but that communists are more pozzed on economics, hence North Korea is poor while South Korea is rich, while Cathedral dominated countries are more pozzed on women, hence have worse demographics.

                  According to Wikipedia “This demonstrates the degree to which Neo-Confucian ideals still permeate and affect social and political policies. North Korea has not followed China and Vietnam in their campaigns against Confucianism”

                  Thus North Korea is considerably less pozzed that China and Vietnam, and China and Vietnam are less pozzed than South Korea – though not by much.-

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You really seem to have an atheist’s view of school as a replacement for family, rather than as a form of work that deserves compensation.”

                  Fuckoff shill, I went through electrical engineering and worked a lot harder than you (I imagine you did some bullshit social science) and got totally fucked over and couldn’t get a job because of mass immigration (especially H1Bs) the shitty Bush/Obama economy for tech grads and discrimination against white males. I was personally a victim of this but made money anyway eventually… what I want now is revenge. They’ll be plenty of resource to go around if we just helicopter every last shitlib and eliminate 90% of academia (and 90% of academics as well).

                  Its the Cathedral, their stupid economic policies and antiwhite mass immigration policies (and other policies) that keep tech graduates from finding jobs. Trump had also largely solved this problem before he made the mistake of cucking to Fauci.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >he fell for the ‘john dewey school is the only way people could be prepared for life’ meme

                • BC says:

                  Fuckoff shill, I went through electrical engineering and worked a lot harder than you (I imagine you did some bullshit social science) and got totally fucked over and couldn’t get a job because of mass immigration (especially H1Bs) the shitty Bush/Obama economy for tech grads and discrimination against white males. I was personally a victim of this but made money anyway eventually… what I want now is revenge. They’ll be plenty of resource to go around if we just helicopter every last shitlib and eliminate 90% of academia (and 90% of academics as well).

                  Cominator, that may be the best argument you’ve ever made for the “Cominator solution” to the Shitlib question. I didn’t find the idea that that it would result in stable outcomes because Sula’s example shows that it’s not a great solution for long term stability, but for revenge and restitution? That’s an excellent reason.

                  Cue Ride of the Valkyries.

                • ten says:

                  “North Korea has not followed China and Vietnam in their campaigns against Confucianism”

                  This is hilarious. I don’t know the extent of previous “campaigns against confucianism”, but in the present time, chinese cities where kong fuzi did anything at all, such as rested against a rock, has museums with only minimal information in english, thus not intended for tourists. His ideals and philosophy are pushed hard, elevating him to a christlike status but without “superstition”, a scholar and theoretician of power, a teacher and ideal for personal development.

                • jim says:

                  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/01/north-korea-women-sexual-violence-report

                  “The widespread nature of abuse by North Korea officials was documented in a new report by Human Rights Watch that interviewed 54 people who fled North Korea since 2011, the year Kim Jong-un came to power. It took more than two years to amass the stories collected in the report, with subjects interviewed in countries across Asia.”

                  This, of course, undermines the family, but not as much as uncontrolled women undermine the family.

                • ten says:

                  ..And those museums are always included in the subventioned and officially supported one ticket, several museums deals, and have weekly days with free entry as well as around the national week, and make a big deal of confucius effects on chinese psyche as well as idealizing him.

                  Just one of those times where you happen to have knowledge of details and the “wikipedia account” happens to be an inversion of truth.

                • ten says:

                  I am swedish.

                  How does sweden offer housing except to niggers and muslim rapefugees?

                  We have, and have had for decades, acute lack of housing, and draconic regulation against exploitation for housing, just like in san francisco, i hear.

                  We have a sort of price control which is not free from market pricing, but makes it mandatory for white market rent to be in line with rent with similar objects, that is, tying prices between objects together rather than individually pricing them. We also have a massive black market, i have been renting out my big apartment for many years while living in a smaller one.

                  Except for guaranteeing no white family will ever get a rent apartment except through black market, we do not have housing controls.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              I was going to respond in good faith to your post, but something seems off. Housing is such an obvious progressive issue. The concept is important, but the prescriptions given are most times unrelated, making the discussion a smokescreen or diversion. This serves to peel away participants from other, more important discussions. I’ve seen this tactic used to great effect many times. Your hamfisted inclusion of a botched WN catchphrase makes me feel like you are following a chimera script.

              “They’re onto us, Smith! Start combining the scripts! See if that will get by the gatekeeper!”

              Maybe JB is being scoped by the evil eye after all…

              • “Housing” is a word used for objects. “Property” and “Home” are words used for men. A man does not return to his “housing” after a hard day of work. He returns to his home. “Housing” is a sign of a commie mindset.

                • jim says:

                  The word “housing” reveals an intent to round up the masses as slave labor, or just to get them out of the way, and put them in barns for cattle. It reveals hostility to men having wives and children.

                  When a progressive says “Housing” he means that being a husband is child abuse and spousal abuse, and he is coming to burn down your house and have Black Lives Matter beat you up in front of your wife to emasculate you.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Progs do not see family and children as low status; they merely see everything that facilitates family and children as low status, and all sorts of things that debilitate family and children as high status.

          No straight prog boasts that he does not have a girlfriend or that his wife is infertile. Even men married to other men want to have their 0.8 children.

          A straight prog will boast that he has a wife and kids so long as the wife is first a CEO who works 100 hours a week bringing home more money than him, and volunteers for NGOs in her spare time, which in reality means the wife will have no children and may not even have sex with him.

          Lesser progs take a status hit when their wives stop working to have children, which frequently happens once the wife hits 35 and realizes she isn’t going to be a CEO. The prog does not draw attention away from having children at parties, but does draw attention away from his wife not working.

  23. Oscar_Cc says:

    I am a Spanish left-leaning person and it never occurred to me to hate anybody because they have a family. What passes as “left” in America right now is very bizarre, although woke culture is starting to make inroads here as well.

    My chief worries have always been unemployment (very high here traditionally, around 15-20%) and precarious living (it is common to reach 30 and live with your parents), which I think explains quite well the huge dip in fertility we see right now.

    Economic development and hedonism matters, of course, but people would be having more kids if they had more security. I know people irl who would.

    I like to read dissident right blogs because you are very good at dissecting societal ills, but I often get the feeling that you misidentify the culprits of what is going on. I don’t think the influence of Marxist or philo-Marxists in academia is strong enough to account for the current decay.

    I highly recommend this piece in which the myth of “cultural Marxism” is put to rest:

    https://commonruin.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/on-the-myth-of-cultural-marxism/

    Cheers.

    • jim says:

      > people would be having more kids if they had more security. I know people irl who would.

      Lots of countries, and lots of people, and lots of people in Spain, have economic security, and they are not reproducing.

      Most people in Japan have fine economic security, and they are dying out. The one thing that the eastern block economies did provide was economic security. The products were crap, and you had to wait in line ten years, but you were guaranteed economic security. You could not be fired, and you got a job whether you wanted one or not. And they still had collapsed fertility.

      War and peace, boom and bust, rich and poor, have a small and inconsistent effect on fertility.

      The key factor is not economic security, but marital security – that women are forcibly restrained from endlessly cruising for a higher alpha till their beauty and fertility are lost.

      For some of the evidence on the impact of emancipation: The future belongs to those that show up., Fertility and corporal punishment

      > I don’t think the influence of Marxist or philo-Marxists in academia is strong enough to account for the current decay

      You were taught about the holocaust incessantly. What have you heard about the Cambodian autogenocide, the Hungry Ghosts Famine, and the Holodomor?

      When Pol Pot was aligned with the communist block, every single academic everywhere in the entire Western Hegemony supported him and the mass murder that was steadily and rapidly escalating in Cambodia, or at least remained silent while his university supported him, and his students were required to write essays supporting him.

      When communist Vietnam, with the support of Russia and the quiet consent of China, invaded Cambodia to remove Pol Pot, every single academic, everywhere in the entire western Hegemony turned on a dime and denounced Pol Pot as a monster in human form, a madman, and a CIA agent installed in power by Ronald Raygun. I challenge you to find one tenured academic anywhere in the Western Hegemony who criticized Pol Pot before Christmas 1978, nor one tenured academic anywhere who supported him after 1978. Every single one, everywhere, changed his position abruptly overnight, and forgot ever having his previous position.

      Every tenured academic everywhere toed the party line before Christmas 1978, loudly supporting it or quietly submitting to it. The party line abruptly changed overnight on Christmas 1978, and in January 1979, lo and behold, every academic everywhere toed the new party line.

      Similarly, when the origin of species by natural selection was removed from Darwin, and he was given common descent and the tree of life instead, (natural selection has since been reinstated) every biology department everywhere fell into line.

      .

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        Thanks for the answer. I remember studying about Communist atrocities in school, although perhaps with less detail than Nazi ones (history classes were more focused on Spanish history anyways).

        I am perhaps not representative because I have always liked history, and I read a lot (I recall in particular a childhood book of mine in which it said that Pol Pot used to kill people who wore glasses, which as a glass wearer myself was kind of shocking).

        I mentioned economic security because children are more and more K-selected: if you are middle class or UMC you can not afford to reproduce magnanimously and have your children run around poorly dressed like in the past. Not going to happen. Even gypsies are starting to have less children here.

        Of course female emancipation does play a role, no doubt. However I think this fits very well with the liberal-capitalist logic of increasing comsuption and employment to drive wages down… leftists might support it out of misguided egalitarianism but capitalists are the real driving force (women being more conspicuous consumers than men). In the paper I linked to it says that Edward Bernays with his tobacco advertisement campaigns for women had probably more to do with current trends than the Frankfurt school.

        Also my personal situation does play a role as well: I am over 30 and still live with my parents, and will probably stay like that for a while. Since my teenage years I was quite sure I did not want to have children, so it does not bother me particularly, but even if I wanted it would be very difficult to raise them. I am also a de facto incel, so it is even harder.

        About Japan, their long working hours and ruthless exploitation might also explain why they are having less children. What is the point if you can not enjoy being a parent? Once children stop being economic assets like they were in the past, fertility is going to drop, and you have to prop it up via government intervention.

        Also, socialist countries enabled quite draconian measures to rise fertility: Romania banned abortions and East Germany had a higher fertility rate than West Germany if I recall correctly. Soviet fertility dropped a lot due to a lack of housing.

        • Encelad says:

          “However I think this fits very well with the liberal-capitalist logic of increasing comsuption”

          I hear this argument a lot from the left. Why capitalists would benefit from a population bust? It doesn’t make much sense to me. Diapers, toys and children amusement parks are part of economy as well as other stuff

          • gigachad says:

            capitalism means double entry accounting means banks

            psalmistice.com

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            Yes, but I think the DINK (Double Income, No Kids) lifestyle is deemed more profitable. I guess they are counting on the industrial reserve army of the Thirld World to always have people around.

            One of my main problems with libertarians is that I don’t think the Earth would be capable of sustaining 7 billion people with a Western standard of living.

            • Allah says:

              Profitable for whom?

            • jim says:

              If we are able to maintain 1970s technological levels, nuclear power, space travel, and and all that, the earth can support five hundred billion at a western standard of living. If we cannot, fifteen million, maybe thirty million, scratching in the dirt with sticks to plant corn.

            • Javier says:

              I disagree, having kids caused me to spend a lot more money on things than I would otherwise, which has prompted me to leverage more labor and skill to improve my earnings, creating a downstream effect of increased production and consumption.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          No matter what is happening, you can guarantee that there will be someone trying to figure out a way make some value off of it.

          Does not follow as a necessary correlate that they’re the one’s instatiating whatever the happening is, in the first place.

          That is one of those tautological sorts of arguments you frequently find from mid-witted college processed types of leftists; they cleave to applying the magic phrase (‘capitalism did this’, ‘white privilege did this’, ‘systemic racism did this’, and et cetera) to any and every situation, and thus ultimately end up defining the magic phrase in a way that becomes functionally identical with the thing they were supposedly arguing against in the first place (‘white privilege’ becomes white superiority, ‘systemic racism’ become genetic destiny, and so on).

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            In the words of Chomsky:

            “See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic—there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all of the junk that’s produced—that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”

            John Schoeffel (ed.), Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New Press, 2002), p. 176.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              That is exactly what I’m talking about: a classic case of a member of a priestly class projecting what he himself is doing onto another (in this case, people of merchant class).

              The historical phenomena of ‘marxism’ is, itself, in essence, the act of a priestly class asserting that a merchant class rules; and at the same time, minimizing or denying that the priestly class even exists; thus creating a rhetorical blindspot to occupy; an extra layer of insulation from recognition or retaliation as one works to expand one’s power of influence.

              What Chomsky is saying here is what he, himself wishes true. Observe the sotto voce of what he is saying; that it is even possible for disparate peoples to be ‘interchangeable cogs’; id est, to say that there isn’t in fact such a thing as ‘race’.

              But if there is in fact such a thing as race, that there are in fact functional distinctions between different clades of humanoids – that is to say, that evolution is true – then such would always and inevitably be something ‘built’ into ‘capitalism’; the acts of people exercising their judgement to make better decisions, and the most important decisions of all are personnel decisions.

              You find examples of people in business doing all sorts of things; examples of merchant class members being gay, and merchant class members being based. You can find good arguments for why one would be one or the other, with the argument meaning to imply that the merchant class will *tend* to be one or the other. But why do you find all these good arguments existing at the same time then?

              The answer is simple; they aren’t actually ruling. People running corporations dance to whatever tunes they sense. Power is playing, just like everyone else. You see one thing in one place one day, and another thing in another place another day. The lack of coherent thread between disparate actions is exactly what it looks like when someone is a passenger, and not a driver.

              If you have time (and attention span) to spare, i would recommend going through the radishmag archive for further reading on the subject; they have timeless quality.

              https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/democracy-and-the-intellectuals/

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Wow, a blast from the past! I always thought of him as Moldbug light.

                • jim says:

                  Moldbug, but straight to the point.

                • Dave says:

                  2020 is illustrating the Keynesian maxim that impossible sometimes becomes inevitable without passing through improbable. Like the German mark in 1923, liberal democracy is disintegrating before our eyes, plunging into the abyss and taking with it all the stubborn old fools who refuse to abandon a sinking ship. I have a hundred million marks! As soon as prices come back down, I’ll be rich! Next election we’ll vote those bastards out!

                  Keynes also said that in the long run, we’re all dead. “Long run” evidently meant “seventy-four years after my death in the far-distant year 2020”.

              • jim says:

                > What Chomsky is saying here is … that it is even possible for disparate peoples to be ‘interchangeable cogs’;

                Human Resources imposes on management the doctrine that males and females, blacks and whites, are interchangeable cogs, and management resists, even as they supposedly enthusiastically support the doctrine. Perhaps they are doublethinking, perhaps they are lying, but either way, they resist. The engineerettes go into the art harem where they can cause less disruption.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  There is a perverse irony is how new-left types like adorno and habermas and so on, interpreted the increasingly abject capitualtions of any last remaining traces of classic civilization, as some sort of *sinister machiavellian plot* to undermine ‘the revolution’.

                  How do they figure? Well it’s simple; we yet seem to persistently fall short of Achieving Communism of perfect equity, and clearly the problem can’t be *ourselves*, so obviously, there must still be some kulaks luring under the bed somewhere; find more examples to drag out and punch in the throat!

                  The prescription for a failed treatment is to prescribe twice as much, twice as fast.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                Thanks for the recommendation. I think I visited that blog at one point in the past. I will check the essay.

                To me, the gist of Chomsky’s argument is that ruling classes will not stop at anything to make more money, which is what they really care about.

                Proles will be told whatever narrative suits those ruling classes.

                Culturally the ruling classes might virtue-signal “left” but in fact their profits are bigger than ever and the Western middle classes are being gutted.

                Another paradox for you right-wingers. Upper middle classes and striver types, whom you consider “your guys”, might turn out to be your worse enemies, because they ever only care about “getting theirs”, tradition and nation be damned. Charles Murray dissects it quite well in ‘Coming Apart’

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >To me, the gist of Chomsky’s argument is that ruling classes will not stop at anything to make more money, which is what they really care about.

                  Our sovereign underlords and would-be underlords will not stop at anything to gain more status, which is what they really care about.

                  S.C.R.E.A.M.

                  Status Consciousness Rules Everything Around Me

                  The problem is not that you are ruled by mercenaries – that would be a great improvement by comparison – the problem is that you are ruled by status hackers who gain such status by selecting for memes most flattering to the conceits and insecurities of those who would otherwise not be capable of gaining status any other way.

                  We can say it plainly: *it is men like Chomsky who rule your world*. The frailties of the age are their frailties.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Neal Stephenson’s Baroque cycle is among other things a long treatiste on status/power vs money. You really need to contemplate the difference…

                • Not Tom says:

                  The problem is not that you are ruled by mercenaries – that would be a great improvement by comparison – the problem is that you are ruled by status hackers who gain such status by selecting for memes most flattering to the conceits and insecurities of those who would otherwise not be capable of gaining status any other way.

                  I think it may have been Moldbug who originally pointed out that while the prototypical progressive of course believes that he deserves to be paid lavishly for doing God’s work serving the People fighting white supremacy and misogyny and making the world a better place, that is simply a perk; an entitlement. It is not the mission, and indeed the mission is its own reward, but everybody’s gotta eat, right?

                  The modern ruling class is not made up of robber-barons, it is made up of sociopathic status maximizers. The difference between these two is as clear as day, and anyone who claims we are ruled by the former is either blind or dishonest. Life for the common man is generally pretty good and free under robber-barons as long as their taxes are paid up.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          You are a Spaniard and your chief worries have always been unemployment and precarious living, but you’re still left-leaning. How? Tell me in the last 100 years in this country a period where unemployment was virtually zero and so was precarious living. Something ringing a bell?

          You don’t know people irl who would have children if they had more security, you know people who claim that they would have children if they had more security. It’s like the typical chicle of “aguántame que sino le meto”, talk is cheap, perro ladrador, poco mordedor.

          The people here who have the least, the immigrants from South America and the muslims, both have a lot more children. You mentioned the gypsies, but the gypsies are not doing economically worse than they were in the past. They are, however, being influenced by progressivism and thus becoming infertile like everyone who does. If we were to look at the data, what do you want to bet that the average fertility rate is a lot higher among Catholics than UP voters?

          Selling Coke in a Mercadona doesn’t drive down fertility rates, however, viogen laws and LGBT propaganda does, so how come you claim it’s the merchant’s fault for selling Coca-Cola, and not the group of “experts” in academia brainwashing people and telling everyone that being a proper mother and wife is oppression?

          You talk about draconian measures to rise fertility and only mention banning abortions, are you serious? Banning abortions is common sense, human sacrifice of babies is immoral. If that’s draconian to you, I’m not sure you’ve understood anything you’ve read here or you ever will.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            cliche*

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            Well, I try my best to understand… pretty brutal takes in this blog, stuff I have seen nowhere else in the dissident sphere. It certainly makes sense from a pre-modern view, but I am not sure if you guys would really follow this advice with your own daughters or wives or are just LARPing.

            I also have a hard time seeing how you reconcile a modern industrial society with such premodern mindset… “archeofuturism” sounds cool but so far it is just a word. I think Marx was basically correct when he said the material conditions shape ideology, and not the other way around.

            However I have always enjoyed more reading those people whose ideas are opposed to mine. I am a stauch defender of free speech.

            Regarding the points you make, yes, I readily admit progressivism and hedonism do play a role, a big role indeed.

            When I talked about people irl I was thinking about a former female co-worker, which dumped his boyfriend when he became sort of obsessed with having children. She did not have a job at the time and therefore did not take the jump. What do you expect? Yes, women can have children, but as you realists know, high IQ, white people tend to be low time preference and can think ahead. That is what she did.

            If Spain’s unemployment rate was like that of Denmark, more children would be born. Not a baby boom, but more anyways. In the past, children were an ASSET to families. Not anymore, hence, low fertility no matter what.

            And how could I not be left-wing, if the country has turned to the right drastically (ECONOMICALLY) in the last decades for the worse? Francoism had some good things, such as a heavy industrial base which guaranteed stable jobs. We got rid of that under neoliberal premises of becoming a service economy. The center-right PP opened the gates to immigration back in the late 1990s, despite heavy chronic unemployment.

            Right-wing populists such as VOX play with you, but they are all smoke and mirrors. Do they REALLY oppose immigration? Nope, just “illegal” immigration from Muslim countries. Big fucking deal if all of South America can come here. That and the moronic boomer talk about ETA and so on… who cares. The country is doomed, Catalan and Basque nationalists are the least of our worries.

            Finally, abortion: do women abort their babies for fun? Nobody does that. It is draconian to forbid it always. And aren’t you guys in favour of eugenics anyways?? I don’t want retarded children to be born just because the Bible or the Pope says so.

            • jim says:

              > Well, I try my best to understand… pretty brutal takes in this blog, stuff I have seen nowhere else in the dissident sphere. It certainly makes sense from a pre-modern view, but I am not sure if you guys would really follow this advice with your own daughters or wives or are just LARPing.

              I am old, and I used to be fat. If I did not act as I describe, no way would I get laid.

              If Spain’s unemployment rate was like that of Denmark, more children would be born.

              Nuts.

              If we look at variations in fertility over time, boom or bust, war or peace, has marginal effect. Wealth and poverty have marginal effect. Television and government schooling have huge effect – for example we see a gigantic fertility difference between girls that went to Madrassas during puberty, especially around twelve to thirteen, and girls that went to government school.

              Similarly, observe the changes in Japanese fertility. Industrialization and all that. No clear effect. Most of the men away at war. Hardly any effect. McArthur emancipates women, huge effect.

              And similarly, wife beating in movies.

              And it is not only in sexual interactions that I see woman acting the way we describe them. Other people’s daughters cause me problems. Female sexuality disrupts the workplace right in front of everyone’s face, and crimestop prevents people from seeing it. They are always shit testing the boss and co-workers. It is a huge problem, massively disruptive.

              > Marx was basically correct when he said the material conditions shape ideology, and not the other way around.

              We have had very similar leftist holiness spirals before, time after time. Lots of peoples have emancipated their women, and lots of peoples have perished.

              Nature gives women so much power, it is difficult to resist emancipating them. A man can merely kill you, but a woman can make you immortal. Women shit test, and men fail. Emperors with ten thousand concubines and the authority to kill or torture any one of them at will keep having woman troubles, and the empire goes shit under the rule of women. Empires fall to women, and Republics fall to women. Happens all the time. Social decay is nothing new. Everything we do we do for women, and women always lever this in disruptive and self destructive ways, because they want to be taken by the strong man.

              Women spontaneously and instinctively act to weed out the weak. Failure to cooperate makes groups of men weak. Civilizations fall all the time, sometimes Dark Ages happen, progress is not inevitable and natural, it has to be contrived and organized, and organization on a large scale is difficult. Female emancipation is a rather common side effect of the elite defecting against their subjects and each other. Large scale cooperation is not difficult because of women, it is inherently difficult, but women make it harder. Observe how every business goes to shit when women get power in it. That is far from being the only cause of business organizations going to shit, but it is a rather common cause. And our civilization is going to shit. Our tallest buildings were built in the seventies, our best cars not much later. We stopped building tall buildings when we stopped going to the moon. A dark age is coming. Maybe only for the west. Maybe the Chinese will preserve civilization, maybe no one will preserve civilization, maybe we will have another dark age like the fall of the Roman Empire and the Song Empire, or the absolutely terrible dark age that followed the end of the Bronze Age.

              > Finally, abortion: do women abort their babies for fun?

              No, they abort them to shit test the fathers, and they abort them because of the false life plan, that they should pursue a career while answering Jeremy Meek’s booty calls, and a husband, a family, and a garden will magically turn up.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                Thanks for this summary of your views. You have been dealing with these questions for a long time, so you have got a strong case. I am saving the Japanese fertility graphic, hard to argue with that.

                Civilizational decay worries me as well. Really like Spandrell’s concept of the ‘IQ shredder’, which strikes me as correct and of almost impossible solution within liberal capitalism.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Oscar_Cc

                  The BBC link I posted showed Harvard priests admitting that women’s rights and equality was the primary cause of the collapsed birth rate… and yet they insist on pushing forward women’s rights until the society dies.

                • BC says:

                  The Harvard priests know and they celebrate it. In places like India they’re quite open about feminism being implement in order to reduce the birth rate.

            • The Cominator says:

              Opposition to immigration on the far right is genuine but politics is the art of the possible and the far right generally doesn’t have the strength to restrict immigration as much as it likes, Trump has made a lot of progress on this front though far far more than the blackpillers give him credit for.

              Centre-right policies of favoring regulation only when big business wants it + mass immigration also creates mass unemployment.

              True far right policies of a very close to a true free market + immigration restriction (Trump’s national capitalism) all but eliminate unemployment (the covid bullshit is a seperate issue) but they also free the worker by making him less tied to any one job… they give him the option to easily walk across the street. This is truly in the macrocosm pro worker and not pro worker in the false way that the left is pro worker.

              On the left you’ll only find opposition to immigration among Stalinists/tankies who have no power within the modern left.

              • Jehu says:

                Indeed, what actually helps workers is having a significant amount of market power and options as to who to work for. When workers have options and demand for their labor, they have to take far less crap from employers. In addition, guys who wouldn’t get the time of day from employers in a moderate to high unemployment market got interviews and job offers and a chance to better themselves under Trump pre-Covid.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                Yes, sadly the anti open borders case is in decline. I blame corporate pressure. Some lone voices still defend it:

                https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing the decline. The Australian navy has a short way with people on the high seas attempting to illegally immigrate, and the Australian border patrol has a short way with people who overstay their visa or violate the terms of their visa. Trump has just blocked H1Bs, after endlessly tightening up the requirements. The wall is growing longer and is thirty feet of steel and concrete high. The migrants are no longer forming mobs and armies to storm the border.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                I also highly recommended this article:

                ‘Full Speed Into the Void. Why Right-Wing Populists Won’t Save Us.’

                https://news.kynosarges.org/full-speed-into-the-void/

                • jim says:

                  But obviously Trump, who is a right wing populist, could save us, and has taken major steps towards saving us. Unemployment dropped to low levels, at least until Wu Flu, technological advance is showing signs of life (fracking, Musk’s Starship, and Musk’s Starlink)

                  He is not doing anything on the Woman Question or science, but that is because the priesthood still has the upper hand. He is working to undermine Fauci and Global Warming, so he is aware of the problem, and if he becomes Caesar Augustus, will likely take effective action to restore truth to science.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              Well, I try my best to understand… pretty brutal takes in this blog, stuff I have seen nowhere else in the dissident sphere. It certainly makes sense from a pre-modern view, but I am not sure if you guys would really follow this advice with your own daughters or wives or are just LARPing.

              I also have a hard time seeing how you reconcile a modern industrial society with such premodern mindset… “archeofuturism” sounds cool but so far it is just a word. I think Marx was basically correct when he said the material conditions shape ideology, and not the other way around.

              Since you are a self-admitted incel, you ought to try a bit of what we talk about, you’ll be surprised. LARPing would imply we aren’t paying attention to reality and living inside our minds, we however do the opposite. You are more likely to get a woman’s heart beating her than buying her drinks like a simp, it might be hard for you to believe but “abused” women famously never go to the cops, weird that.

              Our mindset isn’t premodern, our mindset is functional and realistic. Our current societies are collapsing and heading towards death, what you call “modern” mindset isn’t modern, it’s suicidal and insane. We’ve lost the social technology that enabled our grandfathers and ancestors to build our countries up to this point, so we are dying. And the more “modern” and “progressive” a country is, the worse it is dying, pay attention to the gabachos that leftists adore so much, literally getting demographically replaced by muslims. According to statistics in two decades we’ll have Francistan to our north.

              The material conditions don’t shape ideology, if they did the savages in the woods would never have left them, but here we are. American leftists always argue that blacks are prone to ghettos because they are poor, well, if being poor made you prone to ghettos no one would have ever stopped being poor. Money doesn’t make you smart or ethical, if anything money is more likely to corrupt people and that”s well known in every European culture.

              When I talked about people irl I was thinking about a former female co-worker, which dumped his boyfriend when he became sort of obsessed with having children. She did not have a job at the time and therefore did not take the jump. What do you expect? Yes, women can have children, but as you realists know, high IQ, white people tend to be low time preference and can think ahead. That is what she did.

              And if she did have a job she wouldn’t have had children, stop kidding yourself.

              If Spain’s unemployment rate was like that of Denmark, more children would be born. Not a baby boom, but more anyways. In the past, children were an ASSET to families. Not anymore, hence, low fertility no matter what.

              So why is Denmark’s TFR as low as ours while Africa’s TFR is through the roof? It obviously has nothing to do with money.

              During Franco’s regime how were children an asset in a way that they aren’t today? People had plenty of children back then, there’s no real reason why they couldn’t have them today.

              And how could I not be left-wing, if the country has turned to the right drastically (ECONOMICALLY) in the last decades for the worse? Francoism had some good things, such as a heavy industrial base which guaranteed stable jobs. We got rid of that under neoliberal premises of becoming a service economy. The center-right PP opened the gates to immigration back in the late 1990s, despite heavy chronic unemployment.

              This is very disingenuous.

              You specifically mention immigration when Zapatero was well known for the Alianza de civilizaciones and Podemos are currently trying to legalize hundreds of thousands of illegals. If you were worried about immigration, you would obviously not be left-leaning. The left is famously known for promoting welfare and immigration, specially if they are from dogshit countries, the worse the pool the more zealous their insistence.

              So far you’ve talked about unemployment, quality of life and immigration. Then if you were coherent you’d be a Francoist, because in the dictablanda we had virtually zero unemployment, young people had easy access to dwelling and big families could survive with just the father’s wage, and of course immigration was controlled, also the country was very safe. All of it coming from a civil war, building the country up from ashes.

              Explain to me how reorganizing the economy through government action and regulation is a “right-wing policy”? The ideology that publicly wants central regulation of everything is socialism. Explain to me how could you claim that the country has headed towards the right in the last decades when before the 80s we lived under the “evil” far right Franco? Obviously the country has been heading left, not right. The country was right-wing with Franco’s lead and it was doing better in every measure proportionally speaking. Also, PP isn’t right wing since Fraga at the very least if they ever were, they are neocons and neocons are Trotskyites pretending to be right-wingers. When Rajoy had absolute majority, did he lower taxes? Did he remove regulations or simplify entrepreneurship? Did he annul gay marriage or abortion laws? Did he remove any of Zapatero’s policies? No, he didn’t, not right-wing. Every time they win PP works to maintain and conserve socialism and nothing else. PSOE pushes for it, PP makes sure we eat it for life.

              Right-wing populists such as VOX play with you, but they are all smoke and mirrors. Do they REALLY oppose immigration? Nope, just “illegal” immigration from Muslim countries. Big fucking deal if all of South America can come here. That and the moronic boomer talk about ETA and so on… who cares. The country is doomed, Catalan and Basque nationalists are the least of our worries.

              For the record, I haven’t voted for Vox yet because I had my doubts about Abascal, considering he is a career politician who belonged to PP. But I will vote for him next elections since he is the only one who wasn’t in agreement with coronavirus fake hysteria gulag lockdowns that have plunged Spain into absolute misery and served for nothing, in 3 months tops we are going to see a lot of our countrymen suffer abject povert.

              But if your worries are immigration, PSOE and Podemos want to bring every African here very openly, you know it perfectly well. Personally if we are talking about Vox I’m a lot more interested in their economic policies though, I’m tired of paguitas and overbloated bureacracy. And if you end paguitas (welfare) immigration is likely to plummet to residual anyway.

              Finally, abortion: do women abort their babies for fun? Nobody does that. It is draconian to forbid it always. And aren’t you guys in favour of eugenics anyways?? I don’t want retarded children to be born just because the Bible or the Pope says so.

              Yes, they do it for fun in a way. They kill their babies so they can keep whoring around, but they are actually worse than whores, decent whores don’t really need abortions (how many contraceptives of easy access exist today?). And whether they do it for fun or not is irrelevant, killing babies because of irresponsibility is evil. How is it draconian to forbid murder?

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                Very thorough critique, I am a bit overwhelmed. Lots of things to unpack here.

                >Starting with abortion, I probably expressed it the wrong way, I meant that it is draconian to ALWAYS forbid it (as in every possible situation: rape, retardation, etc), just because of religion. I of course do not think abortion should be “just another” contraceptive method. I think only some psycho women abort without giving it a second thought.

                >Regarding the economy and immigration, yes, the mainstream Spanish left wants open borders because they are naive and completely beholden to humanitarianism, something which I am not.

                However, do you thing the Murcian people who voted for VOX are willing to really prevent Maroccans from working for peanuts in their greenhouses? Hehe no way. Check this Twitter thread in Spanish from a VOX supporter. He says there are “neoslaves” in the fields. The day VOX endorses something like this I will start taking them seriously:

                https://twitter.com/fray_fanatic/status/1261269979275632642

                >Regarding Franco, it is very hard to have a serene debate due to the passions he inspires. I think he was a cunning man, who unlike other dictators was aware of his limitations and ultimately able to defer to technocrats who knew better (unlike Hitler raging at his generals). There are salvageable parts of his legacy (although his fanaticism is partially responsible for the alienation of Catalans and Basques, but that is another issue), which the Socialists irresponsibly dismantled in the 1980s to join the EU [although people wanted this, according to my father, I don’t think voters can be left off the hook]. Good article on this:

                https://www.larazoncomunista.com/post/el-robo-del-patrimonio-nacional-espa%C3%B1ol-durante-la-transici%C3%B3n-privatizaci%C3%B3n-y-desindustrializaci%C3%B3n

                People had more children back during the 1970s then because social mores don’t change overnight, it takes time (demographic transition). However there was a noticeable drop. My grandparents only had 3 kids, while my grandmother had 10 siblings.

                >Zapatero became an obsession for the right, mad that he managed to defeat them back in 2004 when they thought they had the election in the bag. Still mad about it, hilarious. He was a normal president. Not great, not so bad as it is often painted. Lots of woke stuff pushed into law (gay marriage, feminism…) but that was coming anyways. Spanish public debt back in 2010 was among the lowest ones in Western Europe.

                Yes, he regularized immigrants… who previously Aznar had let in. What do you expect, to have them as second-class citizens? Segregation does not work, as South Africa and the American South knows. Eventually it becomes untenable. Greed for cheap labor has proven to be a bane for white peoples, not commie agitation, which does come later.

                >And finally my incel status. It is partly due to my own fault, because when I was younger (around 30 now) I did not make much of an effort to meet girls, lift weights, diet, etc. I thought it would “just happen” but of course for us men it does not. Around 2016 and following years I digested a lot of manosphere literature, also found the alt-right and NRx. Mind-blowing stuff. As I said, I greatly enjoy contrarian takes, they are stimulating.

                I put some things in practice and managed to get my first relationship going, with an older woman. Did not last long. She kept talking to me about her ex, I guess she was what manospherians call an “alpha widow”. Anyways, I could experience some intimacy, since until then I had only had paid-for sex, which is fun but sort of empty.

                Right now I am taking anti-depressants and my libido has crashed. In a way, it is a liberation, because I can’t be bothered to go out and socialize. My introversion has increased, I did not mind the Covid-19 quarantine at all. Talking to people has become increasingly tedious for me, maybe as a side effect from the drugs.

                I don’t think I will hunt much for sex in the future. I used to post at Rollo Tomassi’s site, and the commenters always asserted the importance of dominance, taking the lead, etc. The ‘Xsplat’ guy does the same in his blog.

                I am not so sure if I want to really do that. For me sex is a sort of bodily function, something to do in order to relax and get off, nothing else. Choking a girl, spanking her, the dirty talk…. it does not register at all with my tastes.

                Also, I have never felt I “need” a significant other, unlike the usual incels that bemoan a lot their loneliness. I am just sad that I missed having sex with young girls, but not particularly worried about being “forever alone”. More men than ever are going to stay single, so friendships will be easy to make in the adult age, unlike in the past.

                I keep browsing the manosphere from time to time as a hobby, and mainly for the stuff related to politics. Also to help people that might be going through the same pain I went back in the day.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  > Segregation does not work, as South Africa and the American South knows. Eventually it becomes untenable.

                  Beware the dangers of the passive voice. ‘Segregation’ worked great for sud efrika and antebellum american, and it’s termination observably precipitating progressive degeneration when one compares before and after. But that of course begs the question: who? Who terminated it?

                  It was the power of outside parties that worked for the downfall of these places – as they work for the downfall of all places where incipient forces of order threaten or proliferate into higher organized forms. All grassroots are astroturf, every successful ‘insurgency’ in history succeeded through the patronage of a more internationally powerful actor covering their bases; and when the astroturf fails, they just send in the bombers directly anyways (such as Libya for example; not even an decade out and already falling down the memory hole).

                  The solipsistic subversive always speaks of it’s actions in terms of disembodied ‘forces of history’, to disguise the fact that he and others like him are causative agents of such calamities.

                  “My fellow infidels, you need to surrender to my-, i mean, we need to surrender to the people’s demands, or else i will whip up-, i mean, or else a mob of bandits will spontaneously appear out of the aether, and burn down your house and beat up your wife and children.”

                • iov says:

                  Ireland recently legalized abortion via referendum. The campaign in favor of this referendum was filled with shocking tales of women with ectopic pregnancies as the result of their brother raping them and the like. The actual result of the legalization? In one year, Irish doctors murdered 6,666 unborn people. Of these, twelve were for medical reasons. Three, count ’em three (3) of these were emergency procedures.

                  https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/total-of-6-666-abortions-carried-out-under-new-legislation-last-year-1.4292507

                  As for these womens’ motivations, others have already covered it in sufficient detail. They don’t feel properly possessed, is the short of it. The rest of meaningless twaddle.

                  I’m particularly amused that you think your story about your friend being dumped by his gf is anything but a validation of the views expressed on this blog. In a functioning state, Big Alpha (the state) would have backed up her husband’s authority over her or even just not gotten in the way, she would have happily gotten on her back and spread her legs for his seed, and would not be a wife and mother. This is a preferable outcome to whatever actually became of her.

                  >immigration
                  If you don’t support open borders, you’re not left wing. You can call yourself left wing all you want, but you will end up like Kerensky still insisting that he’s a *real* communist from the Hoover Institute in 1955.

                  >antidepressants, no sex drive, etc
                  Some quacks who didn’t have sufficiently steady hands to make a living murdering children to allow whores to indulge in antisocial behavior yet not connected enough to propagate hysterical lies about fake epidemics are dosing you up with drugs like a battery chicken in order to suppress the natural, normal response to your society’s failures. Stop taking them. Unless, of course, you don’t mind being a battery chicken. Someone’s gotta lay them eggs.

                  >People had more children back during the 1970s then because social mores don’t change overnight, it takes time (demographic transition). However there was a noticeable drop. My grandparents only had 3 kids, while my grandmother had 10 siblings.
                  And if Spain continued to have 3.0 children per women, they would be fine. I’m an optimistic moderate: I think some basic female education is fine, and even good, despite the forseeable result of lowered, but not far sub-replacement, fertility.

                  You country can do well with a TFR of 3.0, just like I can fairly responsibly spend $500 a month on frivolous entertainment. I cannot, however, responsibly spend $50,000 a month on these things. Likewise, your country (actually, no country) can maintain itself with a TFR of 1.3. It will cease to exist, or become a slave.

                  >Lots of woke stuff pushed into law (gay marriage, feminism…) but that was coming anyways. Spanish public debt back in 2010 was among the lowest ones in Western Europe.
                  You keep using the passive voice. Globohomo wasn’t “pushed into law”, people pushed it into law, and those people have names and addresses. And your president was one of them. Even in the US, which is poz central, it is not a coincidence that e.g. faggot “marriage” was legalized under Obama rather than under the quite milquetoast Bush.

                • European Mutt says:

                  Longtime lurker, but this post has finally pushed me to contribute here.

                  Oscar, your post here is unfortunately just a prime example of how almost all “trve” left wingers in Europe fulfill exactly the role that cuckservatives fulfill in the US. Sure, gay marriage “really doesn’t help” gays, but it’s “coming anyways”, so just go ahead and implement it. It is a losing strategy. Never-ending tactical retreat. Doesn’t work. Only marginally better than “prog conservatives” like Merkel or Rajoy.

                  This shows who is in the driver’s seat. It’s the “woke” people. You are just a few feet behind them in the rear, you occupying the left seat, cuckservatives occupying the right, Mekel being in the front passenger seat.

                  Just like cuckservatives whine about the decline of family values (that have not existed since the 60s) so do European “totally-not-woke” leftists whine about the neoliberal conspiracy that supposedly according to your narrative has transformed high-public-spending, high-regulation countries like Greece or France into night watchman states. It gives both groups an imagined reason to exist. The reality looks very different. Public debt has gone up, welfare has been extended to more groups and there are now more recipients than ever in most countries, the EU has tightened the regulatory noose and so forth.

                  This is not meant personally against you. In fact, you are probably a smart guy and I went through a phase where was much like you politically speaking. But do use your smarts and take a look at whether your theory fits reality once in a while.

                  Also, what exactly is your goal? Have a large(r) social welfare state? Build worker cooperatives? Soviet style socialism? Do you suffer from the same syndrome Jim talks about in this very post? Wanting to immanetize the echaton but no idea what it will look like? I had a goal almost two decades ago — a moneyless, classless society. I gave up on that dream once I realized that most people are incorrigible shortsighted assholes, probably worse than most animals, that cooperation is hard, and civilization is even harder (I’m an extrovert and still like most people I meet even arabs, afghans and niggers, but everyone is usually just out for his own gain and you gotta recognize that.). Now after a few stints with increasingly less mainstream and less cathedralized theories that all failed after prolonged contact with reality I’m finally going with what has worked for millennia and striving to go back to that.

                  A few words about slavery: Slavery is bad. It makes neither economic nor civilizational sense. But your Moroccans in Spain harvesting tomatos came to Spain on rickety wood or rubber boats or were maybe even shipped there officially by NGOs. They were not forced to come to Spain AND they get a wage. It may not be much but apparently it beats staying in Morocco. Of course if I had my way they wouldn’t be there but at least they are not mooching welfare in Germany. What exactly would YOU do with them? Deport them (back to Morocco of course) or put them on welfare? Somehow I suspect the latter, which would hardly be an improvement over the current state of affairs. At least the way it is now we get cheaper tomatoes 🙂

                  I’ll give you two real examples of slavery in our society: a) Alimony, b) Child support (especially if the kids aren’t even yours which is usually the case). I am too lazy to look it up but I’m pretty sure there are more men enslaved by payments like this per capita in the west than there are inmates in Chinese labor camps in proportion to the Chinese population.

                  Lastly, I would recommend you drop the pills. Eat less carbs, no sugar, more olive oil which you should have in spades in Spain and possibly more red meat. This will help against your depression (they even admit that on government TV now in Europe) and get your testosterone up which will help you appreciate more the thrill of chasing a woman (but no man is always up for it, it’s normal, it’s a feat of mental strength). I’m gonna appeal to you as a leftist here: Do you really trust Big Pharma to have your best interests at heart?

              • Sam says:

                “Yes, he regularized immigrants… who previously Aznar had let in. What do you expect, to have them as second-class citizens? Segregation does not work, as South Africa and the American South knows. Eventually it becomes untenable. Greed for cheap labor has proven to be a bane for white peoples, not commie agitation, which does come later.”

                -India has entered the chat-

            • Javier says:

              The example you describe of a girl dumping a boyfriend because he wanted kids is the exact phenomenon described by Jim over and over again. She dumped him not because she did not want kids but because she did not want HIS kids. (Whatever excuse she said was bullshit. Classic rationalization hamster). She would rather skate from dick to dick in the hopes of eventually landing on an alpha than settle for a normal dude.

              When Jeremy Meeks says he wants to raw dog your girlfriend she does not say “but I don’t want kids,” she bends over.

              In the Jim world there would be no girlfriends, there would only be virgins and wives. Your coworker would not have the option of leaving her husband, and so would accept her only shot at children and end up another happy mother.

              I have a daughter and I would absolutely love a world where I could arrange for her to marry one of my friend’s sons, instead of sending her off to school to be taught how to put a condom on a banana, have anal sex, and all sorts of other depravity, while jumping from thug to thug collecting mulatto bastards and welfare checks while disfiguring her body with tattoos and piercings.

              • Dave says:

                Tell your daughter that you expect her to marry a decent guy (if she doesn’t know any, you’ll introduce her) and start having babies by age twenty, and if she doesn’t, you’ll sell everything, move to the Philippines, and start a new family there. Wife, whore, or nun, sweetie, pick one!

                My daughter has her heart set on “nun”, but she’s yet to meet a sexually mature male not related to her.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                You are a rara avis then. What I see everywhere is boomer parents spoiling their daughters to no end.

                I often talk to my parents about this kind of stuff I read online and they are appalled by it.

                In fact my own mother, who is quite traditional and submissive, tells me that growing up she always knew she had to make her own money and not depend on a husband. We are talking about somebody born in 1950s Francoist Spain and brought up quite rigorously by an authoritarian father.

            • James says:

              You’re saying, “I also have a hard time seeing how you reconcile a modern industrial society with such premodern mindset.”

              The reason you feel that way is because you’re wrong about this:
              “I think Marx was basically correct when he said the material conditions shape ideology, and not the other way around.”

              This is plainly untrue: Countries with what you call “premodern” mindset are in fact typically “modern” mindsets, with prevailing mindsets being “postmodern” mindsets.

              Modernity and industrialization did not reduce birthrights significantly, nor did ideology significantly change except the ideology around trade.

              However, once leftism shifted far enough to create feminism, birthrates began to decline. Once it shifted to third wave feminism, birth rates essentially disappeared. Ergo, ideology shaped material conditions.

              We also see this in Marxist societies; ideology starves people, and thus ideas create a material condition.

              It’s true that some ideologies can’t exist without certain material conditions, such as feminism in its current form can’t exist without widespread availability of birth control. However, birth control didn’t cause feminism; societies without feminism have coexisted with effective birth control.

              There is the flaw in your thinking. You see a deterministic relationship flowing from material conditions to ideology. In reality, the chain of causality mostly flows the other way, and even that chain is slow and tenuous in many cases. Until you rectify that error, you will not understand us.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                I think I understand you, your view is idealist, ideas create reality. Fine, but not my approach.

                I am not deterministic, but think that economics > ideology. That is, that you have to look first for the material things. Philosophy begins in Greece when a bunch of freemen get free time because slaves do the work for them.

                Now, of course modernity and industrialization did not change social mores overnight… but the seed had been planted. In fact, I credit NRx with having given me a perspective of how social change happens over a long time cycle.

                The first feminists appear in the late 18th century. Stuart Mill already defends them in the mid 19th century, by the end of which female New Zealanders can vote…

                If Afghanistan started industrializing and getting richer, how long would they keep patriarchy? Hasn’t Iran’s birthrate plunged despite them being a legit theocracy?

                I have to confess, it bemuses me to see how on the one hand capitalism is the naturally right-wing economic system, but on the other hand it does destroy the very things right-wingers cherish the most: family, tradition, religion.

                Again, not overnight. Probably you guys want to go back to 1800 or so, the mythical Jeffersonian ideal. But it is just a matter of time. I saved this remark years ago from some blog (sadly lost the source), and it is one the pithiest takes I have seen on this:

                “I can’t really get behind the American pride thing either. The way I see it is that the U.S was doomed to faggotry and probably even founded on anti-authoritarian, egalitarian cuckoldry mixed with merchant desires since Jamestown. The most individualistic people of the most individualistic European nation (England) left everything that they were and everything that bore them, their blood and soil, to sell fucking tobacco. Our revolution was over taxes on fucking stamps and tea. This is not a nation and it never was. It was a business venture and it still is. Rewind to 1776 and you will end up right here every time with statements like “all men are created equal” and the Constitution governing your ethos.”

                • James says:

                  You’re close, but you’re missing the mark of understanding me.

                  I’m stating that while material conditions are necessary in order for ideologies to exist (such as, as I put it, “feminism at it exists now” and effective birth control), the mere existence of that technology does not necessarily lead to any particular ideology. It merely opens the door.

                  However, ideology, much like a virus, spreads where the host is not immune. China, for instance, does not have feminism as we understand it today, not really; yet they’re technologically more or less on par with us. Why? Because they are inoculated against Western-style feminism. They learned from our mistake, just as we will learn from our mistake.

                  This hasn’t saved their birthrates, but there are over a billion Chinese, and overpopulation was a much greater concern for them than almost anything else until very recently.

                  Contrast that with the American tradition of voting, holiness competitions, and revolution. We had essentially no chance to resist feminism, but that was because of the existing configuration of our society and our general lack of knowledge about where our ideologies could go in the common population.

                  With regards to where we would like society to go, I don’t want to go back to, 1800. By the time you let people vote, you’ve gone too far. Men will almost inevitably vote to give women the right to vote, and women in turn will inevitably vote leftist.

                  I completely agree with your quote, by the way. The American Revolution was a mistake. Most of us here at Jim’s blog would agree with that.

                  I dliske conversation about “going back”, because you can’t go backwards. The question is in what direction will we go forward. The answer would ideally be decentralized, hierarchical patriarchal authoritarianism, what Jim calls Freehold for short. It has proven to be one of the most stable and prosperous methods of organizing societies the world has seen.

                  It is inevitable that it eventually turns into something else, of course, but the same is true of any other form of social organization. Around 1AD, much of Europe was democratic, or had elements. By 1000AD, there were almost no democracies or Republics to speak of.

                  The reality is that the world is dynamic, and things change. We are nearing the end of the life of liberal democracy in the West. The question is, will it turn into a hellhole of Marxist/SJW anarcho-tyranny and then descend into stone age tribalism, or will it turn into Freehold, where men who are both good and capable are rewarded with a wife, a house, and a garden?

                • Sam says:

                  The problem with the American Revolution is they didn’t install a king. If they did that, it would have been treasonous, but not damning. Of course the revolutionaries sucked up to high status bullshit from England to justify their treason and that was all about tearing down monarchy… well, you end up here.

                  “Philosophy begins in Greece when a bunch of freemen get free time because slaves do the work for them.”

                  That doesn’t parse. In societies with less slave labor, the lower classes do the work and the upper class have free time. Slaves are no different then population growth for freeing up time for intellectual labor.

                  “Hasn’t Iran’s birthrate plunged despite them being a legit theocracy?”

                  The Nrx position is that democracies are theocracies veiled behind bullshit so no, being an open theocracy wouldn’t help Iran. The problem with theocracies is the priests compete for power by coming up with new bullshit which justifies more power for the priesthood (and thus gets priests to support the bullshitter).

                  ” The way I see it is that the U.S was doomed to faggotry and probably even founded on anti-authoritarian, egalitarian cuckoldry mixed with merchant desires since Jamestown.”

                  The South was settled by the descendants of royalists who fled during the English Civil war. The Appalachians were settled by the border-reavers from the English/Scottish border. The faggotry and egalitarianism is New England, Middle Colony bullshit.

                  Southerner were so dominated by merchant desires that they invited in Jews to take care of merchant work for them; until the 19th century South Carolina was the state with the most Jews.

                • jim says:

                  If Afghanistan started industrializing and getting richer, how long would they keep patriarchy? Hasn’t Iran’s birthrate plunged despite them being a legit theocracy?

                  Iran’s birthrate plunged as it deindustrialized, not as it industrialized. Similarly, industrialization had no impact on Japan’s fertility. It’s birthrate remained high until women were emancipated.

                  Women have been emancipated before, they have been unemancipated before, usually when barbarian warriors on horseback conquer the place. Women in America will be unemancipated again, possibly when we are the priesthood, possibly when Somali descended Muslim warlords conquer us.

        • jim says:

          > Of course female emancipation does play a role, no doubt. However I think this fits very well with the liberal-capitalist logic of increasing consumption and employment to drive wages down…

          Capitalists were forced to hire women for jobs for which they are unsuited. It is an invisible struggle in every business between management and human resources. When, in 1945, they stopped forcing them, women lost men’s jobs en masse.

          In America, the further you go from Harvard, physically, socially and organizationally, the less you see women getting men’s jobs. What happened in 1945 shows that this is not what capitalists want.

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            Yes, women in general are not that worried about equality. I have always seen feminists as the female equivalent of male nerds… with the difference that male nerds don’t expect Joe Sixpack to give up sportsball and start reading philosophy, while feminists want regular women to embrace an “empowered” lifestyle most don’t care about. If you are a girl with intellectual ambitions it is hard not be attracted by feminism.

            I usually recommend this article in which an orthodox Marxist critiques the idea of a creeping “cultural marxism”, I think you will find if of interest:

            https://commonruin.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/on-the-myth-of-cultural-marxism/

            • Javier says:

              There’s no big mystery here: Marxists lie. They just lie and lie and lie. They give themselves moral license to do so because they see their cause as just. It is Pious Fraud.

              Marxists have always declared “We are not doing what we are clearly and observably doing. It is a thought crime to point out our actions to us.” This continues until the marxist achieves their goals, at which point it doesn’t matter anymore, because they won and you are dead.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews

              Herbert Matthews was a New York Times journalist who interviewed Che and Castro after they had been defeated and forced into exile. Matthews declared they are not communist, they are anti-communist:

              “[His] program is vague and couched in generalities, but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic, and therefore anti-Communist.”

              Noticing equating Castro with FDR’s New Deal, which was also observably communist. Matthews knew full well this was a lie. Then when Castro took power, whoops, he was a communist after all.

              Dude, they just fucking lie. It’s what they do.

              • Oscar_Cc says:

                Well, I think you can make the argument that everybody lies. Marxists, Jews, Muslims (taqqiya), Protestants, etc.

                Don’t American rightists also lie when they talk about a grandiose ‘Western civilization’ while those same Americans back in WW1 would be calling Germans “huns” and banning German inside the US? So much for ‘Western civilization’ lol

                And don’t get me started on how unfairly Spain was smeared back in 1898 to get thrown out of Cuba.

                The thing is, the Right lies just like the Left, or better yet, projects identities into the past that never existed or only in the minds of a few people. The ‘white’ category is one of them. Not saying it is irrelevant, just that it is ahistorical.

                Fidel Castro was not a committed communist from the get-go, only his brother Raúl was. He was first and foremost a Cuban nationalist, and remained so until his death. Note how the Cuban flag and coat of arms is not communist per se, and how both are used by the Cuban expats in Miami.

                Cuban elites embraced communism because it meant saying ‘fuck you’ to the US, their oppressor. Eastern Europeans despise communism because it was the ruling ideology of Russia, their oppressor.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If you are talking about Western civilization and WW1 you are using the war which fractured and destroyed it as an example of why it never really existed.

                  I DO NOT think you are a shill or are being deliberately disingenuous but this is a bad argument. As for smaller wars they happen sometimes and demonizing the enemy is the nature of war.

                • Allah says:

                  The Western right lies constantly, but your examples are really bad. A much better example is how Western right wingers for decades kept saying how they weren’t racist or sexist. What they should’ve done instead is reject those words outright for being unrepresentative of reality and used for political purposes.

                • Sam says:

                  “Cuban elites embraced communism because it meant saying ‘fuck you’ to the US, their oppressor.”

                  1) The United States wasn’t oppressing the Cuban people.

                  (wiki)According to the International Labour Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world’s eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than some European nations.

                  Most of the companies were owned and run by Americans so yes, the United States was preventing Cuban elites from oppressing the Cuban population; a situation Castro rectified.

                  2) Communism isn’t how you go ‘fuck you Uncle Sam’- see Iran.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You’re using the leftist definition of “the Right”.

                  The left is memetically centralized through the Cathedral. The right isn’t. To a leftist, the right is all one single entity – has to be, because that’s what the left is, so it makes sense. But rightists are out of power, and being out of power means no common belief system or command and control structure.

                  If you are on the left, you are either a progressive, a Marxist, or both. The field that progressives and Marxists refer to as “the right” includes Republicans, conservatives, whigs, white nationalists, Christian nationalists, civic nationalists, libertarians, propertarians, ancaps, and all sorts of other groups who don’t really talk to each other and largely hate each other. Ironically, it tends not to include reactionaries, royalists or classical Tories because progressives and Marxists cannot even comprehend the idea of a framework operating outside the democratic frame or the liberal progress narrative.

                  The point is, Republican chickenhawks are not “the Right”, they are literally controlled by the left (the Cathedral). “Right-wing populists” are not literally controlled by the left, but are still memetically controlled by the left because they define themselves in terms of their opposition to left-wing ideology which is constantly changing. All of these groups you’re referring to are not part of a legitimate “Right”, they are cutouts of the same Cathedral that uses them to force voters into one of two preselected narratives: progressivism (the preferred narrative) or retro-progressivism (status quo or status quo ante). The latter is supposed to be unattractive and low status, so it is seeded with preposterous ideas like trooferism, MRA and pan-white identity.

                  Here, you’re not talking to people who belong to either group, so arguments about how “the Right also lies” are pointless. There is no “the Right”, and what passes for the right does not lie because it lacks the power to propagate a lie; it is simply confused, misinformed and often stupid. As far as we are concerned, there is the reaction/NRx memeplex, there are various offshoots of the NRx memeplex that have been corrupted by leftism (like the alt-right), there are normies and NPCs who blindly follow one denomination the state religion, and there are priests of the state religion of progressivism.

                  Now that you understand how the spectrum looks to us, can you see why your questions and critiques don’t make sense to us? They only make sense when you accept the categories handed to you by the prog priesthood.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Wignats are functionally part of the left at least 90% of the time their job is to make real rightists toxic to normies.

                • jim says:

                  Nah, not 90%.

                  Spencer and the rest are fine.

                  But 90% of Wignat activity is FBI shills.

                • Fred says:

                  But 90% of Wignat activity is FBI shills.

                  The other 10 per cent are retards.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  The ones that are actual wignats, are smarter, handsomer, and more manly than average. Coherent dissent selects for smart people. Bioleninism appeals to losers, (everyone is equal, and anyone who is ahead needs to be beaten up and lose his stuff and his status) hence its adherents tend to be physically ugly women and physically weak men, thus taking a strong position against biolenism tends to select for smart men, strong men and attractive women.

                  Our ideas select for smarter people than they do, (natural selection, game theory, and evolutionary psychology requires reasonable smarts) but the wignats do pretty well.

                  Used to be that progressivism required the terribly clever ability to cleverly rationalize no end of mutually contradictory beliefs, so tended to select for smarts, but now they have given up on that, so it now selects for people too stupid to notice or worry that the beliefs are contradictory. Hence the spectacular collapse in the intellectual level of Harvard undergrads.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Spencer and the rest are fine.”

                  Spencer glows.

                  Jared Taylor is alright but he calls himself a white advocate not white nationalist.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing that Spencer glows, but then I have not been paying much attention to him. Link to some glowing stuff of his.

                • The Cominator says:

                  1. Endorses socialism.

                  2. Never run into any trouble with twitter.

                  3. Literally lived in Langley.

                  4. The media makes him “the face of the alt-right” after the election despite most of the chans having barely heard of him.

                  His families business seem to be immune to calls for cancellation and I read but cannot currently find that one of his wives was an NGO person…

                  Based on all this look likes he glows to me.

                • jim says:

                  That is impressively convincing

                • The Cominator says:

                  Can’t confirm Langley anymore either I swear I saw it but it now merely says Arlington Virginia (but they are only 6 miles apart apparently).

                  The NGO may have been some girlfriend of his or something I can’t find much on it. The other stuff is all 100% true.

                • Javier says:

                  P. sure I have seen Spencer on CNN panels, whereas someone as innocuous as Steven Crowder or Stefan Molyneaux would never get close. The left only allows controlled opposition on their shows.

                • Fred says:

                  The ones that are actual wignats, are smarter, handsomer, and more manly than average.

                  Wignats are fat losers who are pozzed on women and pozzed on economics, inter alia (how many of them are/were pozzed on coronavirus?). There are very few wignat Moldbug fans (although this is probably true by definition – if you’re a Moldbug fan, hard to call yourself a wignat) so they’re pozzed on government as well.

                  Is there anything wignats aren’t pozzed on?

                • jim says:

                  > Wignats are fat losers who are pozzed on women and pozzed on economics,

                  Nuts

                  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Adailystormer.su+whores

                  Entrists are pozzed on women

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  ‘My fellow members of the academy, i hate those rednecks and neonazis just as much as you do; in fact, i hate them twice as much as you do, even!’

                • The Cominator says:

                  P-C I hate MOST of them because they are consistently useful to the enemy and not all that loyal to Trump.

                • Fred says:

                  Jim: The only time wignats aren’t pozzed is when they’re not being wignats (eg. Anglin’s outstanding piece defending Harvey Weinstein. That’s great, but “wignats are great when they’re not being wignats” isn’t much of an endorsement.

                  I think maybe we have different definitions of “wignat”.

                • jim says:

                  I think you see wignats when I see entryists.

                  National Socialism was a disastrous idea, albeit a lot less disastrous than Trotsky’s full on Pol Potism, but the guys you complain about are explaining that National Socialism, rightly understood, sounds strangely similar to Marxism, much like the Christcucks finding a seventeen century old basis for the 2008 position on women.

                  They preach the third positionist line, not the national socialist line, and all third positionists are on someone’s payroll, always have been, always will be. Every third positionist is a hostile entryist to the right and on the payroll of the left, just as every Gnostic is a hostile entryist to Christianity.

                  But the ideology is not the tell, because stupid people genuinely have stupid ideologies. The tell is that they will not deviate from the script that they have been assigned. Stupid people are not robots, and genuinely crazy people are even less robotic. These people are scripted and robotic.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I always get the sense that Jim has a different definition of “wignat” from many of us, possibly due to a lower level of interaction – we probably follow a number of different blogs/chans/communities and while I’ve seen Jim comment on other people’s blogs, it stands to reason that he’s primarily focused on his own pursuits (as everyone should be).

                  At some point the No True Scotsman argument just ceases to be believable. If 90% of wignats are enemy shills, then wignats are enemy shills. Although in reality many of us have actually watched dumber people “convert” to wignat ideology – people who used to be some flavor of conservative or alt-lite – by progressively ignoring or excusing its many contradictions and becoming ever more stubbornly convinced of stupid nonsense like “democracy and female emancipation are consequences of technology and industrialization” or “Jews are the cause of porn and the reason we can’t get laid by beautiful Aryan virgin princesses”.

                  Effectively, the wignat movement is the product of (a) uncorrected cuckservative assumptions about the natural order, (b) racial resentment that is frequently but not always justified, and (c) relentless enemy propaganda about how everything they hate is actually because of capitalism (with Jews sometimes used as a stand-in for capitalism).

                  At least in my observation, it is not what Jim thinks it is – which is some generic combination of race realism, anti-Holocaustianity and an appreciation for European greatness. That’s what WN 2.0 was presumably intended to be, but it took no time at all to degenerate back into WN 1.0, which is little more than the inchoate and incoherent expression of impotent Amerimutt rage. Rage that is totally justified but also totally unfocused, making it extremely easy for the enemy to co-opt. And co-opt it they do.

                • jim says:

                  > At least in my observation, it is not what Jim thinks it is – which is some generic combination of race realism, anti-Holocaustianity and an appreciation for European greatness. That’s what WN 2.0 was presumably intended to be, but it took no time at all to degenerate back into WN 1.0,

                  Not seeing it. If it is not on Daily Stormer, where is it? If Daily Stormer is not wignat, then there are no wignat blogs, not wignat community, no wignat organizations, no wignat groups, no wignat forums. There are people posting into other people’s groups and communities, saying “Hail fellow misogynistic cisgendered white male. Orange man bad!”

                  If real Wignats existed, you would be able to point at a blog, an organization, a forum, or a group.

                  There is a fair bit of what you describe on Gab, and every single one that I have seen on Gab glows in the dark. They are scripted and robotic. Harvard ngo shills, Clinton crime family shills, Soros shills, and FBI shills. The FBI shills cannot say anything negative about the FBI, the Soros shills rant about Jews, but cannot mention the Jew that is the most conspicuous evidence for their supposed theory. During the Democratic Party primaries, there were even Bloomberg shills, who vanished when he dropped out.

                  If real wignats as you describe them existed, they would find a place to hang out with each other. They are not interested in hanging out with each other. They want to post to us.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’ve yet to see a good definition of wignat from anyone.

                • Pooch says:

                  The stupider people I’ve encountered on the nationalist right Who I might call wignat are of the narrow minded opinion that the Jews/Israel are the cause of all our problems and Trump is just a Kushner shill who has done nothing for 3.5 years. Anglin’s takes have a little more nuance then that but not by much.

                • Fred says:

                  If it is not on Daily Stormer, where is it?

                  Is DS wignat? I think there are better examples. Matt Parrott certainly qualfies (although given he’s a fed it might be an act). This loser is a typical example.

                  Black sun twitter is full of wignats, so if you see that you’re on the right track. “Economic populist” is another giveaway.

                • jim says:

                  Obvious shill, probably on Twitter payroll.

                  If wignats existed, they would have hangouts with other wignats.

                • Pooch says:

                  Anybody promoting corona hoax still is a shitlib.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The stupider people I’ve encountered on the nationalist right Who I might call wignat are of the narrow minded opinion that the Jews/Israel are the cause of all our problems and Trump is just a Kushner shill who has done nothing for 3.5 years. Anglin’s takes have a little more nuance then that but not by much.”

                  Also that optics are for cucks, and capitalism is jewish. Yep thats them.

                • jim says:

                  If these people were the real thing, rather than robot scripts animated by Soros employees, they would want to hang out with each other.

                  Where are they hanging out with each other?

                • Fred says:

                  On Twitter?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If these people were the real thing, rather than robot scripts animated by Soros employees, they would want to hang out with each other.

                  Where are they hanging out with each other?”

                  They try, the feds among them bust the non feds or dupe them into looking horribly whenever they try.

                  Charlottesville was them trying to hang out except organized by glowjogger Spencer.

                • jim says:

                  Nothing wrong with the people trying to hang out at Charlottesville.

                  Great people. Good people. Smart people.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Obvious shill, probably on Twitter payroll.”

                  Jim this is what wignats sound like.

                  Now 8chan /pol used to have intelligent non-shill pro Trump people who otherwise sounded pro wignat but they seemed almost unique to 8chan.

                • jim says:

                  I never said anything particularly reactionary or darkly enlightened on Twitter, but they purged me for Trumpism and opposition to illegal immigration.

                  He is an obvious Twitter contactor. A genuine wignat would not last five minutes on Twitter.

                  If genuine wignats exist, you are not going to find them on Twitter.

                • jim says:

                  If wignats existed, you wouldn’t see them on Twitter. They would be shadow banned. That is a Twitterbot.

                • Pooch says:

                  According to Anglin, after Charlottesville they all turned fed except for him.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’d imagine the chans is their hangout.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing it. Yes, there are a slew of entryists on the chans, but they do not fit in. They are cultural aliens, outsiders, it is not their home turf the way Twitter and facebook is. They glow in the dark.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  I trawl the webring of splinter chans that formed after 8chan was shoah’d every now and then, such as the /fascist/, /monarchy/, and /liberty/ board communities that migrate around to different homes.

                  Every time i hear these stories about things like ‘dumb white nationalists’ the very first thing i think of is ‘where are you meeting these people’, and i ask, and inevitably the answer i get back is ‘oh there is this facebook group im in-‘, ‘oh there was this twitter conversation i saw-‘.

                  Yeah, that really says it all honestly.

                • jim says:

                  Entryists. Their home turf is Twitter and Facebook. If they were actually white and actually nationalist, they would have a white nationalist home turf.

                  They are sponsored by the same people, and often are the same people as ban any actual white nationalist from Twitter and Facebook.

                  Plenty of shills on gab too, but they cannot compete with the real thing because they cannot shadow ban actual white nationalists, and cannot have their own tweets artificially promoted.

                  If a real white nationalist tweets on Twitter, no one is going to see his tweet.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Entryists.”

                  A lot of them just aren’t that smart wignats are a target for fed entryist because they are easily fooled…

                  Jared Taylor is a huge exception to this and Anglin is above average but mostly… if leftists are a cult of midwits wignats are a cult of dimwits.

                • jim says:

                  > A lot of them just aren’t that smart wignats are a target for fed entryist because they are easily fooled…

                  Yes, a lot of them were fooled by fed entryists, hence the disaster at Charlottesville. But that does not show them to be stupid. It shows them to be unduly trusting.

                  Any wingnat you see on facebook or twitter is unlikely to be someone who was fooled. The tweet comes from a minion of those doing the fooling. Otherwise it would be shadowbanned.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You clearly see some political value to them for the right that I do not see and their past performance does not suggest.

                  There are good individual cases but thats it.

                • jim says:

                  > There are good individual cases but thats it

                  Find me a bad individual case who was banned from twitter. What was his twitter id and how was he banned? If he is the real thing, the thing you supposedly see everywhere, he should be eager to talk about it.

                  They are good people, and our ideas are increasingly spreading among them.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Some folk just can’t let go of the ‘im a good smart goodwhite unlike those bad dumb badwhites’ dynamic that they enjoyed indulging in growing up, the one thing that warmed them with such glowing feelings in a world that otherwise gave them no validation for what they were… no matter what, they just have to find a way to recapitulate that blue tribe instinct to punch down on red tribesmen; an outlet, any possible outlet through which the animus may continued to be channeled that they can rationalize, however circuitous it may be, however their views of everything else may change…

                • Not Tom says:

                  Any wingnat you see on facebook or twitter is unlikely to be someone who was fooled.

                  OK, but I’ve seen it happen to people I know, and people whom I didn’t know personally but who had long track records of being moderate normie or conservative types. Obviously I am not going to out those people here, even if outing them did not mean outing myself, which it would. And it sounds like at least a few other regular commenters here can corroborate the experience.

                  “That’s one’s a shill, that one’s a bot, that one’s an entryist”… if a group is 90% enemies then it’s an enemy group. Even the employment of big tech is not 90% enemy. We’ve all seen hundreds or thousands of the people who are supposed to be shills and bots, where are the hundreds or thousands of high-quality recruits?

                  If there were even some articulation of the wignat philosophy that portrayed good ideas and was mostly free of bad ideas and if such philosophy had at least a few well-known backers (pseudonyms included, of course) then I might be willing to overlook the No True Scotsman smell, but just saying that wignats are great people and the ones who aren’t great must be shills just doesn’t fly.

                  If Daily Stormer is supposed to be an example of one of the great ones then color me unimpressed. There’s certainly worse material out there, but they wouldn’t make my top 10 or even my top 50.

                • jim says:

                  > “That’s one’s a shill, that one’s a bot, that one’s an entryist”… if a group is 90% enemies then it’s an enemy group.

                  White nationalists on Gab and on Daily Stormer, are not 90% enemies, they are mostly actual or potential allies. White nationalists on Twitter and Facebook are 100% enemies, because if they were not, would be banned or shadow banned and you would not see their tweets.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Find me a bad individual case who was banned from twitter. ”

                  I rarely monitor twitter but from what I hear gab is full of wignats who were banned from twitter and may not be shills but they don’t seem all that smart.

                  “Some folk just can’t let go of the ‘im a good smart goodwhite unlike those bad dumb badwhites’ dynamic that they enjoyed indulging in growing up, the one thing that warmed them with such glowing feelings in a world that otherwise gave them no validation for what they were… no matter what, they just have to find a way to recapitulate that blue tribe instinct to punch down on red tribesmen; an outlet, any possible outlet through which the animus may continued to be channeled that they can rationalize, however circuitous it may be, however their views of everything else may change”

                  PC I am many things, a lover of the priesthood and the blue tribe is not one of them. I advocate the harshest measures against them if we ever get the power to do it than anyone here and I never disparage red tribers.

                  “That’s one’s a shill, that one’s a bot, that one’s an entryist”

                  As I’ve said 8chan was the only site I’ve ever been on which had a large portion of non enemy people who professed to be white nationalists.

                • jim says:

                  > I rarely monitor twitter but from what I hear gab is full of wignats who were banned from twitter and may not be shills but they don’t seem all that smart

                  You may hear that, but I am on Gab, and I don’t see that. There are entryists, but they show the full suite of entryist indications. They glow in the dark, and I believe all them are primarily on Twitter, and have been seconded to Gab. White nationalist black pillers exist, quite a few, but they have relevant and rational arguments, and respond to evidence and debate. I would guess that you saw on 8Chan a roughly similar number of shills as I see on Gab.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >PC I am many things, a lover of the priesthood and the blue tribe is not one of them. I advocate the harshest measures against them if we ever get the power to do it than anyone here and I never disparage red tribers.

                  I mean, in a way, you could say that in itself can be an expression of the reflexive wolfsmanship bluetribesmen have, including towards each other…

                  Not that i would disagree too hard with that prescription, mind, besides the terms of practical execution.

                • polifugue says:

                  Anti-Semitism does not have a high barrier of entry, therefore proles enter and create a conspicuous unwanted presense. Christians deal with this problem by telling congregants to dress nicely and to avoid swearing, drugs and tattoos.

                  Weev was not a prole by any means as a former $500k/year Silicon Valley engineer. He came up with the white sharia meme, and before he was banned on YouTube he put out great content; it is a pity he is wasting his time larping as a Nazi in Ukraine. I understand why he was banned, but I wish he were still on Gab.

                  Wignats, prole (fat loser) anti-Semites, have a tendency to renounce their positions on everything as if they never believed in anything in the first place, see here:

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/jeff-schoep-white-nationalist-reformer.html

                  Caesar noticed that Gauls had trouble fighting for more than three hours per day, and being weak people, wignats tend to blackpill, turn or move on. They are most likely FBI or anti-Semite-turned FBI, and if not are proles who end up moving on, being unable to comprehend topics such as HBD and evopsych.

                  Weev lamented that there were a lot of good people at the Charlottesville rally who were elite lawyers and engineers who had their livelihoods sacked afterwards. For that type of people, Holocaust revisionism is a phase and NRX a suitable alternative.

                • jim says:

                  Talking of Holocaust Revisionism, the following is the official NRX position: Holocaustianity

                  Should be preached to both Holocaust deniers and Holocaustianity worshippers, but seldom otherwise mentioned.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  This proverbial ‘fat loser wignat’ seems to exist more as an abstract totem inside peoples heads, onto which all sorts of sins are projected – a ritual punching-bag for sublimated animus – rather than anything significant in actual reality they can point to actual significant examples of. ‘But you agree with me that this sort of person is bad right? You agree, right?’

                  Where have we see this sort of thing before? ‘But you agree that evil men invading the homes of seven year olds to fuck them is bad, right?’ This kind of ‘edge-case first’ sort of argumentation is, itself, archetypical of shill-like behavior the globe over.

                  >I’ve yet to see a good definition of wignat from anyone.

                  This is in essence the basic problem. Supposedly ‘everyone knows’ what the [thing] is. Every good citizen agrees, it’s a real thing. Yet somehow, we find all sorts of curious difficulties and, how shall we say, ‘extenuating circumstances’, any time we find ourselves trying to point out a clear instance of this clear, common, obvious thing… Now where have we seen this sort of thing before ?

                  Everyone agrees, ‘badwhites’ a a big problem. Huge problem. They’re everywhere, in fact, casting magic spells at all levels of society to make brown people dumb, women pregnant with rape-babies they need to abort, eurasian tribesmen spontaneously combust into ashes, and so on. Yet somehow, we never seem to be able to catch them ‘in the act’, no matter how much resource is turned instead to the task of finding it out. And all the ‘witches’ found to make examples out of, seem to bear a curious resemblance to the bailiff’s own fellow travelers with wigs stuck on them…

                • The Cominator says:

                  Typical wignat beliefs. Jared Taylor and a few others don’t share these stupid beliefs but these are what I see on 4chan and in other places as typical wignat thinking. 8chan white nationalist were the main pools of exceptions that I see.

                  1. That America and other white countries (national differences among whites are not thought much of for other reasons) should be uniformly non-jewish whites.

                  2. That the economy should be more socialistic among these non jewish whites.

                  3. That there is some kind of concrete uniform political entity called the white race (rather than a genetic type with seperate political identities and interest) and that the jews (also a monolith) are ultimately behind all the bad things that happen to it. Looking into any causality besides the jews is wrong and people who do are probably working for the jews.

                  4. As such women muslims etc did nothing wrong and when they do do wrong its jewish mind control rays.

                  5. Donald Trump aka zion don is a willing and enthusiastic jewish agent who merely signs off on what high ranking elder of zion Kushner tells him to do, and whites should not support him and should support the dems.

                  6. That the path to the redemption and strength of the white race is convincing everyone that Hitler did literally nothing wrong and that no jews were actually harmed during the filming of the 3rd Reich, they should have been but they weren’t.

                • jim says:

                  > Typical wignat beliefs. Jared Taylor and a few others don’t share these stupid beliefs

                  These are not typical of wingnats. They are typical of shills trying to pass as wignats, but the shills glow in the dark.

                  “One” is true of wingnats, but the question is should we accomplish it overnight by smashing the windows of pawnshops and whisky distilleries, or by gradually assimilating some Jews over generations, while the rest gradually make aliyah to Israel. Krystalnacht tends to be very bad for the economy, as ancient Christian writers regularly noticed.

                  Progressive Judaism is conversion from Judaism to our current state religion, after the style that Spain used to deal with its Jewish problem. We will continue that program, but with a different state religion, in the same style as progressives, because it is working. Progressive Jews do not have Jewish grandchildren. Progressive social technology is really bad and self destructive, except for their social technology for dealing with hostile faiths, which is alarmingly good and which we should preserve. We will call this highly effective social technology the First Amendment, but continue to give the First Amendment a very different meaning to that which it had before the War of Northern Aggression.

                  “Two” is sort of true. Wingnats tend to Hitler’s national socialism, but actual non shill Wingnats nonetheless prefer Trump’s national capitalism to the Democrats internationally regulated “capitalism”.

                  Three tends to be true of wingnats, but again is more true of shills, especially Soros shills.

                  Four is the shill version of the Wingnat purple pill. Anglin’s views, White Sharia and Mohammed was right on women are widely accepted. They are all at least purple pilled on women, and quite a lot of them are red pilled, though they do tend to believe that Muslims did nothing wrong. What is wrong with that otherwise excellent meme is we are a whole lot better off noticing that the Old Testament is right on women than noticing that Mohammed was right on women. White Sharia is the wrong meme, Old Testament is the better meme, but they tend to be allergic to the Old Testament, which is regrettable, for the Old Testament is chock full of the working social technology that Bronze Age civilization had before it went decadent, and that Moses and the priesthood preserved through the ensuing dark age.

                  Five is a shill belief. It is the payload that the shills are paid to deliver.

                  Six is a shill parody of the actual belief. Actual, non shill, Wingnats correctly believe that the Holocaust is exaggerated and overemphasized, but six in the form that you depict is the shill parody and version of that belief, much like “Jim supports home invasions to abduct eight year old girls for sexual purposes.” Nah, I believe that if your eight year old daughter keeps wandering off to hang out in private with scary dangerous alpha males (every nine year old girl’s fantasy and the plot of every Disney princess movie) one of them should keep her for sexual purposes and domestic service, and should be compelled to go on keeping her for as long as they both shall live. (The happy ending of every Disney princess movie.)

                  And we are making progress darkly enlightening them. Notably “White Sharia”. Sex and reproduction are the key issue. The Marxists promised to redistribute the means of production to hungry people. We promise to redistribute the means of reproduction to incel males hanging out in their single mother’s basement playing anime porn games, provided, of course, that they get out of the basement to work and fight for God, King, tribe, and family. Which they are likely to do if a faithful obedient virgin wife and respectful children are on the cards once they are out of the basement.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  ‘But you agree that this sort of person is really bad, yes?’

                  Yes, yes, very bad… let me take a few swings at the totem too..

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Those wignats are infiltrators. If they don’t have their own platform and relentlessly shill against the God-Emperor, then I call bullshit on them being real opinions. You just described every single shill that has ever showed up here, minus the focus on whites. Instead of, “Hail, fellow [insert one of the following: (neoreactionary, Christian, racists, Nazis, misogynists, etc.)],” they are saying, “Hail, fellow white nationalist! White nationalism, properly understood, is socialism! Vote Democrat because the bad orange man will let the shitskins rape your precious Aryan princess!” How does that not scream shill to you? Anglin follows our memes, and barely has his own site because everyone associated with the internet tried to destroy it. How are these fuckers operating in the open with no consequences if not because they are on the payroll?

                • Pooch says:

                  5. Donald Trump aka zion don is a willing and enthusiastic jewish agent who merely signs off on what high ranking elder of zion Kushner tells him to do, and whites should not support him and should support the dems.

                  Non-shill wignats are not openly endorsing Biden. Only fed shills are. They will complain endlessly about Trump’s lack of action with no real understanding of the battle he wages with the permanent government (like Ann Coulter), but will begrudgingly admit that he is the lesser of two evils to vote for (if they even vote at all).

                  Some really dumb ones toy with the idea of voting Biden as the better acceleration candidate but I’m not sure how serious they really are.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  There is a more fundamental, esoteric problem with the terms used themselves.

                  Good rhetoric has good cardinalities; if you want to criticise someone for insuficient perennialism, then you use a term that calls attention to that closeness with demotist things, by using terms evocative of demotist things, not use terms that are evocative of rightist things.

                  Not only are each of the ‘points’ ostensibly listed classic examples of ‘wedges’ or ‘consensus cracks’ used in COINTELPRO operations – precipitate argument on a more nuanced but tangential or less covered issue, and thereby split people off and send them in more hackneyed directions (‘you see, unlike those dumb WHITE and MALE and NATIONALIST WHITE MALE NATIONALISTS, i in fact love hebrews!) – the terminology itself helps serve such aims.

                • jim says:

                  The shill position on the Holocaust (it did not happen, it but should have) is exactly such a wedge issue.

                  The Dark Enlightenment position is that Holocaustianity is driving us mad, and driving the Jews mad, which is a subtly different position that a shill ignores and denies exists.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You say:

                  Those wignats are infiltrators.

                  But I hear:

                  “Real [white nationalism] has never been tried.”

                  If Cominator’s list (pretty good one IMO) only applies to entryists and feds then show us the good ones. Not “good” as in “goodwhite” but “good” as in not constantly blackpilling, promoting socialism and attacking other groups on the right. Spencer is clearly not, Anglin is clearly not, the TRS crowd is clearly not, so who is left?

                • jim says:

                  > If Cominator’s list (pretty good one IMO) only applies to entryists and feds then show us the good ones.

                  Daily Stormer. Andrew Anglin and company.

                  The people that assembled for Charlottesville (and got led into meat grinder).

                  Andrew Anglin is our guy. He needs the white pill on women and National Capitalism, but is adequately red pilled. His pill is red enough, but tends a bit to black.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  What kind of sleight of hand is this? So first anglin and jared taylor and so on obviously aren’t ‘wignats’, but then now they are?

                  If you are trying to show how this is not simply a mushy-minded conceptual stand-in for the expression on animus that fails under the rectification of names, morphing to meet the needs to the situation, then you aren’t doing a good job…

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Spencer is a fed, but last time I checked, Anglin was ourguy. He backed off of some of the more ridiculous ideas and went full red pill on women. In fact, I just checked now and he isn’t making socialist screeds, he’s complaining about cultural revolution in the vein of the Soviet Revolution. He even mocks the actual wignats for being fat, oblivious losers that attack their own side.

                  TRS is probably a fed operation, too, if they can still access credit card payments. Payment processors have been shutting all sorts of shit down but they stay up? Fuck that they do. They glow, too.

                  So you have two glow in the dark operations and one that looks more like an edgy populist version of NRx (I know its kind of self contradictory, but Anglin looks like a convert to our memes) as your examples of them not being infiltrators? Anglin isn’t attacking from the left, Spencer is a controlled op in the vein of David Duke, and TRS is probably a honeypot. Your argument appears false.

                  White nationalists might be proles, but they aren’t bad at heart. If you went hard capitalist, gave them good jobs and obedient, virgin wives, and called it National Socialism with American characteristics they be all for it. They are pissed off White American proles sick of seeing Blacks thugs get away with murder while they get their lives ruined for an edgy post.

                  NRx should not oppose wignats. The legit ones are ourguys, and the infiltrators are our enemies no matter what skinsuit they are wearing.

                  So says Jim, so it shall be.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Even those that aren’t shills have the McNamara’s morons problem. Too dumb to be useful they often end up repeating shill memes because they are stupid.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing it.

                  Not seeing it on Gab, not seeing it on Daily Stormer.

                  The typical white nationalist is considerably smarter than the typical progressive, though this may merely be that crimestop and feminization is making progressives stupid.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Why would any intelligent WN ever publicly label themselves as such? It has been my experience that tech minded people tend to make the blanket assumption that all people use social media to congregate. It is also my experience that non-tech folks don’t even think to use social media to congregate. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is often the case that those who Know don’t talk and those who talk don’t Know.

                • jim says:

                  > Why would any intelligent WN ever publicly label themselves as such?

                  As far as I can see, none of them ever do.

                  And being labelled by progressives as a white nationalist seems to have absolutely no connection to white nationalist views. If you espouse white nationalism, you are less likely, not more likely, to be labelled a white nationalist, because progressives prefer to go after soft targets.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “1. That America and other white countries (national differences among whites are not thought much of for other reasons) should be uniformly non-jewish whites.”

                  Such countries existed not long ago and hopefully will exist again. I grew up in one, for instance (in Europe) and I’m still of working age. The seeds of post-war destruction had, however, already been sown.

                • Not Tom says:

                  He backed off of some of the more ridiculous ideas and went full red pill on women. In fact, I just checked now and he isn’t making socialist screeds, he’s complaining about cultural revolution in the vein of the Soviet Revolution. He even mocks the actual wignats for being fat, oblivious losers that attack their own side.

                  Alright, if this is the case then I’m willing to take another look. I’ve had no reason to follow him continuously but he sure wasn’t any kind of an ally two years ago. If he’s grown up since then, good for him.

                  However, I’m not going to let slide the fact that “wignat” is not a synonym for “white nationalist”, it’s “wigger nationalist” and the frequent attempts to un-thing the latter category are reminiscent of progressive attempts to un-thing White Nationalism itself (i.e. so that the normie thinks there is nothing between mainstream conservatism and “Nazism”). The term “wignat” was coined to mean what Cominator says it does, and a circular argument is being used to deny its utility: wignats are just white nationalists and therefore fine, because wignats as defined don’t really exist, because they are really just white nationalists.

                  Shills would not exist if people didn’t fall for their tricks. Even if you believe that most of the people whom we’d call wignats are in fact glowniggers – fine, then wignats are the people who fall for it. If e.g. Anglin has changed his tune somewhat then it would make sense to say he is no longer a wignat.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Such countries existed not long ago and hopefully will exist again.

                  The only such country is America. The key point you’re missing is ignorance or obfuscation of ethnicities.

                  Poland isn’t a white country, it’s a Polish country, and Poles happen to be white.

                  The prototypical wignat believes that the Irish and Italian immigrants who flooded into America are perfectly fine, but the few Jews who came in around the same time are ruining everything. This makes no sense at all. American democracy is such a shitshow in large part because it’s not a nation at all, it’s an empire consisting of many tribes with different ethnic origins who actually never really assimilated and don’t particularly like each other. If you got rid of all the blacks and Jews, Irish machine politics would become a huge problem again.

                  Thus the wignat promotes the lie of the melting pot: as long as what’s stewing inside doesn’t change color, we’re fine! It’s similar in form to the argument that women shouldn’t vote but “limited” franchise republics are still great, when in reality the problem is having any kind of franchise at all. Going back to an earlier version of Whig politics/ideology won’t provide any long-term relief, it would only cause the cycle to repeat.

                • Pooch says:

                  Trump voting is a great proxy in this sense. Italians/Irish and vote overwhelmingly Trump. They are not a problem.

                  After WWII, Italian-Americans killing Italians and German-Americans killing Germans proved that America IS a melting pot of Europeans that are able to leave their old loyalties behind. American whites looked at other American whites in the fox hole and said “We are all Americans now”. Trump is half-German and half-Scottish but is viewed as American. It works (as much as native Europeans refuse to admit).

                • The Cominator says:

                  Irish (other than “Scots-Irish”) descended whites tend to vote as a hostile outgroup, I saw it in Mass and its true from what I remember reading as well. They voted for Trump in much lesser %s than most whites.

                  Wops voted mostly for Trump but not as heavily as Krauts or the “Scots-Irish” (his most fanatical supporters), Scots-Irish were Protestant Ulstermen and Scotsmen who came before the papist Irish and mostly went to the South and Applacia.

                  The melting pot worked to some degree but not entirely… and the irish is the biggest white group it didn’t work for. I like their music but the other effects of their coming have not been good and I say that being part mick myself.

                • Pooch says:

                  Hard to get stats but looks like 60% of white catholics voted Trump. It doesn’t seem accurate to say the Irish vote against Trump even if you’ve seen it anecdotally.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  The only [white] country is America. The key point you’re missing is ignorance or obfuscation of ethnicities.

                  Poland isn’t a white country, it’s a Polish country, and Poles happen to be white.

                  Thus ethnic Poles are a subset of whites. There were plenty of European countries which were not ethnically pure, yet white. (By white I mean european stock, in case it’s not clear.)

                  Americans didn’t use to obfuscate their ethnicities, as I recall. It was not uncommon that they listed a variety of nationalities in their family tree. Indeed, it sometimes seemed to be a point of pride to have intermarried.

                  I definitely do agree that the melting pot idea is pernicious, particularly so when it turns out there are unmeltable ethnic blocks, if you will, and we get multiculturalism. Cf. Lee Kwan Yew.

                  But perhaps the whole notion of nationalism and democracy is a wrong turn. One might argue that the nation was invented to replace the king as ultimate source of authority. I’m very willing to entertain this hypothesis.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Trump voting is a proxy for x (whatever we want x to be) but it is not x.

                  Democracy doesn’t produce good data. Garbage in, garbage out. The behavior of some voting bloc in a two-party system with one party oriented almost entirely toward uplifting nonwhites and destroying whites does not tell us very much about how these groups would behave in a country that is 90% white.

                  But we know, from history, exactly how these groups behave in a country that is 90% white, so why should we even consider using a “proxy”? The Irish in America will behave roughly like they do in Ireland; the Italians, like Italians, the Jews, like the Jews, and the New Englanders like the old English Puritan radicals. That’s just how they are. Ireland is a hot mess that shills for the EU (there’s a reason they’re called “potato niggers”), Israel is prone to constant infighting and endless litigation, and the Puritans were history’s most prolific agitators. In America, the Irish are union bosses, the Jews are lawyers and journalists, and the Puritans run the Cathedral. Can you notice the similarities?

                  Melting pots are opposed to proper nationalism in the Westphalian sense. Of course it’s no big deal if Poland takes in a few thousand Hungarians who forget most of their history after a few generations, but if they become even 5% Hungarian, big trouble. Not as big trouble as being 5% Muslim but still big trouble.

                  Reaction says: we might be able to deal with the demographic problems under a more dictatorial regime. Wignats and to a nontrivial extent white nationalists say: we could deal with the multi-ethnic democracy if we peeled off the small portion of Jews and nonwhites. Which proposition has proven truer over time and space?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  @Not Tom

                  This blog, and you in particular, influenced a foundational change in my views towards jews. I still am not a fan of their culture and generally dislike half the ones I meet, but the change is substantial nonetheless. Changes like this, in my experience, have to percolate through your reality over time. “Let’s watch this movie.” “…no, babe.” “Why not?” “The jews did this… Wait… oh, no. It is the jewish creators, its their Marxist cant.”

                  That being said, I have a pet theory: Rhodesia died and Soufrica survived because the former didn’t have enough jews. Is this just resonant anti-Semitism or does some certain percentage of jewry insulate a society from Cathedral Crush?

                • Not Tom says:

                  I have a pet theory: Rhodesia died and Soufrica survived because the former didn’t have enough jews. Is this just resonant anti-Semitism or does some certain percentage of jewry insulate a society from Cathedral Crush?

                  If such a relationship exists, I doubt it is that neat. Historically speaking it looks as though Jews are a lot more likely to flee a failing country than to stick around and try to fix things – which I suppose could give the appearance that fewer Jews = faster failure despite being a mere side effect.

                  I can speculate on what might constitute a more direct relationship, though I have no idea if any of these things really make a difference:

                  – Jews are highly competent at faking sincere conversions (see: the Inquisition). So a pozzed society with more Jews might end up with more insincere elites who actually know how to run things, insincerity being an asset in clown world. The corollary of this is that a reactionary ruling class should not let Jews run too much, for exactly the same reason.

                  – Jews are natural survivors, they don’t have a death wish unless they’ve genuinely converted to progressivism, and are pretty good at sensing imminent threats to their person and their property. Thus for instance in the recent spate of BLM madness, half the media turned against the rioters at the first sign of “anti-semitism” and the rioting has started to fizzle out.

                  – Simply being available as a scapegoat for the ruling elite could mean the difference between slow decline and sudden violent instability – though I’m honestly not sure which is worse for a society in the long run.

                  One thing I do know, and which Jim has already pointed out in the past, is that expulsion and seizure of property from Jews tends to be the final act of a dying civilization, because it’s usually an act of pure covetousness and means that the society is in its final looting phase.

                  I think a 1-2% minority of Jews is more than enough for any European nation to take on, any more than that is probably courting trouble that is beyond the ken of those nations to understand and deal with effectively. In the long run it’s best for everyone if the Jews all end up in Israel, but in order for that to be a reality, Israel needs to get out from under the thumb of the Cathedral and that means dropping most of the Progressive Jews into the ocean. Make of that what you will.

    • Nonsense. I can be broke and unemployed, get a chick pregnant, and be set for a (modest) life on government benefits. No lack of security.

      When a man says he needs security, the unconscious context is that he needs the security that his wife will not cuckold him, will not leave him and take the kids, and cannot call the cops on him for preventing her from doing so.

      • Dave says:

        Men with nothing to lose can afford to be bold with women — one guy said he got the hottest pussy of his life while he was unemployed, broke, and sleeping on a pile of dirty clothes in a friend’s basement. But I don’t think this broke-ass-badboy-with-a-heart-of-gold is an act that most men can pull off successfully without spending long dry spells out on the street.

        In the UK, which has had a comprehensive welfare state for two generations longer that we have, NHS physician Theodore Dalrymple observed that underclass men have much lower mortality in prison because their basic needs are provided for there. Most have no idea how to shop for food or cook a meal; their lives are a cycle of fattening up in prison and wasting away on the street.

  24. Frederick Algernon says:

    Jim, have you considered making a post that would serve as a master list for female misbehavior?

    https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/07/12/mom-accused-killing-five-year-old-daughter-tried-blame-toddler-son/

    • jim says:

      That is not characteristic female misconduct.

      Characteristic female misconducting is hunting for alpha starting at a startlingly early age, and continuing until she loses her looks and fertility.

      Characteristic female misconduct is endless shit testing, such as interrupting and talking over the boss in a supposedly friendly, helpful, and supportive fashion, chasing her husband into a man cave, and then invading his man cave.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        How would you diagnose the situation linked above? I guess it is a potential outcome of unchecked female misbehavior?

        • The Cominator says:

          It could be a side effect of self destructive female misconduct as just looking at her I suspect heavy use of hard drugs.

          • BC says:

            Women also have a tendency to murder their children when hooked up with a new man.

            • jim says:

              Death by neglect, mysterious illness, or “accident” is far more common. This women just outright shot her kid, which is unusual.

              But what is enormously more common than either behavior, is that the woman looks the other way when her latest lover abuses her kids, sometimes with fatal consequences. Observe the behavior of lionesses when a new male takes over the pride.

              • The Cominator says:

                In the age of trannyism we are also seeing that Munchausen by proxy is also way too common for comfort.

                My understanding is that women were less likely to beat or injure their children physically on a regular basis than fathers but 4 times more likely to kill them in various ways, I think just shooting them is a pretty unusual way for them to do it… drowning and exposure is more common.

    • Oak says:

      This is a decent masterlist:

      https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill

      Have only skimmed it, but first section is very Jimian

      1.3 On PornHub, women consume most of the porn where women are violently raped and abused
      1.4 62% of women have fantasies about rape and other forced sex acts
      1.5 50% of female porn viewers admitted to watching porn involving extreme violence against women
      1.6 Women are drawn more than men to nonfiction stories of rape, murder, and serial killers
      1.7 Criminal and antisocial men have more sexual partners and have sex earlier
      1.8 Antisocial, criminal and violent men have greater sexual access to women
      1.9 Imprisoned serial killers, terrorists and rapists receive thousands of love letters from women
      1.10 Male gang members have dramatically more female sexual partners
      1.11 Childhood bullies experience greater sexual success than non-bullies
      1.12 More than half of prison staff sexual misconduct involves female guards/staff

      • jim says:

        > 1.12 More than half of prison staff sexual misconduct involves female guards/staff

        The female misconduct has a different character to the male misconduct. The guards wind up as a harem of the top criminal in the prison, and commit illegal acts to his benefit.

      • RedBible says:

        There are some interesting things in that link like:
        12.1 It is normal for healthy men to find pubescent & prepubescent females sexually arousing (The study showed that 83% and 52% of men exhibited increased arousal to pictures of pubescent & prepubescent females respectively)
        12.3 Men downplay their sexual attraction to adolescent girls, even where they are of legal age

        I remember a conversation when I was a young teen and made an off-hand remark that “some 12 year old girls are attractive”, and how there were men who insisted that “No, no, no, 12 year olds are ONLY cute, they have to become older to become attractive.” I also remember how it felt like what they were saying was kind of forced and that something was off, but I had also not quite learned, at that time, about how you are not allowed to say certain thing in society.

        Things get more interesting once one starts adding in Jim’s perspective/insights on 9 year old girls to the data…

        • Dave says:

          12-year-olds with boobs are attractive. This obvious fact is denied only by faggots, ugly old feminists, and straight men who think a boner will send them to Hell.

          • jim says:

            Quite so, but twelve year olds with nice boobs are a small minority. Also their hips and legs tend to be less than satisfactory.

  25. TBeholder says:

    When “what it will be like” ever actually mattered? It’s always “who [beats] whom”. «One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution», etc. So no problem.
    There are always less practical people who actually care about imaginary Utopia, but they are in the same situation as naive prisoners entering conspiracy to commit jailbreak with a gang of cannibals: they get used as bullet sponges, and surviving that stage only gets them promoted to walking food stores.

  26. BC says:

    Off Topic:

    Jim what your take on VoxDays’s Einstein was a fraud crusade?

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-einstein-fraud.html

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      Idiocy.

      Einstein left behind a massive paper trail of letters, notebooks and manuscripts that show when he arrived at what, whom he wrote to (in this case Hilbert) when. Hilbert was influenced by Einstein, not the reverse. It’s just an amazing coincidence that Einstein’s notebooks show a progression of thoughts, calculations and experiments that look just like what someone groping toward GR would look like, and that no similar record of other people’s ruminations toward the same goal exists or is convincing.

      SR is a different story. Roger Schlafly, son of Phyllis and a mathematician, had a web site and book arguing that Einstein didn’t add anything new scientifically beyond pre-Einstein SR type theories by Poincare and Lorentz. His story is at least consistent with what we know although the interpretation can be debated.

      Einstein also did enough other stuff to qualify for at least a Nobel prize independent of relativity, and he doesn’t even get credit for all of it.

    • jim says:

      Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, and Hilbert, were all getting pretty close, and coming to the same conclusions for the same reasons. But their conclusions made no sense, somehow did not fit together. Something was wrong, and they could not put their finger on it.

      Einstein was first to realize and to say that there that t was merely an arbitrary choice of coordinate, that if there was no one true stationary, only relative stationary, then there was no one true time, nor one true distance.

      As soon as you say that if no one true stationary, then no one true time, then everything fits together, everything makes sense. Einstein fitted everything together so that it makes sense. Lorentz was ninety five percent of the way there. Poincare was ninety nine percent of the way there. Poincare had everything important about special relativity before Einstein did, except that Poincare’s theory did not make sense.

      Fifty years later, Einstein summarized the priority dispute as follows:

      the realization of the fact that the bearing of the Lorentz transformation transcended its connection with Maxwell’s equations and was concerned with the nature of space and time in general.

      Everything about special relativity was anticipated by Lorentz and Poincare – but they did not realize that they were talking about the nature of space and time, so their results made no sense to them.

      That said, Einstein was a bit of scammer, since he failed to give Poincare the credit for deducing pretty much everything that follows from special relativity, without actually understanding special relativity itself.

      Einstein, not Poincare, and not Lorentz, was the first to understand special relativity – but most of what Einstein deduced from special relativity had already been deduced by Poincare in a more roundabout and less coherent fashion, without resting the deduction on special relativity, and Einstein failed to give Poincare credit.

      Einstein had the key insight that made all the difference. But when he deduced the all that follows from that key insight, he failed to give credit to those that had already deduced similar conclusions in a more roundabout fashion. Poincare deduced all sorts of things, but nothing quite fitted together. It was when Einstein realized that they were talking about space and time itself, all jigsaw pieces that were on the board finally fitted. But Einstein somehow neglected to mention that large parts of the puzzle had already been assembled by Poincare.

      • BC says:

        Thanks Jim.

        That’s what I was guessing is the case despite my general lack of knowledge on the subject. Generally the person who makes something practically work that deserves the credit for it even if they did steal the ideas and designs from someone else. And as I remember Einstein ideas were pretty quickly used to make future predictions that proved accurate in a whole host of areas, showing it’s practical value.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      More to the point, how pozzed does VD have to be to swallow the “Einstein’s wife did SR” theory?

    • TBeholder says:

      He seems to run with an idea that profound truths can be found simply by turning random stupid assertions upside down. Which itself is quite stupid. Usually this approach only leads to sheep-like rushing from side to side. Like this time.
      What is obvious is that for the Progressives, Einstein was a lucky example of “politically correct hero” to pounce upon, so they overdid it — made him not just a poster boy, but the Progressive Saint #1.
      And used GRT for Progressive version of “Credo Quia Absurdum Est” while they are at it, because dumbing it down into nonsense requires little to no effort, while very few people can point finger at how exactly it was turned into nonsense. Which is very different from e.g. thermodynamics.
      From which follows… nothing. Except maybe that when the sort of people who have trouble counting without fingers become pop-sci hacks, the result tend to be embarrassing for everyone involved except themselves (they are too stupid for that). If some Progressive preacher calls Lorentz transformations “The Great Formula Of Einstein” in print (I have seen this once), it only means that this specific hack is a semi-literate moron, and that churning out this sort of garbage is unfortunately in demand at the time (otherwise it would end up in a waste paper basket, where it belongs) — no more, no less.

  27. Inquiring Mind says:

    Yo, readers of Jim’s Blog.

    Have you tried to visit spandrell.com lately? He isn’t posting much new content as of late, but as of this AM, I am getting an “Account Suspended” notification when I go there.

    Is this just some glitch, a DDoS, or has the Empire started to Strike Back?

    • jim says:

      Moved his blog site, expecting it to be cancelled.

      http://bioleninism.com/

      If I had been in his shoes, would have kept the name and merely changed the hosting service, which I have done many times before and may well do again.

      Eventually the *.com registry itself is going to come under social justice attack. If I change the name of my site, probably going to be something.la because *.la is administered from the edge of the Chinese hegemony.

      • BC says:

        I’m still surprised that SJW can bring themselves to read this blog. I post anything remotely accurate on the women question on reddit, and people either ignore the post or hallucinate that I said something entirely different.

        • jim says:

          Pretty sure they cannot read it.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          A multiple choice RedPill on women question is even better. That stamps out the hallucination and obfuscation because it forces an answer or to ignore it with no plausible deniability.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        .la is administered from the edge of the Chinese hegemony.

        Jim, you may want to re-examine your thinking here. The top-level domain technically belongs to Laos but its FAQ says that “Dot LA Marketing Company has the rights from the Supporting Organisation of Laos to market .LA.” Dot LA Marketing Company is owned by a UK company with a very visible abuse address. The formal owners in Laos have already been paid off and aren’t going to care if the Brit operators take down some website.

        Very similarly, the “incels.me” website used a registrar in Hong Kong and the top-level domain for Montenegro, and I guarantee nobody in Montenegro cared about their content. But the registry was operated and part-owned by the U.S. company Afilias, some SJW employee of which unilaterally acted to remove the site’s registration, after which the Montengrin owners were pressured to issue a post facto fig leaf.

        As more and more deplatformed thought criminals move to self-hosted sites on their own domains, I am also expecting ICANN domains to become the next targets of the Eye of Soros. But I am considering only domains whose registries are not just owned but actually operated outside the globohomo reich.

        • jim says:

          So what do you recommend?

          Top level domains that are not only owned, but also operated, by entities outside the US hegemony tend to be expensive, and subject to onerous controls, which controls are not intended for us, but for their own subjects – and when someone else wants a domain name on their top level domain, they tend to suspect a diaspora trying to infiltrate.

          And I suspect that they would be difficult to purchase with bitcoin, though I have not done the experiment.

          Philippines is sort of US hegemony, but Duterte is playing both ends against the middle, positioning the Philippines ambiguously between the Chinese and American hegemonies. But Duterte has insecure power. India is sort of US hegemony, in that the US has overwhelming cultural and institutional influence, but they have their own nukes, which means they can thumb their noses at the US when they care to, but they mostly do not care to. Singapore does its own thing, but it does its own thing very quietly so that the US will not notice, websites are noticeable, and Singapore is dependent on US and Australian naval power, which India is not. Sometimes Singapore deliberately and gratuitously gives the US the finger, but mostly they do not.

          • Dave says:

            Generate a Tor address and post it here before you get de-platformed. Although once our enemies legalize hard drugs and child porn, they won’t need Tor anymore, and will shut it down so right-wingers can’t use it.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            So what do you recommend?

            I tried to post a longer reply yesterday, but it disappeared either in transit or into moderation.

            Briefly, I haven’t explored all possibilities but one candidate is Belarus. The local telecoms ministry will block you if you are selling drugs or the poz to Belarusians, but overall seems less intrusive than Roskomnadzor.

            Downsides are many. Have to fill in plausible passport information for registration. Can’t pay directly with bitcoin; instead you have to swap Bitcoin into the clunky Russian online payment scheme “Webmoney” and use that to pay. And when stuff goes wrong, the support staff really only speak Russian.

            But hey, it’s cheap and there seem to be only Belarusians involved with running the enterprise, no Afilias SJWs in sight.

            • The Cominator says:

              I thought Belarus was still economically quasi communistic (which would make me not trust them), why not just go for Russia proper which is free of any kind of leftism and actively persecutes leftists (thought not with as much severity as they should)…

              • jim says:

                Belarus is cheap. Last time I looked at Russia, Russia was not.

                But maybe I will take another look – but what really bit me was the webmoney problem.

            • jim says:

              Sounds like a plan.

              But the last time I tried to use Russian webmoney for a similar purpose, things just did not work, and as I discovered and you reminded me, the support staff only speak Russian

              I will give it another go.

  28. Javier says:

    Funny how true this is. I didn’t care about a house or a garden, but once I got a house, needed a wife, once I got a wife, needed a garden. Our tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, and sweetcorn are doing good. Peppers didn’t make it though. Next year I’m going to try a different mulch for weed control instead of compost.

    • James says:

      True wood chips instead of mulch. Notice that in forests with ground up wood waste fallen from trees, there aren’t a lot of weeds. The same thing works in your garden in most cases.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I swear mulch is a psyop intended to destroy white people’s gardens. Can you elaborate more on the Wood Chips pill? We mostly potted this season and despite a few hiccoughs our results have been excellent. Planning on something bigger for next season but due to Covid miasma housing is in flux. My goal is the suburban gardening panoply (tomatoes, peppers, etc), lots of vines (cucumber and watermelon this year, very interested in any suggestions), berries, corn, and nuts. The wife does all the green work; I do the infrastructure. Gardening is absolutely magical and is one of the easier ways to Become Worthy.

        • James says:

          It’s been a long time, but it’s something I remember my father doing as a kid, and that I’ve seen some videos about online as well. “Paul Gautschi’s Back to Eden” video series.

          The basic idea is that you’re just imitating a forest floor. Where I’m from, it’s all spruce/pine trees, and if you look at some flat parts of the forest, it basically consists of large trees, a few large shrubs, and nothing else. Even when you have sunshine getting through, adequate moisture, and so on.

          If you look closely at the floor, you’ll see it mostly consists of pine needles and small to moderate sized chunks of wood and tree bark that have fallen from the large trees, and have created a barrier between the soil where the nutrients are, and the sun where the energy is. This prevents weeds from successfully germinating, since they can’t get the right combination of sun/water/nutrients. And for the plants that you do want, it works very well, because it aids enormously with water retention and all but eliminates competition.

          It’s worth noting this barrier of woodchips needs to be pretty thick (6+ inches) to really prevent weeds from taking, but it does work in most cases. I have heard of people having trouble with this in areas with runners of various kinds, though — bamboo, creeper grass, etc. Since they don’t need to germinate to spread, they really thrive in this environment since there’s no competition.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Thanks for the recommendation as well as the advice. I am more experienced with infrastructure, hydrology, and composting. I normally just create the circumstances for growth, so it’s a learning process.

            Jim, what does the perfectly fascionable garden contain?

            • jim says:

              I know women, and my wife knows gardening. The perfectly fascionable garden contains a wife.

              When we garden, I cut down big trees, dig, shove wheelbarrows full of stuff, and she looks after the plants.

              I spend a fair bit of time sitting down on a tree stump or a chair, watching her garden, so that she feels supervised, and I can see my garden being cared for, while I don’t in fact tell her how to garden.

              Men like destroying things, and women like looking after things, so I cut stuff down and she grows stuff up. My wife makes the gardening decisions, under my supervision and with my approval. Women like it that way.

  29. Rhovanost says:

    This question is a couple of blog posts late but, in a sane world what would America’s stance towards China be?

    I agree that America seems to be drifting towards holy war with China, but just repeating “Peace of Westphalia” over and over doesn’t seem to be the correct answer. The “Peace of Westphalia” was a western political arrangement. I don’t see why a non-western nation would regard it as a legitimate principle.
    The Chinese leadership is not insane and not sadistic, but that is a far leap from ‘friendly’. From what I can tell, they are only elite caste in the world that has taken the implications of atheism to heart. They want to maximize their wealth and power in the here-and-now, no other values matter. They will not be more sadistic or destructive than necessary to achieve their goals, but moral considerations do not affect them either. In Hongkong, they gave the citizens autonomy until the costs to do so outweighed the financial rewards. In Xinjiang, they do not blink at genocide, because that is the most efficient way for them to secure wealth and power. In Shanghai, they create a stable, safe environment where people do can business because that is the most efficient way for them to secure wealth and power.

    Under the Chinese nuclear umbrella, you are only safe if you are profitable to the Chinese party. No sane person or country wants to be in that situation. (Sprandrell seems to root for China because he envies the power of America compared to his own country, and because he expects them to say “We have read the wonderful things you wrote about us. For this we shall crown you the king of the white people!”. This is a stupid and leftist strategy. The Chinese elites don’t respect sycophants, they respect people/orgs that are strong enough to be threatening and/or useful to them).

    The Chinese government chooses strategies for territorial disputes through cost-benefit analysis, (i.e. is this patch of land/water more valuable than the business opportunities we need to sacrifice to seize it?). Therefore, they will push at whatever line the US draws, whether that line is in Taiwan, Japan, Hawaii, or the shores of San Francisco. They will also subvert any American commercial or scientific project unless America makes that subversion expensive.

    Where is the line between holy war and demonstrating sovereignty?

    >

    Follow up question: since we are living in an insane world, can the US avoid becoming an eternal Chinese debt colony in the aftermath of our civil war?

    • jim says:

      in a sane world what would America’s stance towards China be?

      I agree that America seems to be drifting towards holy war with China, but just repeating “Peace of Westphalia” over and over doesn’t seem to be the correct answer. The “Peace of Westphalia” was a western political arrangement. I don’t see why a non-western nation would regard it as a legitimate principle.

      Ever since the Opium wars, China has bent over backwards for the peace of Westphalia.

      In Xinjiang, they do not blink at genocide, because that is the most efficient way for them to secure wealth and power

      The efficient way to deal with Xinjiang was to epcotize Islam, which is what the Cathedral is trying to do to Islam. The Chinese are vigorously trying to epcotize them, but a substantial fractions of the Muslims do not play ball, though the Cathedral deludes itself that they are playing ball with the Cathedral.

      In thirteen hundred years, no one as ever found a formula for peacefully coexisting with Islam. Eradication is the only solution. After the necessary genocide of conservative Muslims is complete, there will be plenty of epcotized Muslims around doing fine and prospering, so long as mass murder remains around the corner if they stop being epcotized.

      There is no alternative to what the Chinese are doing in Xinjiang, and in the end we will have no alternative but to do the same thing. For thirteen hundred years, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs have been trying to find another way, and failing. The Chinese are doing their best to find another way. The Cathedral is trying another way, and is in denial that its efforts are failing catastrophically.

      • Rhovanost says:

        It looks like someone edited my comment. The quoted text came from me, but the rest came from someone else, as an answer to my original comment.

      • Karl says:

        Please explain what you mean with “epcotize”.

        I do not understand that word and it is not to be found in dictionaries like “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.

        • someDude says:

          @Karl

          “Epcotize” seems to mean, to make muslims re-interpret their faith in another way, that makes it possible for non muslims to coexist with them or under them.

          Muslims don’t take kindly to progressive attempts to epcotize their faith and neither should Hindus or Christians or Jews

          Progressives have epcotized christianity, Hinduism and Judaism, as in, all religions rightly understood are really progressivism.

          • Mike says:

            @someDude

            >Muslims don’t take kindly to progressive attempts to epcotize their faith and neither should Hindus or Christians or Jews
            Progressives have epcotized christianity, Hinduism and Judaism, as in, all religions rightly understood are really progressivism.

            @Jim
            >In thirteen hundred years, no one as ever found a formula for peacefully coexisting with Islam.

            Riddle me this, if Progressivism has managed to entirely subvert and destroy traditional Judaism and Christianity, what makes you so sure it won’t succeed in secularizing Islam, and turning the whole Middle East into one carnival of feminism and sodomites? I don’t quite understand what makes you so sure that Islam will keep a rabid “holy war” mindset towards Christianity when you can already see the younger immigrants in the West turning into fags.

            • jim says:

              > if Progressivism has managed to entirely subvert and destroy traditional Judaism and Christianity, what makes you so sure it won’t succeed in secularizing Islam, and turning the whole Middle East into one carnival of feminism and sodomites?

              Thirteen centuries of similar efforts.

              They are having considerable success, and many other people have had considerable success in the past, but in the end, the real Muslims always followed the example of their prophet, and devoured the harmless Muslims.

            • someDude says:

              @Mike

              Where Islam differs from Christianity and Judaism in this respect is the de-centralisation of Violence, specially Sunnis. Christian and Jewish violence is, for the most part, state sponsored or sponsored by some powerful faction. Christians and Jews are not really known for taking individual initiative in acts of Violence. Hindus and assorted Pagans, even less so. Shia violence is also, for the greater part, Centralised or sanctioned by the Ayatollah.

              This is where the Sunnis differ. There is no Ayatollah, No Caliph, and we see individual sunni muslims taking inspiration from some little known preacher’s sermon and then taking the initiative to commit an individual act of violence. And this individual or small scale act of violence has large scale results, especially in democracies, which due to their inherent instability offer the Muslims a political force multiplier. Any centralisation in Islam, comes from the Prophets words in the Quran or the Hadiths or the Suras. Not from any one person. The Shias partially solved this decentralised violence problem by declaring that only the Ayatollah has the suthority to interpret the Scripture.

              @Jim
              correct me if I am wrong somewhere.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          It comes from Epcot Center, a Disney theme park that presents sanitized, cartoony, family-friendly versions of the world’s cultures.

          • jim says:

            Right.

            Epcotized Islam consists of fun and colorful “traditional” Islamic celebrations full of Muslims wearing “traditional” costumes lifted from Disney movies, watched by camera clicking Han Chinese tourists.

      • jim says:

        Rhovanost:

        With regards to territory disputes would America still be in its rights to back up Japan and the Philippines as tributary states? (If yes, what about Taiwan? Is the island an American tributary state, or a Chinese internal matter?)

        This supposes that sane America inherits the holy empire of progressivism.

        The internal and external collapse of the progressive state is likely to proceed in parallel, plus the American Empire has, like the Turkish Empire, become the anti American empire

        When the dust settles, we will be negotiating in a very different situation. I doubt that a nation whose Plutonium 283, Lithium 6, and Tritium facilities have ceased to work has nukes that still work. During the crisis, the capability of our nukes is likely to be discovered, in which case a restoration America will be negotiating for independence, not for Taiwan.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      Europeans and Americans seem to have a tendency to judge China based on European and American history, and seem to wholeheartedly ignore Chinese history. It is a lot scarier to be under the nuclear umbrella of progressive America than it is of China, it seems to me you’re actually projecting what the disgusting and evil progressive America does unto China, but it’s not China carpet bombing other countries.

      Under the American nuclear umbrella, we are only safe if we let our children be sodomized, our women be whores and we neuter ourselves. I don’t wanna hear it, I don’t wanna hear about the evil China from American subjects, to begin with it’s probably State Department propaganda unless you’re going to tell me you’ve been living in China the last 10 years. I only hear good things from people that have been visiting China often and the transformation the country has been ongoing for a while.

      The Chinese had the means to conquer the world earlier than Europeans and they had no interest, it’s not on them, it’s not how they are, it’s not who they are, never been, never will. My impression, with my limited knowledge of their millennia long history, is that they prefer to exert influence for profit in a merchant way. You pay your tribute, you acknowledge their authority, and they go back to their land and leave you at peace as long as you toe a line which fits their profit, a profit that is arguably reasonable and not immediately destructive to you. I prefer fellow European blood and Christians, but sure as hell will take the merchant price over progressive America, which is dangerously getting close to literal Satanism.

      • jim says:

        Doing business with the Chinese government, it is strikingly less criminal, corrupt, opaque, and unpredictable than the US government.

      • Rhovanost says:

        I want my community to slip away from the influence of the CCP and the Cathedral. I don’t think acknowledging one as a threat means that you have cozy up to the other.

        In the past I was far more worried about the CCP as a threat, now I am starting to see the Cathedral (especially the NYT) as a closer and less rational threat. We are comparing an intelligent sociopath with a rabid fanatic and trying to decide whom we would prefer as a master.

        America is experiencing a cultural revolution right now, but China experienced one that was at least as bad not too long ago. China handled the Coronavirus with more competence, rationality, and fairness than the US government. (China treated its ex-pat churches far better than the State governors did). But, China has camps and America does not. China’s society is more functional than America’s, but it is far more cynical. It’s no Jimian NRX-topia.

        I want to avoid outcomes where America turns into Syria. In the modern world, there is no way to recover from that position. Preventing a Syria-fail state scenario means preventing progressives from burning everything down internally while balancing China externally. (If this is impossible, then the only other option is going expat-refugee).

        • The Cominator says:

          About the coronavirus thing they handled it as a bad actor and this has greatly soured me on China. They panicked everyone with their lockdowns (which if it was restricted to sealing off Wuhan might have contained it) but let people fly out of Wuhan probably to tank the economy and give the Democrats a chance because Trump was ending their sweetheart trade status and pressuring their position on the supply chain.

          America handled the coronavirus poorly by locking down other than the travel bans and closing huge sporting events schools (which should mostly close anyway for unrelated reasons) and concerts we should have done absolutely nothing.

          • Rhovanost says:

            (After three weeks of futzing around), The CCP acted rationally and in their own best interest by containing the virus at home, while working deliberately spread it abroad. (For example by keeping the Wuhan airport open). They directed overseas communities to ship back PPE supplies from around the world. When the virus hit the rest of the world, China shipped out counterfeit PPEs at inflated prices. This meant that China was not at a disadvantage relative to everyone else. (Unless the rest of the world cooperates to settle this grudge). Intelligent Sociopaths.

            America has just flaided maliciously and incompetently in every direction for the past 5 months, and broken disease protocol whenever it holy to do so. Rabid Fanatics.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          I don’t understand why do you notice the camps in China of bad faith savage muslims and can’t notice the library hour in America to sodomize kids.

          China has camps, camps on bad faith savages, camps on disgusting sodomites, camps on +25 unmarried women, camps on NATO faggots. What’s the problem with these camps? Explain.

          Explain why are so nervous about camps on disgusting degenerates but seem dangerously optimistic about library hour to sodomize kids. China isn’t a Jimian utopia and I don’t want China bossing me around, my surprise and my disagreement with you is that you seem to drum up evil China and point at things which don’t exist or aren’t important for functional honorable people, while seem dangerously ignorant to the real and actual evil that exists and is important for functional honorable people in America. Why?

          I’m asking because I don’t think you’re being bad faith, but I do think you are being swayed by boomer anima on “muh democracy”. That somehow having an apparent democracy protects your rights while open camps are dangerous. No, apparent protection of your rights is what has to worry you, not the open camps, they’re open for a reason and you can see them from a mile, while you apparent rights is your children sodomized, your women whored and you neutered. China doesn’t need to hide shit because the population is very happy to see it, because normal functional honorable people want criminals hanging from posts and dirty muslims in camps.

          • Rhovanost says:

            The level of risk you face from CCP vs. the Cathedral depends on whether you live in North America or the Pacific Rim. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have created societies that are better to live in than mainland China or North America. If these countries were larger, they would be the world powers of today. As it is, they rely on the US navy. (Their Corona Virus response shows that these countries have competent leaders who understand China, so perhaps they could punch above their weight and maintain their independence on their own, but that is not clear). In these countries, the Poz is 3,000 miles away, but the Chinese military is close by.

            Under the American empire, these countries can govern themselves for their benefit. Drag Queen story does not exist in Japan, and the BLM demonstration was a ceremonial gathering of disgruntled expats. The Cathedral wishes to remold their cultures but is unwilling to resort to bombs or sanctions. China has grudges with these peoples and would govern with malice. (I suspect that the CCP or Cathedral will only allow these places to have functional societies if there is a balanced tension between the US and China).

            In America, Drag Queen Story-Hour is next door, and the Chinese military is far away. One year ago, I would have advised people to create parallel societies. Own a good firearm and know how to use it. Work at a business that is too small for a Commissar HR worker. Home school or send your kid to *good* private school. Join a *good enough* church. Form friendships with other functional people. Because drag queens are not breaking into homes and dragging kids off to the library, it seemed possible to be ‘in the Poz but not of the Poz’.

            This year, it seems that the Cathedral is not willing to leave well enough alone. I am not sure what the new ‘best strategy’ is. ‘Sanctuary Communities’ might be the wave of the future, where local authorities tell authorities to hell for laws that are too explicitly evil and insane. It might be a matter just being armed and finding the right town to move too. In the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the stupid and insane leaders killed each other off, creating room for the ultra-practical government we know today. In America, the Cathedral never had a head, and now its members are too disconnected from reality to make good decisions. Whether this ends by a Ceasar or Stalin, post-cultural-revolution America will have a culture of ultra-pragmatism. The clever and pragmatic will be the only ones left. For the little guy, the challenge is finding a place to ride out the storm.

            you seem to drum up evil China and point at things which don’t exist or aren’t important for functional honorable people,

            The CCP judges foreigners by the culture they come from, not their merits as individuals. Whites are *relatively* high status because America is rich, powerful, and influential. However, if you are a white expat, then in their eyes you are an agent of Poz, even if you fled to China to flee the Poz. White ex-pats need to hope that the Cathedral does not become *too* scary or deranged. On the other hand, if America collapses to Syria Civil War conditions, then white ex-pats will have the social standing of black expats. (Guangzhou barred blacks from restaurants, and landlords conducted mass evictions during the Corona panic. Your instinct will be to say that this is because of the average behavior of black expats, but unlike Europe, their African foreigners mostly come from the engineer/student class.)

            Are you a member of a functional and honorable culture? If no, you are likely to be caught in the dragnet, even if you are personally harmless.

            “Please, I swear I’m a patriotic conservative Muslim! Heeeelp!!!”

            “Please, I swear I am extremely based! Heeeelp!!!”

            To have a place where men can form families and build wealth generation on generation, we must have a sane culture and the ability to maintain our sovereignty from foreign powers.

            • Rhovanost says:

              I messed up my formatting. The quote should end at the word “honorable people”. Everything after “The CCP judges…” should be formatted normally.

              • jim says:

                Makes a lot more sense that way.

                You left out a forward slash.

                The trouble with fleeing the American Hegemony to the Chinese Hegemony is:

                > Are you a member of a functional and honorable culture? If no, you are likely to be caught in the dragnet, even if you are personally harmless.

                > “Please, I swear I’m a patriotic conservative Muslim! Heeeelp!!!”

                > “Please, I swear I am extremely based! Heeeelp!!!”

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Right. And matters will get much worse if the white countries lose their prestige or if they lose their white status and whites become seen as homeless gypsies (essentially already the case but not internalised yet and foreigners take even longer to realise such things).

                  Alternatives:

                  1. live in the gray zones between the hegemonies, as the Overseas Chinese and other middlemen peoples have done

                  2. get sufficient personal connections with local elites that an unprincipled exception is made for you if the time comes (requires skill, effort, and no guarantee it will actually happen until tested)

                  If you absolutely think the white world is doomed and will never come back I guess you should marry a future elite Chinese girl and go back to China with her. You do not have much hope of integration but your children do. Personally I think that is a too long term bet; China looks good now but their inherent unconscientiousness is going to bite them eventually.

            • Mike in Boston says:

              Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have created societies that are better to live in than mainland China or North America.

              I agree that Taiwan is an extremely pleasant place to live and South Korea, on brief visits, has seemed okay.

              However, it’s questionable whether their societies are healthy: they have the lowest total fertility rates in the world and Taiwan is showing signs of the poz.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Taiwan, like Hong Kong, seems to be leaning in to the pozz to court a US alliance, not because it likes US ideology but because it fears PRC status threat.

                SK is fully captivated by the US and is steamrolling towards maximum progressivism as fast as the population’s inherent racism will permit it to comprehend. Everything SK does is begging for US attention and approval.

                By far the most healthy US-aligned country in that region is Japan, intriguing also the only one every goes on and how about how it is dying.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                *By far the most healthy US-aligned country in that region is Japan, intriguingly also the only one everyone goes on and on about how it is dying.

                • polifugue says:

                  The reason why Japan is the country everyone is going on and on about is that Japan is one generation ahead of everyone else. In 30 years’ time, Japan will be seen as the harbinger of what is to come.

                  Japan never had the baby boomers. The dismantling of the ie system was absolutely catastrophic for the birth rate. In less than 10 years after 1949, Japan’s fertility rate fell below replacement. To put this into perspective, Japan’s abortion rate in the 50s soared between 40 to 50 abortions per 1000 women, four to five times that of America today.

                  Every other developed country had a fertility rate above replacement throughout the 50s, some countries more than others. While South Korea enshrined gender equality into law in 1948, the South Korean birth rate was 6.16 births per woman in 1960, and had been over 6.0 after the war, while the United States did not break 3.6 births per woman during the 50s. Feminism did not come into effect until the 1961, and it took 20 years for the birth rate to fall below replacement.

                  Industrial development differences caused the delay. Japan was a fully industrialized nation in 1945 on par with the nations of Europe, while Korea in 1950 was per capita poorer than Ghana. As a child I had a housekeeper who grew up in South Korea in the 60s early 70s. When she was a child in the suburbs, Koreans outside of Seoul did not have electricity, and it was a big deal when her family received their first toilet. Canned meat was eaten only once a year.

                  Feminists were only able to destroy the family when Korea underwent the miracle on the Han river and Korea developed the infrastructure that allowed the Cathedral to undermine fathers and husbands.

                  By the way, after his first wife died, her wealthy grandfather married her mother when she was 14 and had six children with her. Her father was put in a traditional arranged marriage at 10 years of age with another 10 year old. Yes, Korean peasants got married at 10 and consummated the marriage at puberty. Koreans used to be pretty based.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              You make some good points but your bias against CCP is still seemingly irrational, I haven’t failed to notice that.

              You are making a lot of assertions without any evidence. According to you the CCP is the devil biding its time, if what you say is true well, your position would make sense. But where’s the evidence? I don’t have evidence that the CCP is the devil biding its time, but we are suffering the devil of the Cathedral that sodomizes our children, whores our women and neuters us.

              The only reasonable argument you made that stands for itself is the dragnet, that’s certainly true. But people all around the world will judge you by your background regardless of where you are, it’s not just China.

              Under the American empire Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been able to create societies with negative TFR and heading towards collapse and death. They’ve also become practically rootless, anything good they’ve built has been despite the Cathedral, not with its blessing. How is this an argument in favor of the Cathedral over the CCP? It’s like a marxist telling me that capitalism is evil because America 2020 has worse gender roles than the Soviet Union.

              Perhaps it’s the opposite, perhaps it justifies my impression that China is unlikely to interfere as much as the Cathedral and it’s far less evil. I don’t see China actively exterminating Japan, Taiwan and South Korea with progressivism, but the Cathedral is.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I am typically a Devil You Know type of guy. And as stated elsewhere I am (potentially unfairly) biased against China. You make a valuable point about what American hegemony brought to its protectorates. But I don’t see a compelling argument for China not walking a similar path as the Cathedral. Consider the 1 Child Policy. Seems to be similarly disastrous to population. Also, can you make a compelling argument that Han overlordship would promulgate freehold→Freehold?

                • jim says:

                  Han overlorship of America would be a major improvement on Somali warlords, which looks like the long term outcome.

                  And yes, I do have a soft spot for China. The courts are more transparent, swifter, fairer, and less corrupt. There is more freedom in China. And they have nicer airports. Even if they would up imposing pretty much the Cathedral policies on families and a man’s right to his home, we would have more freedom, nicer airports, and cooler skyscrapers. And whites being second class citizens to our Han Chinese overlords would be a major improvement on being second class to blacks. I would not want to live in China, because too many Chinese, but there are worse options. I would love to see them deal with our Somali problem the way they are dealing with their Uighur problem.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I see the argument, but I think we can do better than “less worse.” If the choice is between Somali v. Han, I choose Han. But I don’t think it is a binary situation. And however wrong Zeihan may be about Chinese culture, I have yet to see a coherent argument for their debt situation or their military prowess. Their carriers are a joke, their navy is inconsequential, their soldiers are un-bloodied, and their system appears to be fragile. They cannot, as yet, project force anywhere but mainland (first non-hemisphere base is Mayotte and it is less than 10 years old IIRC). Zeihan asserts that were it not for Bretton Woods and the USN maintaining high seas international trade, China lacks the capacity to receive raw materials, ship out finished goods, and protect supply chains end to end. If USN stops guaranteeing free/safe trade, China, as well as many other “global” actors are little more than pirate bait. Maybe this is what BAP is counting on…

                • jim says:

                  Their carriers are a joke, because they know that carriers are obsolete. That our carriers are better than theirs, or would be better if Captainess Shaniqua was not at the helm, is like the Germans having better warships in world war II. Did not do the Germans any good, when a carrier’s planes attacked the Bismark. Hence their reliance on artificial islands rather than carriers. You can sink a carrier, but you cannot sink an island.

                  In any ground conflict near China, they would have air superiority. Their ground troops would have air transport and air support, and our troops would not. Hot knife meets butter.

                  The US could shut down most of the Maritime silk road, but it cannot do much about the silk road itself. They would be fine. Cutting China off from us also cuts us of from China and land regions near China. Hard to say who would take more economic damage. Probably China, but not overwhelmingly so.

                  And their nukes probably still work. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that our nukes no longer work.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  People lose their minds talking about overseas trade as a driver of economic history.

                  Countries don’t need overseas trade to develop. If they did, no country could develop because the first country to do so would need to get its overseas trade from outer space.

                  People within state borders can develop independently given, mostly, the ability to organise effectively.

                  It was always unreasonable to expect a country of a billion IQ105 people would remain at a national per capita income level of $1,000/year indefinitely. This was a wholly artificial result of Marxism. Nothing could have stopped rapid growth from this point other than somehow meddling in their internal politics to keep Marxists in power, or nuclear war.

                  Other factors may decide whether they saturate on $30k, 50k, or 100k, but that’s a lesser issue.

                • jim says:

                  China has been a shithole ever since the Song Dynasty fell, and I cannot really blame women for that one. That was socialism. The Song Dynasty went socialist, and everything went to shit. Women were then unemancipated, due to conquest by barbarians on horseback, but things stayed in the shit.

                  Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the characteristics of Hong Kong capitalism. Hong Kong got Manchesterism, the old capitalism of King Charles the Second, as a result of conquest by English and Scottish pirates and drug traffickers, and kept it when it started to go to shit in the west.

                  This is the typical pattern of new civilizations arising on the borders of collapsing civilizations. When the old civilization self destructs, fragments of what made it great survive far from the center, and regrow, like shoots from a tree that has been cut down.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  Also, can you make a compelling argument that Han overlordship would promulgate freehold→Freehold?

                  Not really, personally I couldn’t. Like I said, I don’t know that much about China, but I insist that they are patently less evil than the Cathedral and I refuse to let everyone else to say the opposite;

                  https://www.rt.com/usa/494861-la-juvenile-hall-estrogen-boy/

                  Coming soon to you if in Los Angeles: state mandated “sex change” mutilation for your children.

                  China at their worst are at the very least merciful enough to just end it. Also, they are making inroads into African countries and I’d say they are being extremely fair considering the circumstances, more “fair” than I would. I’d lose my temper with these niggers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LSuZGlqL34

                • The Cominator says:

                  “China has been a shithole ever since the Song Dynasty fell, and I cannot really blame women for that one. That was socialism.”

                  Feminism is a failure mode of white civilizations not really a failure mode of asian civilizations, asians are somewhat innately resistant to the female equality meme. Feminism was imposed on Asian countries to some degree after WWII (and the Soviets had their own form of feminism though Stalin took steps to lessen the severity of it) but the Asians have always resisted it to some degree.

                  Taiwan is probably the biggest exception since they want to emulate the Baizuo poz to be different from China.

      • James says:

        As someone who lived in the East broadly for a couple of years, and who interacted with a lot of Chinese, I would describe their culture “transparently corrupt”. You really did need to do a lot of managing who owes you favors, and to put a lot of effort into both maintaining accountability and ensuring they knew you were maintaining accountability.

        If you didn’t closely inspect what they sold you, it was likely to be “cha bu duo”, or “good enough”, which was never good enough. On the other hand, if they knew you were going to, say, inspect 1 in every 100 units selected at random for defects, you would get quality stuff. It’s annoying and small-souled of them, but it did work.

        Similarly, if they owed you a favor or had some kind of durable connection to them, they tended to do a better job — albeit still sometimes requiring more accountability.

        Basically, if you were a sucker, they would swindle you. If you weren’t a sucker, they wouldn’t. It’s an effective strategy, but doesn’t speak well to the size of their souls. Typical outcome of a cultural revolution; you kill off everybody but the ultra pragmatic.

        The good people die first, then the holy people die, and the only people left are the ones who were good at telling what they could get away with and what they couldn’t, and operated on a purely opportunistic paradigm.

        • acrrdu says:

          As someone who lived in the East broadly for a couple of years, and who interacted with a lot of Chinese, I would describe their culture “transparently corrupt”.

          It isn’t corruption if it’s transparent. With Chinese, you get what you pay for. The only people railing againt “corruption” tend to be those who either want some product or service below fair price (like Government services in the West — subsidised by taxpayers, disproportionately consumed by individual or corporate welfare queens), or those who simply are cut off from the gravy train due to rivalries.

          Chinese business and supppliers tend to value relationships more highly than immediate profits, and will play fair with equal partners. This is similar to the Japanese model, and is semi-functional because fair play started getting rewarded in China only in the 80s.

          Similarly, if they owed you a favor or had some kind of durable connection to them, they tended to do a better job…

          Exactly.

          Basically, if you were a sucker, they would swindle you. If you weren’t a sucker, they wouldn’t. It’s an effective strategy, but doesn’t speak well to the size of their souls.

          Funny, because from my vantage point, you could be describing any of the great 19th century Eurpoean powers, or twentieth century USA. Failure to honour past agreements (in business or statecraft) and backstabbing at the most (in)opportune moment has been the stock-in-trade of Western bugmen for a very long time now. The last honourable entities my country dealt with was probably the East India Companies (British/Dutch). They were greedy bastards, given, but they were like the Mafia — a deal with them was a deal. You paid them off, they did their own thing, unlike a host of European “do-good” colonists.

          USA is a different breed, because, being founded by traitors, USfags never had any honour to begin with. The entire world has known and accounted for this. US “allies” have been getting shafted since the eighteenth century. Even as early as 1801-05 the US Marines (led by Jefferson pasha, no less) were shafting their ally Karamanli in Tripoli.

          I seems bad when the Chinese (and Indians) do it to you, doesn’t it?

          PS: The only real patriot in the American War of Treason was Benedict Arnold.

          • jim says:

            > > As someone who lived in the East broadly for a couple of years, and who interacted with a lot of Chinese, I would describe their culture “transparently corrupt”.

            > It isn’t corruption if it’s transparent.

            A Chinese businessman will lie, cheat, and steal. That is normal and expected behavior. You are much safer dealing with a white businessman (unless he is a used car dealer) That is normal and expected, and no one gets upset. But the courts don’t lie cheat and steal, unlike America. The cops will arrest you for actual crimes (if they arrest you for political crimes, you have a pretty good idea of what is forbidden and what is permitted) and will refrain from arresting you for crimes against anarcho tyranny.

          • James says:

            America is inherently untrustworthy because it’s a multiethnic democracy. There is no consistent leadership and it’s in a constant state of holiness spiraling. At a national level, trust nothing and expect less and you’ll do fine.

            However, the difference in conduct between Western businessmen and Chinese businessmen doesn’t reflect well on the Chinese. In business, you always need to protect your interests, but when dealing with Mainlander Chinese, it’s dialed up to 11. With a Western businessman, if you don’t hold him accountable, you -might- get screwed. With a Chinese businessman, if you don’t hold him accountable, you -will- get screwed.

            I knew someone in an East Asian country whose family owned an apparel company, and they shifted some of their manufacturing operations to China. The little while, they got good results. Then quality fell through the floor and defect rates soared. They hired Chinese quality control. Still poor. Then they hired local quality control to intercept shipments before they went to Western markets. They didn’t start paying more for the goods, they didn’t do any operational changes, they just wanted to see real quality numbers before shipping to consumers.

            The first shipment that went to their local QC had no defects. Almost 18 months (as I understand it) of pain and hassle and nothing getting done. But the moment they made it clear random quality checks would be happening by their own people before they got paid, the problems went away. Right away. First shipment.

            That’s a typical experience doing business in China from what I’ve heard.

            Funny you should mention Indians, though. My experience has been almost entirely positive. They’re probably one of my favorite groups to work with, despite the poor reputation they sometimes have amongst right wing tech workers. They are kind of nepotistic, but only on the normal, healthy level that all humans should be. Working with them has always gone well for me, even better than working with most white people.

            My favorite manager was a guy who grew up in a poor farming village in India. He really understood how to get things done, and rewarded good work. In this world, if you can find someone who can deliver on both loyalty and execution, that’s as good as gold. No complaints about Indians here.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Chinese nuclear umbrella is a cute phrase that lacks any substantial reality. China is a joke militarily unless you share a land border with them. A couple of weeks of blackout in mainland and you’ve got 1.4 billion bug people praying to their ancestors, so that atheism comment is kind of silly. Their space program is a bit of a larp. They can’t even build AKs properly, something that many eastern European countries can do in their sleep. All this to say that Westphalian Peace is exactly how you deal with China. Just my opinion.

      • jim says:

        China could destroy every American air base and carrier near China in the first hours of the conflict starting.

        China could not control sea and air sufficiently to invade Taiwan with conventional weapons, but it has the capability to deny the sea and air around Taiwan and China to Taiwan and to the USA with conventional weapons.

        China has ultrasonic end guided anti ship missiles, which can easily penetrate a carrier’s air defenses. The USA does not. China appears to have anti stealth radar, that can easily see through American cloaking.

        As for nukes, we don’t know. Russia’s ability to make new kinds of plutonium based reactors (their cruise missile power system) gives good reason to believe that Russian nukes still work. America’s incapacity to operate various nuclear technologies needed for nuclear weapons construction and maintenance gives good reason to believe that America’s nukes no longer work.

        Chinese nukes used to work, and China’s technological level has been rapidly soaring, so chances are, their nukes still work.

        So, China has effective anti carrier weapons, and nukes that probably still work. Probably has radar that sees through cloaking. Meanwhile the USA navy sits in port as a floating brothel and Democratic Party vote bank, because when they attempt to sail the sea, the affirmative action captain keeps running into dangerously stationary objects.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        @Frederick Aldernon

        ” Their space program is a bit of a larp.”

        Rocket launches for this year as of this date:
        China 16
        USA 16 (10 are the partially reusable Falcon9 from SpaceX)
        Russia 7

        All Chinese launches are expendable rocket launches. But China has been experimenting with rocket landing technology that suspiciously looks like Falcon9. If SpaceX Starship is successful, China is likely to copy that, they already are testing methalox engines (although the Chinese methalox engines are not FFSC engines). And the engines are the hard part. Stainless steel is easier to weld than Al-Li and doesn’t need near-clean room conditions that Al-Li and carbon fiber needs.

        Another USA rocket is scheduled to launch tomorrow morning and it’s a SpaceX Starlink launch (will be the fifth flight for first stage booster 1051).

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      “This question is a couple of blog posts late but, in a sane world what would America’s stance towards China be?”

      For the fantastical situation that the USA is a rationally self-interested state loyal to its population, it should ally with Russia and otherwise fully tolerate China’s peaceful rise. China has a huge population but is resource-limited. The USA is much less limited by resources and can expand its population multiple times. If the US had a healthy natural growth rate, it should do so before risking any confrontation with China. The only long range strategic risk is that China grabs Siberia.

      Maintaining relations with Japan and so on is fine but these countries are alien and always will be, while they have no significant resources that should be denied to China. They are about as useful independent as they are as allies. Maybe more so.

  30. Frederick Algernon says:

    I don’t know if this is off topic or not, but one thing I rarely see discussed is what the post-Restoration structure of government would look like. Oftentimes, it is some flavor of “muh Monarchy” or handwaved dismissal, not to dissimilar from our Host’s above observation about the Khmer Rouge’s approach to hydrological infrastructure. So, what would a post-Restoration government look like?

    I envision an autocratic ruler with a council of advisors and a council of governors. The advisors are subject matter experts, priests, and generals. The governors are contingent alphas tasked with holding the mandate of the ruler. Their governments mirror the same structure.

    The justice system would be a triarch system of judges, accusers, and defenders. Judges interpret the merits and facts and recommend a ruling to the governor. Judges are selected per trial based on the facts. In this system, there are no lawyers. The law code must be general, simple, and straightforward; something middle schoolers can memorize and recite. Accusers are the aggrieved. Defenders are the charged. There is no jail time per se, rather holding until trial, and three possible punishments: whipping, exile, and execution/science experiment. Whipping is guided by the crime in terms of location and duration/amount. Exile can range from days to forever. Execution/Experiment is pretty obvious. All three levels of punishment can be classified as singular, familial, and associative. A rendered punishment can stack and transfer, as in Execution for you, exile for your wife and kids, and whippings for your friends.

    Law enforcement is a tiered system. Crimes should be dealt with by the man first, the mob second, the marshal third, the general fourth, and the ruler fifth and finally.

    Courtesy, ethics, and morals are zoned. Think of how “school zones” work now. It must be understood and enforced at the mob level: certain rules of etiquette and decorum must have spaces of absolute enforcement and absolute abandon.

    • The Cominator says:

      Social democracy is destroyed and a caesar takes power… much of the structure will be up to him.

      My advice would be to practiced decentralized centralism ala what was established by the Tokugawa Shogunate (but without the retarded isolation policy). Appoint strong local rulers but make them keep their families in the capital as hostages when they aren’t there. That way the central government isn’t actually administering too much but can easily discourage any revolt.

    • Pooch says:

      An Augustian restoration wouldn’t need a complete overhaul of the existing system. All we really need is the consolidation of power for the emperor, the removal of democracy, and a healthy state religion and we are in good shape.

      • The Cominator says:

        The Augustian reforms if done right would no doubt involve firing almost all the bureaucracy that has grown up since the Wilson administration and the federal government becoming far more of a confederation the states would have to help fund the army and participate in the great helicopter ride of the leftist and would be forbidden marxist policies but they should to a large extent be left alone beyond that, but we also don’t want the states turning into seperate sovereignities entirely ala the Holy Roman Empire… Hence I think the governors (however they are selected) should have to leave their families in the capital whenever they are not there ala the Tokugawa Shogunate.

        • Pooch says:

          Hell if we just rolled back voting to property owning white males we are in good shape. Would allow governors to be selected from their own.

          • Pooch says:

            19th century America if frozen in time was actually a pretty damn good system.

          • The Cominator says:

            Most people don’t want to go as far as I do in purging leftists… Maybe “red” areas can have some participation in choosing their local government whereas blue areas will be under “imperial immediacy” with no such right.

          • pseudo-chrysostom says:

            The big question isn’t so much what systems can work good, it’s what systems can stay working good.

            Consider the implications of what ideograms are used to rationalize a state of affairs. Let us take sufferage of land-owning white males for instance. It is avowedly true that it was a good moment in the production of american history, and that a shift to such would certainly be an improvement in comparison to present states of affairs; but an argument one might use to push things towards something will naturally change depending on where you’re starting from.

            Arguments proceeding along lines like quality of character and avoidance of multi-polar traps/moral hazard/interest alignment can well imply something more elitist still; and likewise, arguments proceeding along lines of symbolic representation or ‘mob epistemology’ can well imply something more demotist still.

            When you use rhetoric whose cardinality has the effect of pushing things towards a certain direction, so oft, the door is naturally open to continuing to follow that cardinality yet further, to it’s teleological conclusions.

            • The Cominator says:

              Ie suffrage tends to expand naturally so its a bad idea even with a limited franchise.

              • Not Tom says:

                And there is a persistent assumption that the Republican form and/or Puritan streak is what made America great in the first place – as opposed to the fact that its genetic stock came from England (the most advanced and powerful country at the time) and had nearly unlimited space to develop and expand.

                American pioneers could have used nearly any system other than outright socialism (which they actually tried, and failed) and would have done fine. It’s a grave mistake to assume that prosperity is because of the form of government and the social norms at that exact time in history, as opposed to a distant lagging indicator. And it’s one of the first mistakes that reactionaries seek to correct.

                • Pooch says:

                  To normies, it is the genius of the American Republic that made America great in the same way that it was the genius of the Roman Republic that made Rome great. Cannot pull that rug from under normies. Like Jim is saying, for Trump to be king, have to uphold the institutions of the great American Republic while quietly filling them with monarchic content.

                • Not Tom says:

                  There is a difference between “normies believe the American Republic was a great system” and “the American Republic was a great system”. You stated the latter, which is false; the former is true.

                  The argument that we need to have the system that normies believe was great is also false. Normies believe whatever they’re programmed to believe. If pretending to be the Old Republic helps smooth the transition, fine by me; however, we should not permit internal memes suggesting that de facto republicanism was ever a sustainable form of government.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Republics are great for a very small state with a very small franchise when the franchise holders have a strong interest in keeping the franchise limited, ie the Most Serene Republic of Venice if you can actually keep the franchise limited.

                  But if the franchise expands to urban lumpenproles or women or hostile outgroups for any reason the state will decline steadily for a couple generations and then at the end rapidly collapse.

                  Maybe the Starship Troopers Terran Federation republic for soldiers and other people who did (dangerous) duty f