Good and Evil

Good people cooperate to suppress evil deeds and exclude evil men, drive out evil men, kill evil men. If no words for good and evil, no extended large scale cooperation. If no extended large scale cooperation, we are not truly human, and we perish.

Unless we can speak of good and evil, unless we can speak of good people and evil people, we will perish.

The words “Good” and “Evil” are both socially defined, and also defined by Gnon. When the people of your social group define good and evil, they instructing you on their social technology and social capital for achieving cooperate/cooperate equilibrium within their group, and this social technology, the copybook headings and tribal taboos, necessarily varies a little from one group to another.

When Gnon defines good and evil, he is telling you that some people and some behaviors make it very hard to achieve cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Those people are evil people, and those behaviors are evil behaviors.

The Old Testament told us to pay attention to tribal taboos and copybook headings. The book of Proverbs is copybook headings, and the book of Deuteronomy is tribal taboos. But in Old Testament times, they had good and working social technology. The New Testament told us to judge a tree by its fruits. In the cold and cynical language of the Dark Enlightenment, the New Testament tells us that when the tribal taboos get holiness spiraled, they are likely to be really bad social technology, and we should check that the social technology is still actually working.

In the first century of our Lord, Jewish holiness spiraled defective social technology eventually resulted in the most severe defect/defect equilibrium of them all: War. War with Rome. The worst possible of wars. The Jews thought it was more important to observe the pharisaic law on attending synagogue and the pharisaic law on avoiding blood contamination by walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, than to observe the commandments of Gnon on coveting, on theft, and on murder.

Commies kill their friends.

The holy continually invent new ways to be ever more holy. Which, because universalism and utilitarianism, requires the continual invention of new and ever more terrible harms caused by inadequate holiness. White privilege. Male privilege. Therefore, being white and male, you are committing all manner of terrible harms, and should rightly be hated and punished. So the sincere leftist will hate you and punish you.

It is defect/defect equilibrium, because the leftist perceives all near as defectors. You cannot establish cooperate/cooperation equilibrium with a leftist, because his perception of cooperation is defective, just as his perception of female sexual desire is defective.

Near is supposedly oppressing far. So the more he hates near the holier he is. The more he harms near, the holier he is. Hence Trayvon-Zimmerman debate. “10-10 No Pressure” was a wish fulfillment fantasy. They want to kill your children.

Leftist males frequently want to cut their own balls off, because they are ashamed and horrified by how much they are oppressing women. But even more, they want to cut your balls off. Especially if you are scoring more pussy than they are, which you probably are.

A leftist just hates you, he hates his fellow leftists, and he hates himself. He will try to harm you and frequently does. Sometimes he will harm himself in the course of harming you.

In the recent prosecutions of warriors, the priestly prosecution suppressed evidence that would indicate innocence (for example the fact that the dead “civilians” shot by Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance were in fact Taliban who had their DNA on IED devices) and went looking far too hard for evidence of guilt, went looking so hard that they were likely to find it regardless of whether it existed or not.

They just hated warriors, because our priesthood has just hated warriors since 1860, wanted to maliciously harm them, and were trying to do so. The prosecution did not give a tinker’s dam whether those guys were innocent or guilty.

Leftists are nicer and politer than rightists, in part because they are always worried about microaggressions, in part because all bad language oppresses some official victim group, in part because they tend to have no real friends, thus feel weak individually, and unable to openly confront people individually.

Kathy Forth was industriously destroying the lives of people in Scott Alexander’s social circle, and everyone was far too nice and far to polite to call her out for it or speak up in the defense of those she damaged.

Scott Alexander on his social circle’s response to an evil and insane woman causing immense damage: “I do think that the people who work on making sure harassment allegations get heard and dealt with have done a really great job, and often while Kathy was stalking them and their friends, and I commend that”

That politeness and niceness is truly astonishing. Approaching Pol Pot levels of politeness and niceness. It is absolutely obvious that Scott’s social circle is outstandingly nice and polite. But really lousy friends. They were throwing each other to crocodile in the hope of being last to devoured.

Pol Pot, who murdered everyone with any connection to himself, was a famously nice man. Everyone who met him and survived (which is not very many of those who met him) reported on how remarkably nice he was. None of his family, none of the classmates he went to school with as a child, survived. The amazingly nice Pol Pot was so nice as to eradicate anyone who obstructed immanentizing the eschaton. And since eschaton failed to immanentize, it was obvious that no end of people were obstructing it.

The collapse of faith in government and social institutions (which we and Trump are riding) is happening because leftists not only behave badly collectively, they behave badly individually. A leftist government is apt to murder millions, and a leftist sister is apt to murder her brother for the inheritance. (The left has no legitimate grounds to arrest Trump, and thus it is difficult to arrest Trump or the people around him without openinly abandoning the Republic, but he has ample supply of legitimate grounds to arrest the top leadership of the Democratic party for individual non political crimes. Biden was open about what he was doing, because everyone in his social circle was doing it, so Trump could arrest his opposition while everyone still politely pretends to believe the Republic still lives.) The average leftist would like to kill you, and will steal anything not nailed down. The holiness spiral heads to war, because it destroys cooperation, because it destroys the words “Good” and “Evil”, destroys the meaning of those words.

The end state of this collapse of cooperation is war, frequently the state making one sided war upon its disarmed subjects.

To detect this sort of weaponized niceness, watch for incongruity between inner frame and outer frame. The apparent niceness of progressives usually has incongruous inner frame, as in the debate over Martin and Zimmerman. Outwardly they cared deeply that blacks were victimized by white authority figures. Inwardly they believed that blacks were entitled to rob houses and attack white people without white people defending themselves, which incongruity manifested in supposedly supporting the proposition that Zimmerman attacked Martin with arguments that Martin had motive for attacking Zimmerman.

The outer frame was that they cared deeply about other people, the inner frame was that they hate me and mine and intend harm to me and mine. Niceness is a weapon. If someone is nice, watch out that niceness is not a knife in his hand.

When I hear leftists talking in moralistic language, they use that language in the same way they use the symbols and language of Christianity, to desecrate and denigrate. They hate goodness and decency and want to destroy it, they shrink from it as a vampire shrinks from sunlight, or Merkel famously shrank from the German flag. They use the language of virtue and goodness like satanists inverting the symbols of Christianity in sacrilegious rituals. “Piss Christ” fails to impress me as an indication of heartfelt Christianity, and leftist claims to be in favor of fairness are as convincing as communist claims to be in favor of the peasants. “Land to the tiller”.

Did the tiller get land?

The communists stole his land, and mortgages in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown were distributed in a way that was a savagely and destructively unfair as it was possible to be. The people who say “Think of our Children” also issued “10 10 No Pressure”. They don’t want to save the earth for our children, any more than the communists intended to give land to the tiller. They want to murder our children in order to save the earth, and are not shy about saying so.

The warmists want to murder our children, the communists are so vitally concerned about fairness that they want to take the tiller’s land and the worker’s house and force them all to live in giant Le Corbusier Housing projects. Is it fair to take the tiller’s land?

Complex societies are the result of males cooperating – and the male capacity to cooperate is the result of selection for collective action to hog the most women.

Failure of the elite to reproduce reflects breakdown of cooperation within the elite. The state religion contains the social technology for cooperation within the elite, thus failure of the elite to reproduce reflects a dysfunctional state religion promoting a dysfunctional moral code, a moral code that prevents cooperation, an evil moral code.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Tags:

154 Responses to “Good and Evil”

  1. CR says:

    ‘Virtue’ is a tool for removing bad people from your community. Gnon-defined “Badness” means having a negative effect on your community, But more generally, the ‘bad’ people are the people lacking in virtue.

    The unvirtuous are purged. This is a tautology. Functional communities approximate unvirtuousness to Gnon-Badness, but this is only an approximation. A calculation that the community makes. Which can be wrong.

  2. ERTZ says:

    >Zuckerberg was terrified. Terrified of Harvardians. It was absolutely obvious who was
    >higher status.

    I think Zuckerberg was terrified because he found himself, unplanned, as the owner and controller of not just a huge company – getting very rich he is of course happy about – but of an EXTREMELY powerful company.

    Targeted online advertising, consumer data mining (not just about things people buy, but their political leanings, interests, preferences, their emotional states, loyalties etc.) is now a dominant, critically important means not only for advertising, but also for political propaganda and control.

    Facebook is not “just” an ad company; besides Google, it’s THE ad company that commands knowledge of individual consumer and voter traits and the ability to control them by targeted advertising and targeted information delivery like never before a company or anyone else was able to.

    It’s not just about money; it’s about POWER – over the intimate information of more than a billion users, and the capacity to manipulate their ideas, desires and actions.

    A great many other big companies critically depend on advertising and consumer information; theoretically, Zuckerberg has the power to make or break them, by subtly changing the algorithms he commands.
    And he holds the same power over politics and politicians – he has the ability to make or break almost any of them,
    because what works with consumer manipulation also works with voter manipulation.

    The other big companies, politicians, intelligence agencies (he not only operates in the US, but world-wide) and even whole governments are very weary of him – because of his novel and unrivaled power.

    While rich, he stands alone against them all – because they all don’t trust him and his power, even fear him.
    His data mining might, power to manipulate not only consumer demand, make or break reputations, but also election outcomes, makes him a dangerous person for just about everybody else who owns/runs companies or is involved in politics.

    His wealth is tied to Facebook, and Facebook is tied to the power it holds. If the great alliance of people who are uncomfortable with the power that is concentrated in Facebook and therefore the single person Zuckerberg acts to limit Facebook’s power over them, they will reduce Facebook’s economic competitiveness and therefore value.

    Zuckerberg’s great fear is that his company is broken up or crippled by regulations because it is not just an economic, but kind of a power monopoly, something all the other powerful people cannot easily tolerate to exist uncontrolled and unmonitored.
    If he is not EXTREMELY cooperative and submissive to their demands, he could quickly become known as the guy who once had over 50 billion $, but then had lost 50 billion $.
    This is quite enough to be terrified about, I think.

    • jim says:

      > I think Zuckerberg was terrified because he found himself, unplanned, as the owner and controller of not just a huge company – getting very rich he is of course happy about – but of an EXTREMELY powerful company.

      Zuckerberg was terrified because Harvard intended to take control of his company away from him and use its power to impose progressivism on people using Facebook, and they have in fact taken control of that company away from him. Harvard is the left, and the left is the powerful people, the high status people, the holier than thou people, the people who have been consistently winning for two centuries.

  3. ERTZ says:

    “But the left is not the eternal losers.”
    The left is made up of many more subgroups than the right; none of them are winners (those at the very top of society).
    In most aspects, treating the left as a monolithic block is an oversimplification.
    I offer a simple 3-factions model of the left:

    1.
    Naive, low-IQ, mostly emotion-driven simpletons that find themselves near the bottom of society.
    Examples:
    Hippies, animal rights activists, lower rungs of environmental activists, “why don’t we just love each other”-types, astrology-, new age-, “spirituality”-enthusiasts;
    includes the more primitive sexual deviants, and feminists (homos/trannies/lesbians with low IQs, who are expelled elsewhere because they provoke disgust).
    They all crave socialization, harmony, sex, friendship and the rewarding feelings from it – their playground are festivals, concerts, and the peaceful political rallies.
    This group is pretty much harmless, except for a few militant eco- and animal-rights activists.

    2.
    Youthful, angry, ambitious, low- or average IQ, thrill-seeking troublemakers, that seek action, adventure, stimulation, revolt, violence.
    These are mostly young men (ANTIFA), who are in their rebellious development phase (puberty+).
    Evolutionary, in the ancestral environment, they represent young males that seek independence from their family unit and begin to fight for their own territory, social status, women and resources and tribal affiliations – which is and always has put them in conflict with each other and with the older males who already hold these desirable resources.
    They feel like going out there to conquer themselves what they want and need to succeed in natural+sexual selection.
    They have no sophisticated plan, just a general desire from their evolutionary programming, an instinct, to go out there, and fight, earn respect, destroy and intimidate, seek action and victory and prestige, to conquer themselves a position with high status, resources, women.
    They act out of vigor, animal spirits, and they may be left or right, because they don’t act from political calculation, but only use simple political declarations as justification for
    going out and enjoying violent action: Fighting with police (representations of authority – psychologically the “old guys” in power which already own all the status/resources/women that those young men want for themselves and are out to conquer by physical violence), burning infrastructure, burning cars, fighting other young guys (of the opposite
    political side), shattering glass etc. – generally applying their youthful energy and testosterone, because young men who felt reward from doing so had more reproductive success in
    our ancestral environment (compared to timid, shy, fearful, passive, submissive, non-adventurous young men).
    Political demonstrations, rallies, riots are their playground – which they attend mostly for the emotional reward, outbreaks of physical violence, excitement they seek from it.
    It has major elements of being a sport and party (they know, after all, that they can “chimp out” while remaining quite safe, because police is most likely not going to kill or seriously hurt them).
    (This is the contemporary situation. Historically, when real poverty and privation was suffered by the masses, this group was made up mostly/entirely from men who rioted
    to improve their dire living conditions, which today do not exist in the West anymore, and THEIR opponents and police were actually dangerous or even a deadly threat.)

    3.
    The left’s brains and leaders: People, mostly men, from middle or upper class families, who are too lazy and/or incompetent to compete with their peers from the same social classes for
    worldly success (positions of power, high social status, financial success) and resent their successful peers (envy-hatred).
    “Intellectuals.”
    “Champaigne socialists.”
    “Bourgeois Bohemians.”
    They don’t really care at all for groups 1+2; they are indifferent to the problems of the working class, lower class, oppressed victimized classes – whoever;
    they are motivated by ambition and envy-hatred-driven revenge, to humiliate their peers.
    (Small exception: Some of the women of this group care for the lower classes – but only in the sense of caring for sick pets – they (rightly) consider themselves superior to them.)
    They seek power and top social status not by competing by regular means like their successful peers, but by inciting the groups 1+2 and general lower classes to unrest and revolt;
    their desires are to humiliate and destroy their peers (ruin them, make them flee, kill them, take their wealth, sit in their mansions and palaces, control their industries),
    and to very simply rule as superior leaders.
    They are perhaps not quite as intelligent and hard-working like their traditionally successful peers, but they still command superior cognitive powers and therefore ability to incite and control the lower classes, to do the dirty and bloody work for them to burn and butcher them on the throne.
    (You can find this as a constant in history: Not a single successful revolution was ever completed that wasn’t controlled by middle- or upper class men who ended up on the throne;
    all revolutions that had no such leaders failed.)
    Of all leftists, this group is the smallest – but the most dangerous.

    Between those three groups can be some overlap that arises from people attending the same locations, events, and social circles, and sharing similar goals and ideas.
    Sexual relations are frequent, for example when males from group 2 mix with women from group 1 in festivals, on demonstrations,concerts or bars: Because men from group 2 are more masculine (“alpha”) than the timid hipster/hippie men from group 1 they are used to, type-1 females are sexually quite welcoming.

    >The communists in Russia were all from the ruling elite. None of them were proles or peasants.
    >The nearest one they had to a prole was Stalin, and he went to an elite educational institution.
    Exactly.

    >The correct analysis is “evil”, not “loser”.
    They ARE different classes of losers: From the poor/dumb/ugly/weak at the bottom of society, through the frustrated+envious average ones, to the (by the POV of their much more successful peers) top middle class/upper class losers at the top.
    “Evil” is relative and ambiguous, but in the sense that they bring unnecessary chaos, destruction, death, social and financial ruin – from their constant undermining of society to open revolution – and, if victorious, by the establishment of a leftist society (socialism, communism, NATSOC), with it’s horribly inefficient incentives and management that makes ruin last until somehow some form of proper market based economy/capitalism is reintroduced. Under their rule, most people suffer most. If you want to call that “evil”, I agree.

    The outcomes matter; if the outcomes are horrible, it’s probably “evil”.
    Capitalism’s genius is that it can magically transfer human “evil” – greed/egoism/selfishness/pride/narcissism/aggression/envy – into high productivity and progress, which leads to better living conditions for everybody – one could say that capitalism (+some fine-tuning by markets, anti-monopoly, some welfare, etc.) is a force that transmutates “evil” into “good” – something more magnificent than the Philosopher’s stone.
    Conversely, one could say that leftism is a force that magically transmutates “good” (intentions) into “evil” (bad outcomes).

    A further possibly useful categorization may be that of A)Relative Leftists, and B)Absolute Leftists.
    A) are those that exist purely due to hierarchy ambitions (social status); those of low status simply lean left because of their ambition to rise higher; once at the top, their leftist convictions end or they switch to conservatism.
    B) are those that adhere to leftist ideas and traits irrespective of their hierarchy position, or at least not because of it. For example, because they reject competition and conflict altogether; examples are women and their aversion to areas of competition males engage in (sports, war, business, domination), and feminine men (“peaceful” men, some types of monks, hipsters, hippies, feminine homosexuals, the type of men who in their youth do not fight among the boys, but play with dolls among the girls); pacifists; and those men who due to some combination of body+mind are so aberrant that they cannot or will not compete in traditional ways.
    Some of the “intellectuals” should fit in here, but not all of them (intellectual achievement can be pursued as a struggle with competition, hierarchy advancement, domination in mind).

    To some degree, leftists are useful, even healthy, to a society, because their constant “nagging”, drive for “change”, “progress”, their “critique” of the status quo, prevents the stagnation, arrested development of a society, which can happen if only conservatives were to exist (let’s not forget that the separation of church+state, Enlightenment, equal rights, freedom etc. are achievements derived from leftist ideas) – example for such societies: Islamic states (Religion=politics=social order=morals–>Fixed Koran–>Fixed doctrines–>Fixed society/civilization in a stagnation trap).
    It seems, society, civilization as a whole, is best served when both left+right (desire for change/chaos and progress + desire for proven traditions and stability/order) are kept in a constant competition, no one side ever allowed final triumph.
    Change and stability/order are both no absolutely useful values; real improvement is.
    Desire for change is the desire for improvement, but also source of ruin from folly; conservatism is the desire for tradition and that which is proven to work, but also the source of blind stagnation and arrested development.
    Ideally, both forces combine, so that improvement can happen – when chaos invents the new, and order preserves the proven and prevents ruinous effects from the new, allows it only when it’s proven superior over tradition, to modify tradition.
    A stable, yet improving, growing, prosperous civilization needs both.
    (Perhaps Asian philosophers got that idea earlier or clearer with their Yin&Yang concept?)

    (As related to good and evil – you can only have good+evil in the first place when you have both. If there were only light or only darkness, there would be no words, no idea of either of them, because that what is there but never is lacking or contrasted with something else cannot be detected and escapes perception. If you want to have one, you at least must tolerate the existence of the other.) (Does this make sense? Perhaps I am too tired now.)

    Leftists are also useful for one’s own cognitive and philosophical development: Their ceaseless attack of the status quo, their intellectual onslaught with new ideas and criticisms, makes them good intellectual sparring partners, because by refuting their ideas and arguments, one’s own arguments and ideas get sharped, and one’s own intellect trained. To put it in more offensive words, they are like a constant bacterial and parasitic load that strengthens one’s immune system, resulting in greater survivability/fitness of the whole organism.

    From all of this, I’d suggest to not take the contemporary, intensified conflict of left vs. right too seriously – I think it’s largely fueled by social media and internet news media, which taken together hysterify the conflict; partisan news sites like Breitbart or FoxNews on the right or CNN etc. on the left are businesses first, all else second; they live off ads and therefore views, therefore maximizing their profits by polarizing their audience, thereby leading to exaggeration and extremism.
    They profit from, produce and intensify the very emotions that underlie the left-right psychology – people are medially exposed almost exclusively to the outrageous extremists of the other side, and wrongly attribute that extremism to the average person of the other side: They wrongly come to perceive the 5% or so worst people on the other side as being the average of the people there. The most outrageous, extremist content, people, statements get the most clicks, make the most money, and from that a false idea of reality forms in people’s minds.
    Twitter alone is a social pest: Its message size restrictions lead to loss of all nuance and refinement; it’s almost only useful for simple announcements and launching insults back and forth – it’s like technology tailored to produce holiness spirals (a German word for it is “Selbstradikalisierung”, translated as self- or auto-radicalization, which can be used as a more general term applicable to more different phenomena) and extremism.
    Today we have less real, live, face to face human interaction than ever before, because we get our information of events and people mostly from electronic displays; people meet less in person and talk and discuss, not with friends, and not with those who hold different political ideas and ideals. The less real, true interaction and discussion there is, the more people come to see their political opponents as demonic arch evils, when in reality, the vast majority is actually not that different from oneself. And once people start to perceive the other side as made up almost completely of evil crazy extremists, the evil crazy extremists on one’s own side of the political spectrum appear more sane, or at least less extreme, less crazy, and as more valuable allies.
    The left is much more susceptible to self-radicalization/holiness spirals (due to its more feminine, hysterical, dissimulating nature), but they also happen on the right, if only as reactionary defense mechanism against those on the left.
    I think, for example, Trump was not elected because so many people really love Trump, but because a great many people became fed up and angry with, perhaps even afraid of, the increasing self-radicalization craziness on the left.

    >Lenin in Russia, was not the spontaneous outrage of the oppressed masses.
    The Communist Revolution in Russia was achieved by type-3-leftists described above, with critical support (Lenin in armored train transported quickly from Switzerland to Russia, given piles of German gold and different currencies) from the German High Command to end WW1 on the eastern front. Without the circumstances of WW1, communists could’ve held on to power almost nowhere (later communist and socialist regimes were supported by the Soviet Union – without that support, they’d have probably collapsed quickly).

    >Your analysis would make sense if leftism was in accord with its self image – if was the proles rising up against capitalists and so forth.
    The proles indeed are the powder that fuels the revolution explosion, but the igniting sparks come from the matches held by type-3-leftists described above. The powder is burned, the guys with the matches stand and (hope to) rule over the ashes.

    >Peta kills every animal it can get its hands on.
    I don’t know details about PETA, but I’ve taken a look in a few of comparable organizations: On the outside, they are pursuing their stated goals; on the inside, they are only about the good old goals: money and (sometimes) sex (because such leftist or heart-warming (Cute animals/-babies!Care and protection instinct activated!) organizations attract (young) women, and tend to have men in charge as dominant superiors/managers, which is a good general setup to induce women for fornication.
    The outside marketing brings in money, the actual animal care costs money, thus income-generating activities are many, costs-generating activities are few (=a few extra cute animals in the animal shelter for PR, a lot of animals being processed in the animal euthanization workroom, then sent on a last journey to the rendering plant.)
    And the managers either get high incomes directly out of it (here in Germany we have “charitable” orgs that pay out 90%+ of revenue as manager’s wages) or indirectly (friends and family of the manager owns a company the charity buys “necessary” supplies from – for prices at the higher end of market price spectrum or higher, and, of course, “consulting fees.”). The government surely knows about it, but probably likes it exactly as it is – for example, by German law, charities are allowed to keep their accounting secret from
    the public. Like lotteries, this keeps the money in circulation and well taxed…

    >The communists hate the proles “rednecks”. The greenies hate flyover country – they hate everyone who lives in greener parts of the country.
    One reason for it is the need for virtue signalling by leftists; they crave somebody to be worse, so that they can be better, even if it’s all crazy nonsense.
    But there is a deeper, more fundamental reason, and for that I have to refer to and strongly recommend a book:
    “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt.
    If you are even remotely interested in the topics at hand, I strongly suggest to read it soon; and perhaps buy it as hardcopy, because it is well written and full of good information that adds well to a one’s education, because its main topic is skillfully illuminated from many directions, for example (child) development psychology, politics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology and history – in my opinion – and therefore should have its place in a good family library. There is a wealth of knowledge in there.
    What’s the main point?
    Political leanings – roughly left+right – are based on one’s moral beliefs, which again are based on emotions/instincts, that are mostly genetically pre-determined by brain modules.
    (This also explains why people are voting against their objective self-interest (NOT empirically found voter preferences: poor people:more welfare, more taxes, socialized medicine; parents: more taxes for schools; young people eligible for draft/conscription: more anti-war))
    It’s called Moral Foundations Theory, and it identifies six distinct evolved basic moral brain functions (the “moral foundations”) that underlie moral opinions and actions:
    A greatly simplified overview:
    https://vialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/moral-foundations-theory.jpg
    The key difference between left/right people is as simple as striking: Rightwing people base their opinions and actions on all six foundations quite equally; but leftwing people ONLY base theirs on TWO foundations (Care/Harm+Fairness/Cheating) AND they often feel instinctive
    AVERSION to other foundations, like Loyalty/Betrayal (they feel this is xenophobic and oppresses outsiders/minorities) and Authority/Subversion (they feel authority as oppression).
    It turns out that due to this, rightwing people at least can empathize/understand the feelings and motivations of the left, but the left cannot even empathize/perceive those of the right, because they lack (or have them “disconnected”) the evolved brain modules the right has on top of those basic two of the left! Like a color-blind person unable to see colors, the left just cannot perceive morally what the right can! They could be considered “moral cripples” – but this is just an evolutionary adaption for social niches, as explained in the book.
    It also explains why leftists are more feminine and infantile – female and child moral psychology is more primitive, because females don’t need some modules warriors/men do (like Loyalty/Betrayal) or, in children, lack them due to incomplete brain development.
    And it seems leftists are more strongly affected by evolutionary self-domestication
    ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication )
    ( https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/are-humans-just-self-domesticated-apes-007859 )
    which makes them more social, creative, playful – more childlike and peaceful/docile – but also seems to make them blind to some dangers (for example, from hostile foreigners and promiscuity – they lack a lot of the disgust functions of the rightwing brain – and it’s disgust that protects from risks and pathogens).
    It also explains why leftists prefer to live in cities, and rightists in small towns or the countryside – mostly due to a Big Five measure called “openness to experience” (cities produce more novelty/art that leftists crave, and have more people);
    it also explains why leftists are xenophile, rightists rather xenophobe. And why leftists are so intolerant, even hateful towards the right – BECAUSE LEFTISTS LACK FUNDAMENTAL BRAIN MODULES that rightists have, and therefore perceive rightists as unfair, oppressive, sexually prude etc. – evil, at least immoral and “bad” – which makes it easy to hate them.
    I strongly suggest to read the book – I can only clumsily scratch the surface of its great content here.

    >It does not explain why Harvard, who are the winners, is left and getting ever lefter.
    I think I can explain it:
    Elite academics like the Harvardians are the cognitive elite, and have high status. But they are not the only cognitive elite – their cognitive peers are the “captains” of business and industry;
    Academics, especially in non-STEM fields, tend to be type-B leftists, because they are less manly: risk-averse, they shy away from dangerous competition, prefer the safety of the academic setting and its ultimate “safe-space”: tenure.
    They only produce research, words, teachings, theories. Even if they are brilliant, they will neither get very rich (millions+billions) (at MOST get a Nobel Prize, which yields a meager $1M) nor powerful (from control/ownership of whole companies, property, land).
    Their social status, while belonging to the cognitive elite, is thus severely limited.
    Compared to their cognitive peers, who also absorb+understand the theory, but additionally have the courage+skill to go out there and APPLY it, to compete, to conquer, to risk defeat and ruin, to fight real fights and battles for wealth and power – the “captains”, the men who have “skin in the game” (Taleb). Those “captains” often get rich, sometimes fabulously so. Therefore, their social status is much higher than those of the pure academics, even those of ivy-league Harvard.
    The Harvardians envy their higher status, which then additionally activate their type-A-leftism as defined above – they get “ever lefter”, as you say, because as the distance between them and their cognitive peers in business and industry in wealth/social status becomes ever greater, their envy grows as well. The rich get rich and ever richer – not only compared to the common man, but also compared to the elite academic – who, being cognitive elite, too, finds that to be much more humiliating than the common man.
    Imagine a tenured Harvard professor, in bed with a top-attractive girl, and she asks him where his 5 million dollars are, that the also quite handsome business captain she also knows makes every year! The humiliation, the insult!
    Now, it’s not becoming for a tenured Harvard professor to go out and join ANTIFA and throw stones in bank windows, but he sure feels the impulse! But the good type-B leftist he is, he’ll find passive-aggressive ways to take his revenge… and grows type-3-leftish.
    Further, in practice, even elite academics are reduced to kind of cognitive “servants” for the captains of industry and the billionaire class; the latter “order” expertises, theories, research – through think tanks or other means – and the elite academics merely must work and produce them, with the owner class/captains/billionaires/business elites having the last word on their application or non-application – therefore acting like judges for the worth of the academics’ work.
    The Harvardians are winners, but not the top winners – the 3rd winner on the rostrum is quite happy, the 1st most so, but the holder of the second place is the most bitter – because he ALMOST made 1st place, and his 2nd place on the winners’ rostrum feels to him like the worst defeat.

    • jim says:

      > The Harvardians envy their higher status, which then additionally activate their type-A-leftism as defined above – they get “ever lefter”, as you say, because as the distance between them and their cognitive peers in business and industry in wealth/social status becomes ever greater, their envy grows as well.

      Zuckerberg was terrified. Terrified of Harvardians. It was absolutely obvious who was higher status.

      Listen in to leftist chatter. It is all holiness signaling. All this stuff you put in your tediously lengthy comment is irrelevant, a mere pretext. It is not what they are in fact talking about.

      Leftists are not the losers. They have been winning for nearly two centuries. They are the holier than thou, the people engaged in holiness competition.

      > The proles indeed are the powder that fuels the revolution explosion

      Commie fantasy. Never happened anywhere ever.

      Their self image is that leftists are the proletariat, but they hate the proletariat, always have, have been hating them more every year, and now the proletariat is starting to wake up to the fact that the left intends to murder them all and made a damned good start on that project during the twentieth century.

  4. ERTZ says:

    Original roots: 1789 French Revolution National Assembly – conservatives sat right, revolutionaries left.
    Rightists are content with what they have (they usually are in the top half of society and social status, wealth, power), Leftists in the lower half (very roughly).
    It’s winners vs. losers, the satisfied vs. the unsatisfied.
    No surprise here – winners are conservative (want society to stay as it is so they can remain being winners and masters), losers are leftists (and want to “change” that situation, aka revolution, revolt, etc.).

    Now – why would someone want to “cooperate” when this only perpetuates his own inferiority, powerlessness, low social status, lack of wealth – and, the ultimate reason for all this, access to high-value reproduction
    partners?

    Wouldn’t it be perverse, unnatural, masochistic, for the inferiors to actively welcome and support their own subordination?
    “Cooperation” sounds nice and reasonable, but to the inferior, it only means preservation of his status as serf, slave, servant – of the superior people, who command him, therefore humiliate him, take more
    and higher-quality mates and leave him only the genetic garbage to mate with, thereby genetically condemning his offspring as well to serf status in the next generation.

    Even if I oversimplify the nature of the leftist in that way – isn’t it understandable that he is driven to reject this deal, this “cooperation”, and prefers violent revolt, even mass killings and burning
    down of society to ashes, prefers it to eternal subjugation by the genetically superior (which is the underlying cause for social status, wealth, sexual success etc.?)

    Isn’t your demand for “cooperation” just a demand for order – an order that keeps those at the top as masters, those at the bottom as slaves;
    isn’t it just the demand that the slaves accept or tolerate their enslavement eternally, isn’t it a demand for willingly accept or tolerate self-destruction?

    From the perspective of the inferior man – isn’t it entirely reasonable for him to to want to rather destroy society, than to be condemned, himself and all his progeny, to be forever the lower class – the cognitively, financially,
    genetically inferior social class?
    Why cooperate with those whose goal is that? Why not kill them all, take their gold and women, and rule himself instead?

    Which, by the way, is exactly how any current ruling class, and upper half of society, achieved their status today.

    I think what you actually want is to create a system, and a justification for it, where the inferior will or must accept or tolerate their subjugation forever, just like that – and you invent nice-sounding names for
    it, like “morals” or “cooperation”;
    a system, where the ugly, cognitively inferior, weak, sickly, sexually frustrated are not reacting with envy and then hatred and aggression to those who are beautiful, competent, strong and healthy and sexually successful.

    A society in which the inferior will not try to improve their lot by attacking and overthrowing the superior, instead live in silent and obedient submission to serve them as workers, and then just die.

    I can easily see why one would resist cooperation with that, and would prefer even violent revolution and the risk of death from it, than to live as an inferior slave, eternally humiliated into low social status.

    “They want to kill your children.”
    Damn right they want.
    Because the successful winners have crippled (restricted them to inferior genes from inferior women) or killed (by preventing reproduction by monopolization of the women by superior men) the losers’ (leftists’) own children in the first place,
    by being superior, winners!
    This is the state of nature and society: An eternal war (non-cooperation), in which the superior enslave, kill and exterminate the inferior through natural and sexual selection.
    By being successful, the successful kill off the unsuccessful.
    The superior man impregnates more and superior women; the inferior man only gets the female genetic garbage, or no sex and reproduction at all.

    Why cooperate? From the POV of a loser male, who has come to the conclusion he will forever remain a sex- and childless slave to the winner males, it’s perfectly reasonable to go out on a killing spree – because the biological,
    evolutionary result is just the same – him being dead, extinct.

    To justify cooperation, one has to gain something from it. If there is nothing to be gained from it, cooperation makes no sense, and you get uncooperation, aka aggression and violence.
    This is no prisoner’s dilemma, but a zero-sum game: one can only get the social status (hierarchy rank) and reproductive access (fertile women with good genes) that others lose.
    You kill, or get killed.

    What you argue for is that those who are to be killed just shrug it off, and serve the successful killers as friendly, docile slaves.
    You demand selflessness, altruism, from the losers, but not from the winners.

    “Leftist males (…)want to cut your balls off. Especially if you are scoring more pussy than they are, which you probably are.”
    This is one of the ways the inferior, weaker side in a war fights – sabotage, guerrilla warfare.
    Uglier women also do it, for example try to spread rumors about sexual infidelity and promiscuity of attractive women to sabotage their sexual value to men, and by pointing out even the slightest beauty flaws of
    beautiful women repeatedly.
    In something so critically important like natural and sexual selection, nobody and nothing fights fair. (“In war and love, everything is allowed.”)
    This is not a sport, but about life and death. (Even in sports, in reality, cheating and sabotage of all sorts happen, doping etc.).
    There is no fair war; if it seems to be fair and honest, it is probably no real war.

    “A leftist just hates you,”
    The loser, who is to be killed off by the winner, is right to hate the winner.
    “he hates his fellow leftists,”
    They are weak losers, too, otherwise they would be no leftists; they make for weak allies, worthless allies, and, deep-down, deserve hatred, due to their uselessness.
    “and he hates himself.”
    If he is rational, he must, because his status as leftist, as loser, is evidence of his inferiority. Actually, his hatred of his inferiority is the only chance he got for bettering his lot, by driving him to get
    stronger, or by driving him to attack the superior.
    If he would not hate himself, he would have to accept his inferiority, which means to accept his status as a loser and slave.
    “He will try to harm you and frequently does. Sometimes he will harm himself in the course of harming you.”
    And this is good and reasonable. This is exactly how evolution works, organisms, people fight each other, and kill off each other, and the winner takes all (resources, women).
    You would much prefer that the losers love you, and take your commands, be your slaves, and be docile and never ever harm or sabotage or kill you, wouldn’t you? Why should that happen?
    Any loser man who has but a spark of life and ambition still in him, should seize any opportunity to sabotage or kill the winner, to become winner himself.

    “Leftists are nicer and politer than rightists”
    Not ARE, but pretend to be.
    The weaker party cannot afford to act impolite, because the stronger will punish them for it.
    Masters can be polite or impolite, servants must be polite.
    If the leftist loser somehow becomes master, the niceness and politeness often abruptly ends, because it is revenge-driven payback time.

    “That politeness and niceness is truly astonishing.”
    It is pretended, and the pretended action is easiest to bizarrely exaggerate.
    “Approaching Pol Pot levels of politeness and niceness.”
    The leftist’s politeness and niceness is already an act of warfare: deception. He wants to appear harmless and friendly, to prevent being attacked, and to be able to prepare for his own attack to take power, or at least
    to sabotage/remove/kill an superior.
    Women are also examples for this. They tend to all hate each other (sexual competition), but are superficially extra nice and sweet to each other, but tend to talk nasty behind each other’s backs.

    “But really lousy friends. They were throwing each other to crocodile in the hope of being last to devoured.”
    Leftists=losers are prey of the winners. Winners/superiors are few, losers are many. Herd animals seek safety in the group, hoping to reduce their individual chance of predation – and moving themselves around so that the other
    herd animals are more exposed to the predators. In business/office socialization this can be observed as risk aversion, scapegoating and petty scheming.

    ““Good” and “Evil””
    Good and Evil are subjective; losers and winners define them differently. Both define it so that good is that which serves their self-interest, evil that which hurts their interests.
    Few seem able to see through this in their own cognitive filters.

    “To detect this sort of weaponized niceness, watch for incongruity between inner frame and outer frame. The apparent niceness of progressives usually has incongruous inner frame, as in the debate over Martin and Zimmerman. Outwardly they cared deeply that blacks were victimized by white authority figures. Inwardly they believed that blacks were entitled to rob houses and attack white people without white people defending themselves, which incongruity manifested in supposedly supporting the proposition that Zimmerman attacked Martin with arguments that Martin had motive for attacking Zimmerman.”
    The inferior loser must seek to sabotage the superior winner.
    The leftist loser will therefore consciously or unconsciously facilitate everything that harms, weakens the winners, to reduce their strength, to prepare for the ultimate goal: The attack on the winners to make them into the losers.

    Ultimately, it’s hypocrisy to criticize the losers, inferior leftists for wanting and doing as they do – they just execute their evolutionary programming of wanting to be the ones with high status, social and sexual power and success.
    If YOU were half as smart, ugly, sickly, weak, small, fearful and frustrated, pushed down in the social hierarchy by better men who rule over you, take glory and women and life from you – if you had endured your whole life in impotent envy-driven rage, while being forced to make a friendly,
    servile, social, cooperative public face or be punished – can you say with certainty, that you wouldn’t be a leftist, too?

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @ERTZ

      The “gamma wall of text” is real.

    • Dave says:

      ERTZ has a good point though. Why should eternal losers meekly accept defeat? Why not grab the chessboard and beat the winner bloody with it?

      To get into Heaven, I suppose, unless Heaven’s a fairy tale winners made up to pacify the losers.

      • Jehu says:

        In fairness, I think Reaction’s natural constituency is men between about the 20th and 80th percentile in status as viewed by women.
        As a case in point, look at what 50th percentile status back in 1950 as a man got you in terms of a mate in the US. Now look at 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 and current year. Any questions?
        These days having a woman who is height-weight proportional with no significant deformities is pretty much only available to guys in the 75th-80th percentile and up thereabouts. When I was a teenager, you could get that down in the 30th-50th percentiles pretty easily. The current iteration of the Cathedral really really sucks for the 20th-80th percentiles, and I suspect that is part of the whole MGTOW dropout meme. Why work so hard to go from 25th to 50th percentile when you look at what 50th percentile gets these days?

      • jim says:

        But the left is not the eternal losers. The left is Harvard. The communists in Russia were all from the ruling elite. None of them were proles or peasants.

        The nearest one they had to a prole was Stalin, and he went to an elite educational institution.

        The Khmer Rouge killed all intellectuals, especially foreign educated intellectuals, not because they themselves were peasants, but because they themselves were foreign educated intellectuals.

        The correct analysis is “evil”, not “loser”. The “loser” analysis ignores Harvard and the State Department.

        Harvard in the US, and Lenin in Russia, was not the spontaneous outrage of the oppressed masses.

        Harvard hires people on the out, because they cannot trust white Christian heterosexual males to do evil to white Christian heterosexual males – same reason that treasonous elites have always hired Jews to do the dirty work against their subjects.

      • Dave says:

        Lenin et al. were losers in the sense that they failed to meet the expectations of the social class they were born into, but instead of soothing the pain with whores and booze, they incited losers of all social ranks to rise up and dispossess the winners (Ted Kennedy did both). Harvard supplied the carefully-honed rhetorical tools they needed to bamboozle the naive masses.

        Foreign-educated intellectuals = people who think they’re a lot smarter than they really are.

        At first, actual smart people were caught off guard, and millions died or fled the country. But over time, like men pretending to be women, they figured out how to hack the new rules to infiltrate and take over the “communist” party. 80% of today’s Chinese oligarchs are descended from the old nobility who lost their shirts in the Revolution.

        Now watch me beat Magnus Carlsen at a game of loser-chess. Whoops, he just tricked me into checkmating him! How did that happen?

    • jim says:

      Your analysis would make sense if leftism was in accord with its self image – if was the proles rising up against capitalists and so forth.

      But it obviously is not. The communists hate the proles “rednecks”. The greenies hate flyover country – they hate everyone who lives in greener parts of the country. Peta kills every animal it can get its hands on.

      It does not explain why Harvard, who are the winners, is left and getting ever lefter.

  5. BC says:

    Looks like the impeachment vote is 10am tomorrow. No delay. Grey washing deal cut?

    • BC says:

      Hmm, I take it back sounds like they’re going to do a full trial. Outstanding.

      • jim says:

        This show could go for quite a while, because it looks like Trump is planning the greatest show on earth.

        The Uniparty is walking into a trap that Trump has been digging for a long time.

        Judge Roberts will not know what hit him. By the time this is over, it will likely be obvious that if the Democrats ever return to power, he is going to die. He will walk into it a member in good standing of the Uniparty, and walk out of it Nazi Hitler Hitler Hitler.

  6. atavisionary says:

    Good article Jim. Reminds me of a post I made a few years ago about how Charity, or Christian charity, has basically been reworked into theft. Seemingly virtuous on the outside, while completely rotten to the core:

    At the heart of the matter is the question of what is the True good and the True evil. Why do I use the adjective “true” in the previous sentence? I have come to believe that there is present in our society a deep confusion about what is good and what is evil. Things that are evil are very often dressed up as good. Pigs with oceans of lipstick. While good things are maligned as horrible evils.

    In other words, positive and negative polarities exist on an axis which is most often extremely poorly perceived. The common or worldly axis of “good” and “evil” does not match the true axis very well, yet is not fully disassociated with the original either. The deception must be plausible. The most common type of distortion is to take an act or belief which is ostensibly of the true good, then warp it in such a way as it loses its virtue…

    Charity, in its true good form, happens when one individual takes pity on and helps another who they can see, hear, touch, and (if unfortunate) smell. A real person right in front of their eyes that they directly interact with. This is real service to others. Importantly, the perception of bystanders and other third parties should not be a factor in this interaction. It is self-serving to use public acts of charity to boost a personal reputation and doing so, while not super evil, is more closely associated with true evil than true good.

    https://atavisionary.com/stripping-charity-of-virtue/

  7. Jacob V says:

    Jim, I was skeptical about your take that marriage was historically enforced one-sided, but recently listening to David Bercot’s lecture on what the Bible and early Christianity teaches about divorce made me realize my ignorance on the subject. Bercot points out that Biblically only a man can (and is obligated to) divorce his wife for being an adulteress, but a wife does not have any right to divorce her husband. Even though Roman culture at the time permitted women to divorce their husbands, Jesus and early Christianity condemned that universally as adultery.

    https://youtu.be/rThN8a2SK8Y

  8. Rapgod Zeus says:

    –non-moral world to moral world–
    There are 3 forces in the Age of Consciousness.
    Good, Evil, and Free Will. Free Will is mediator between good and evil, tipping the balance towards good. This is why good overpowers evil.
    These are corollaries. What started as Positive force, Negative force, and will to consciousness, upon achieving consciousness, become Good, Evil, and Free Will in the service of the Good. Only with consciousness does the world take on a moral slant, and through Free Will does it increase or decrease the amount of Good or Evil in the universe. But while Good is a more powerful force than Evil, no conclusion is fated or predetermined. The universe was only predetermined up til the advent of consciousness that brought about free will due to its transcendence of cause and effect, due to the feedback loop of consciousness, thoughts in turn generating thoughts. It’s up to us to make this universe a Heaven or a Hell. It could go either way; nothing is preordained anymore. But it appears that Good has the upper hand, at least from the evidence we have. Perhaps this goes back to the beginning. The fact that the very coming into existence of the big bang implied an imbalance in the equilibrium between the positive and the negative. That implies it favored one ever so slightly more. And since Good and Evil are but a continuation/transmogrification from Positive and Negative physical forces, it makes sense that one would ever so slightly have the edge. All you need though is a slight edge to make huge progress over time, which is in fact what we see now. And it’s a remarkably small span of time that you could say that and be right and know from all the evidence that you are right. Can Evil still win out even though statistically it shouldn’t? Yes. That is Sodom and Gamorrah. Perhaps all these universes exist, and only in certain ones do the conscious beings truly achieve Good. The others are like fallen kingdoms, to be punished like Sodom and Gamorrah for wasting their potential. Misery shall be their punishment, their is no device with which these universes could be wiped out on the spot due to the choices of conscious beings. And for the ones who achieve good, it is heaven on earth. We are creating Heaven or Hell. Of all the Universes that pop into existence, they are potential Heavens or Hells. It is up to the conscious beings to decide which it will be. There is no Heaven and Hell. There is Heaven or Hell. Thankfully we’re only talking about the fate of the world. The slice of consciousness that you as a person perceive will thankfully be relinquished completely upon your death, just as before you were born. If a universe is successful, it will completely vanquish Evil, reaching the Heaven, Nirvana state. And so the duality will have been reduced to a monopole. Perhaps that is why the Christian God is a deity and Satan but a fallen angel. But with the elimination of Evil comes the elimination of Free Will, since there is no longer any conflict to be mediated. And so you are left with pure Good experienced by pure consciousness, not a trinity, not a duality, but the ONE. I did not try to capitalize those letters just now, at least not consciously. The ONE is the end goal. But Evil must be vanquished first. Evil is our enemy. Those who try to embrace the ONE now are premature and naive, you cannot have the ONE with Evil in the world. The end state could be called GOD. It is the universe’s goal to create a state of eternal GOOD, same thing as GOD. The ancients sensed this. We’ll have to transcend our evolution to reach such a state. There is too much evil built right into us because of natural selection. So the totality of being conspires with itself to create the ultimate state of eternal good. It’s like GOD perfecting himself. The totality of being is GOD attempting to perfect himself. And the very act of him/it aiming upwards towards the better is what initiates the sequence in the first place, that is the will towards being.

  9. AtoZ says:

    I’m worried about global warming (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/climate/climate-change-arctic-warming.html). But I’m also interested in buying a powerful, heavy car. Should I get big, heavy domestic rear-wheel drive sedan with a V8? Or will the apparatchniks who run California make operating it too expensive? Also: is warming really a myth? What is the ideal commuter car for the times to come?

    • jim says:

      Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. Global warming slowed remarkably once we had accurate satellite observations. Somehow it is only things that cannot be accurately measured show indications of warming.

      Further, the world has been warming, and oceans have been rising, at the same very slow rate since we came out of the little ice age in the nineteenth century.

      At the current rate of warming, assuming there is any warming, which is far from clear (because the day to day, year to year, and decade to decade fluctuations tend to be considerably larger that supposed rate of warming) warming will not be humanly noticeable this century.

      Things are definitely warmer than they were in 1850, but it is far from clear that things are warmer than they were in 1600 or 2010.

      However, although the world has not been getting noticeably warmer in recent decades, it has become a great deal greener. Young forests are growing in places where in my youth a sheep or a goat had scarcely enough grass to eat. This subjective impression of massive and radical greening is confirmed by satellite observations, which show leaf area has nearly doubled in the time that satellites have been up.

      Climate change is real – the climate has been changing throughout recorded history, and will doubtless continue to change, but in the last century, and within my lifetime, the most conspicuous change has been towards a milder and more clement world, and a much greener world.

      Not only is the world greener, but storms are diminishing, if we take the measure of damaging storms hitting major urban areas that were already in existence a century ago.

      • AtoZ says:

        Excellent. What’s the ideal commuter car for California? Big, heavy powerful cars are good in and of themselves. But will they be targeted by those running the state and made uneconomical to operate?

        • Not Tom says:

          California is targeting pretty much everyone who owns a car with a gasoline engine. Have you checked out the fuel prices lately?

          The only long-term solution for Californians who want to avoid living as shitlibs and also avoid being targeted by the state is to leave California.

          • The Cominator says:

            California would be a great place without all the Californians… another advantage of my great helicopter ride plan… all the Californians (nearly all) absolutely must be relocated to the Pacific ocean or as I call it shitlib flyover country.

            • Not Tom says:

              You do understand the absolute insanity of claiming that you want to drown an entire state of 40 million people, don’t you?

              • jim says:

                Entirely doable.

                But inadvisable to announce in advance.

              • The Cominator says:

                It was a joke but more a joke about the method then a joke about what the fate of California shitlibs (certainly not the non-shitlibs though) SHOULD be.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  I used to think like that as well, I used to want to execute every single leftist, but as I overcame the pernicious influence modern society had in me while growing up, I realized it was the wrong mindset.

                  In a way, there’s nothing more leftist than wanting to execute every single leftist, you should think about it. Marxists spend their energy whining about the money they don’t have, the money others have and they never fix the issue, they never actually bother doing something to earn the money they want. At the end, consumed by their unwillingness to take responsibility they become increasingly insane, and they just kill everyone and finally themselves.

                  There’s only so much energy you can produce at any moment, and every single watt of that energy is better used focusing on what’s good for you, not what is bad for Californian shitlibs.

                  I understand the sentiment, but their punishment is not the purpose. We’ll kill as many as them as we must to achieve our goals and then move on to the next best step. Because the moment you stop working towards your goal… well, you actually lost.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I DO hate Havel’s Greengrocer generally (perhaps MORE then I hate some of the true believers) because unlike the Havel’s Greengrocers of Soviet Russia they are not acting under immediate threat of death but merely out of fear of social ostracism.

                  But that is not why I say you need to be thorough in expunging leftists… its because if you aren’t they will come back. Now what I propose is not really possible unless the left pushes things to open warfare it will NOT happen in the mere event of a lightly resisted Trump autocoup… but I’m saying if the left pushes things to war we need to do the right thing and wipe them out.

                  At the VERY least the current cathedral priesthood must be “liquidated as a class”.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Most efficient method is trucks and trains with the exhaust piped through the compartments.

              Pick-up, transport, and disposal, all in one step!

  10. Pooch says:

    Jim, can you explain how liberal American Jews are the cape and not the sword when 8 of the top 10 donors to the Hillary Campaign were Jews?

    https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp

    • Pooch says:

      And also note I’m not a troofer

    • Not Tom says:

      The donations literally prove that. These supposedly rich and powerful Jews have to grovel before Hillary and the Democratic party for a tiny sliver of status.

      The powerful don’t donate. The powerful collect the tithe.

      • Pooch says:

        Doesn’t Hillary and the rest of the leading Dems rely on their collective money? Or is it just a small piece of the pie from their other corrupt dealings?

        • kawaii_kike says:

          The money comes from their power and influence as Progressive celebrities. Just imagine the Cathedral as a church.

          Who depends on whom? Is a church dependent on its donations or are the congregants on the edge of their seats waiting for the next prophecy? Who is more desperate? The Jews are begging for influence and orders from the Progressive hegemony.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          X relies on Y’s money

          Therefore

          X is in Y’s power

          —-

          Y chooses to donate to X

          Therefore

          X has power over Y

          —–

          The first is the Marxist interpretation.

        • Not Tom says:

          Hillary absolutely does not need their money. Do the Clintons look poor or struggling to you?

          Giving money to someone who clearly does not need your money, isn’t going to pay interest, has no intention of returning the money, and indeed may not deign to even acknowledge your donation, let alone grant favors, implies that they have power over you, not the other way around.

          If I “donate” to Elon Musk by buying shares in Tesla, it means I expect to be paid back. It’s a transactional relationship. If I give charity to an alcoholic on the explicit condition that he dry out, that is also essentially a transaction. But if I give money to the church because I feel morally or socially obligated, and expect literally nothing in return, then that is no different from paying tax under legal compulsion; it means they have power over me.

          And to head this off at the pass: yes, you can make the same argument about Trump donors, and yes I believe the argument is still valid in that context. It means that these folks have hitched their wagons to the Trump train, and while it may be a very good train, it still means that Trump is pulling the wagons, they are not pulling him.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      Most of the people with Jewish ancestry donating to Hilary, who are the same people who donated to Obama and will be donating in even larger numbers to Democrats this election cycle so as to remove Trump, are more accurately thought of as *anti-Jews*.
      Conversos who for all intents and purposes worship Satan (or Haman, Hitler, etc) but retain the fig leaf of Jewish identity.

      For the most part they live out, espouse and fund ideas that are (a) inimical to traditional Judaism, whether you take that to be the default in 1948, 1848, 1748, or 500 BC; and (b) tremendously destructive to the present and future of American Jews, Jews worldwide, Jews in Israel, and Israel as a Jewish state. That these policies are also suicidal for the USA and Europe does not negate them being suicidal for Jews themselves.

      Now, imagine that you are a nominally non-Jewish (but just as satanic and antiJew as the antiJews themselves, though in no way antisemitic) leader of the death cult to which these antiJews unknowingly belong. Let’s say, Obama, Kerry, Hilary, Samantha Power, or their ilk. You can milk the ever eager-to-please antiJews for much more money, either because they have more or want to give more, than Christians. So why not do it? In the meantime, what do they get for their money…

      • Allah says:

        Jewish lies. Jews are simply scared of some vague threat of anti-Jewish sentiment from whites and still see right wing whites as boogeymen for historical reasons. They are doing what they think is Good For Jews.

        • jim says:

          The drama over moving the US embassy to Jerusalem does not fit this story.

          Why was it that some Jews, quite a lot of Jews, were outraged that US recognized the capital of Israel?

          Because they are sucking up to a left that is steadily moving towards giving Israel full genocide, the Rhodesia South Africa treatment, and a left that is less inclined to hire Jews to do their dirty work, and more inclined to hire dot Indians to do their dirty work.

          • Allah says:

            What drama?

            • jim says:

              You must have been asleep at the time. Huge outrage, people invited boycotting the opening, lots of Jews indignant.

          • an alt identity says:

            Why was it that some Jews, quite a lot of Jews, were outraged that US recognized the capital of Israel?

            You phrase this as “they converted to progressivism” but “they feel more strongly that genociding whites is in the interests of the Jews than that a strong Israel is in the interests of the Jews” says the same thing. Yes, genocide of white people is part of progressivism and, also yes – genocidal leftism turns on the Jews (witness the USSR) but neither of those contradict that there are plenty of Jews who want to genocide whites because that’s what they see as good for the Jews. You can persuade or coerce people out of an insane religion (progressivism) but you can’t convince people to work against what they see as their best interests and Jews are unique in the prog coalition in that they see the ultimate end as in their best interests (even if they’re wrong and will end up killing each other).

            This isn’t something I’m comfortable saying under my normal pseudo.

            • jim says:

              > they feel more strongly that genociding whites is in the interests of the Jews than that a strong Israel is in the interests of the Jews

              Refusing to acknowledge that Jerusalem is part of Israel does not advance the genocide of whites.

              You argue like a Troofer. When refuted, change the subject while not acknowledging you are refuted. The issue in dispute is not whether Jews are evil, but whether they run the Cathedral, or are its grovelling, humble, and terrified servants.

        • Not Tom says:

          Evidence, faggot. Tell us which synagogues they go to, which Jewish tenets they actually believe, how many friends they have in Orthodox communities.

          • Allah says:

            But first, you tell me your ancestry.

            • Not Tom says:

              No, first you stop acting like a fucking animal and addressing what people actually say rather than immediately devolving into tribalism.

              • Allah says:

                [deleted]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted, and similar comments silently deleted, for Trooferish efforts to change the subject without admitting the truth of your opponents points.

                • Allah says:

                  Isn’t this the same guy who demanded I answer the WQ and told you to look up my IP? Now he really cares to stay on topic and abhors getting personal? Who do you think you’re kidding?

                  I will never respond to that commenter until he answers whether he has Jewish ancestry or not. If he does not want to get into this topic, he can say so and the two of us will never interact again.

                • jim says:

                  Your call, you are not required to respond.

                  but you are prohibited from going through the motions of responding without actually responding. Wastes bandwidth with fruitless conversations.

                  Asking if he has Jewish ancestry implies that his position, like your own, is purely a matter of tribal affiliation, without relevance to the facts.

                  We are trying to discuss the facts, and you keep swerving to tribal affiliation.

                • Iz Tan Bull says:

                  “I will never respond to that commenter until he answers whether he has Jewish ancestry or not.”

                  A+.

                  A meme is born.

                  Sustained tone of earnest indignation is good, speaking of *that commenter* insultedly in the third person without naming him is very good, but the “or not” at the end is just genius.

                  I WILL NEVER EVER RESPOND TO THAT COMMENTER UNLESS HE ANSWERS WHETHER HE HAS JEWISH ANCESTRY (OR NOT).

                • BC says:

                  The left can’t meme.

                • jim says:

                  Same as they cannot be funny. The path between thought crimes is too narrow and getting narrower.

                • Iz Tan Bull says:

                  The idea was to appropriate the unintentionally hilarious item from our friend in Istanbul for general mockery of the Joo-obsessed. There are a dozen characters here whose comment history could be summarized in that one phrase.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I hope he’s being sincere. Nothing would please me more than to be able to respond to witless platitudes without the “R U JOOISH” automated reply.

                  (FTR, my actual take on this sidebar is that they are progressive/anti-Jewish but still identify as Jewish, which makes the whole issue very confusing both to onlookers and to themselves. I’d call them “Epcotized Jewish”, same way Obama is technically black and outwardly identifies as black but actually has nothing in common with the ghouls jumping up and down on cars downtown in Chicago. The identity is a skinsuit, they are all just progs.)

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Yes. It also causes some progs-versus-provincials confusion and friction between the US Democrat-Jews and the immigrant Jews from Russia and Israel, who are comparatively unpozzed, race realist, openly ethnocentric and older fashioned about sex roles.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                He is incapable of acting like a real human. He is so mindlessly, automatically, instinctively tribalist that he cannot even comprehend the meaning of peace with another animal like himself–let alone actual humans–on any other basis than a temporary alliance to kill someone else. Asking him to cooperate is worse than asking a deaf man to sing along to a tune that you are humming, because at least the deaf man can comprehend the idea of sound via vibration.

                Once I identified that he is as wild as he is, I just insulted him until I got bored and found something better to do. His line is a parasitic creeper vine on the human family tree, in desperate need of pruning. The only way to deal with his ilk is to exterminate them or enslave them, and enslaving them just degrades your stock while putting off the inevitable necessity of extermination.

                You know him Cominator is always going on about killing all leftists to prevent them from coming back and we argue that so many of them are Havel’s Greengrocer; that it is not a deeply held belief? This desert rat has defect-defect equilibrium bred into his genetic code so deep he cannot even comprehend real cooperation. The Cominator Solution is the only way to make peace with Islam. Complete genetic and memetic annihilation, followed by resettlement and development of their lands.

                • Allah says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Projection

                • info says:

                  The good way for the defectives to show themselves is be genuinely kind and decent. It will be perceived as weakness and the claws will come out as they attempt to devour the “weak” then this provides Casus Belli for their extermination as everyone of those worthless cretins show themselves.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  My argument is that he already showed his claws and unintentionally revealed his complete and total inability to understand or comprehend cooperation. At that point, the only reason to engage him is to build a behavioral model to predict how best to attack him. There is nothing to be gained by trying to dialogue with him. He is a more articulate, “muh dik,” desperately calculating the best way to rape, rob, or murder every human on the planet. It’s a pathetic existence, but it’s the only one of which he is capable.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m curious what the fake Turk said here…

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure he is a real middle easterner, albeit one that has had a great deal of contact with the Cathedral. I don’t remember what he said, because empty of actual information.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Probably that I was always intending to kill him and all of his people anyway and that I am cloaking myself in moral outrage to justify killing him. Which attitude fits both his pattern of conduct and Jim’s reason for deletion being projection.

                  Which is ridiculous. I dont need any justification beyond being stronger than him and not liking him. Also, if I simply hated anyone not me, I would sanitize the Middle East with saturation neutron bombing to kill all the inhabitants and save the infrastructure.

                  Unfortunately for that plan, too many Christians live in the area, so we are going to have to go house to house and kill the wicked in person. A plan which will cost some European lives to save some Arab lives, but is necessary for the Christian religious community that is required for a functional society. He refuses to acknowledge that part, which demonstrates that he is dishonest.

                • info says:

                  “Unfortunately for that plan, too many Christians live in the area, so we are going to have to go house to house and kill the wicked in person. A plan which will cost some European lives to save some Arab lives, but is necessary for the Christian religious community that is required for a functional society. He refuses to acknowledge that part, which demonstrates that he is dishonest.”

                  Our Lord is converting them:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y7cFlTPoW8

                  That’s why I am hesitant. He is appearing to them in dreams and many of them are coming to him.

    • jim says:

      Same reason as most of the people who funded King Edward the First were Jews.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Jewish genius is donating twice as much to support policies that wipe them out twice as fast as the rest. And then doing it again next election.

  11. “10-10 No Pressure” *goes googling*

    Holy fscking shit. And: “a funny and satirical tongue-in-cheek little film in the over-the-top style of Monty Python or South Park”

    Once it is satirical. Twice it is satirical. It is the Nth time someone is being oh so satirical about killing me and mine, see also “white wounding” and “kill cis scum” and all that. After a certain amount of these oh so satirical things one definitely starts to feel like a Jew in Berlin, 1940 or so.

    Remember the part when Leftists are telling Rightists that watermelone jokes or rape jokes are Not Funny? I am starting to feel like Leftist murder jokes are starting to sound way, way too serious to be even remotely funny.

    • jim says:

      > one definitely starts to feel like a Jew in Berlin, 1940 or so.

      Remember the question “what will the next big thing now that World War T has been completed with total victory?”

      Now you know.

      If Trump winds up in prison, his family and leading members of his administration wind up in prison, and shortly thereafter numerous Republicans. But the purge will not end there, it will grow steadily, probably over many years, until they start going after most white males, then every white male.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      Mmmmhh, personally I feel more like the “west” is fast becoming the Aztec Empire.

      The first ritual mass murdering were the unborn babies to preserve the “sacred” party life, but that’s just Tlaloc, soon we’ll have to appease Huitzilopochtli.

      • Dave says:

        A religion that involves holding Mexicans down on a stone slab and cutting their hearts out could do a lot of good for this country. If we ask him nicely, Huitzilopochtli might also accept nigger and hajji sacrifices.

        • jim says:

          The problem is that if you have priests in charge of sacrifices, there is going to be an incentive for ever more and ever bigger sacrifices, since the costs are born by the warriors, but the benefits accrue to the priests.

          • Dave says:

            Then design the sacrificial ceremony to be emceed by the warriors who captured the most diversity, with priests bowing down to them in gratitude, just as each wedding shall be emceed by the groom.

  12. >Good people cooperate to suppress evil deeds and exclude evil men, drive out evil men, kill evil men.

    They should. But I would not be so optimistic to claim that most good people most of the time are actually doing so, pretty often they are just grumbling alone. This might have something to do with the less cooperative attitudes in Europe’s backyard we discussed somewhere else.

    But yet, even in the Westest West this cooperation and suppression isn’t really working as it should, nowhere even near. Millions and millions hate wokeness and yet they are just grumbling alone and not forming cooperating networks to suppress it.

    This requires other virtues beyond goodness. IDK. Maybe courage, maybe something else.

    • jim says:

      To get large scale cooperation, you need large scale organizations – the state Church.

      Good people find it hard to coordinate because the state religion has made evil holy and good unholy.

      “failure of the elite to reproduce reflects a dysfunctional state religion promoting a dysfunctional moral code, a moral code that prevents cooperation, an evil moral code.”

      The proper earthly job of the state religion is to get everyone on the same page about recognizing what constitutes defection and what constitutes cooperation, what behaviors distinguish us from them.

      The plan is that Caesar takes power, finds steel alone does not suffice. He needs a state religion, and the state religion is either already hostile to him, or is about to turn hostile as it heads ever leftwards, no matter how leftist Caesar is.

      We then say “OK Constantine, we have a religion for you”.

    • Dan says:

      The position we’re in currently is that the individual acts necessary to exclude evil men and suppress evil acts have themselves been made illegal. It would be discriminatory of a private club to make the necessary decisions to police their membership. Standing up to a thug on the subway risks pulling an assault charge, which hurts the career man far more than the thug. Keeping your wife from hanging out with the wrong friends or spending money on alcohol is defined as abusive behavior. And “cooperating networks” have to be very careful how they’re structured and named or they’ll be broken up by anyone from the FBI to antifa to lawyers looking for a payday. And that’s only a partial list.

      You can call not losing your job, not getting sued for discrimination, not getting dropped by your bank and PayPal, keeping the respect of your community and staying out of jail a lack of courage – strictly speaking you’re correct. But it’s not a trivial lack of courage, easily overcome. We need to change the laws and the culture to make suppressing evil a stable state that most men can adhere to.

      How to get there from here I don’t actually know, but that’s why I’m reading Jim.

  13. Cloudswrest says:

    The zblog has some rather black pilled commentary on the “community”, i.e. “The Deep State” today.

    https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=19253

    • alf says:

      He’s crazy, in my eyes at least. If you assign sanity to the insane, you are crazy. ‘The community’ is basically a rehash of the Cathedral, and although individual members may act sane, the community at large acts insane.

      • jim says:

        He assumes that the Republicans will compromise, which they would love to do, and will force Trump to compromise.

        But there is no one to compromise with.

        Republicans would be overjoyed at his scenario but it is not going to happen. Republicans have been expelled from the uniparty, and Nancy Pelosi is riding the tiger and will soon fall off and be devoured.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          McConnell refusing a vote on USMCA before impeachment trial means he believes he can engineer a conviction by manipulating the rules of a Senate trial.

          Either he wants Trump removed no matter what, and believes that can be done without lethal consequences for McConnell (in which case he will block or corrupt the USMCA once Trump is gone); or he wants to blackmail Trump with a credible threat of conviction, so as to get something even more valuable for himself and his backers than killing USMCA.

          If so, Trump can stop the conviction train by providing persuasive evidence to McConnell that any path to conviction would in fact be lethal to McConnell, or take his chances, or capitulate to the extortion.

          • The Cominator says:

            They are not going to try to blackmail Trump no matter what the Z-Man says. McConnell ain’t Paul Ryan and he knows that any attempt to blackmail Trump would be a bluff.

            McConnell doesn’t want to allow the Democrats to distract the country with an “accomplishment” while they have this sham impeachment.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              If tariffs on China escalate as planned on December 15, that will be a big (if not conclusive) whitepill.

              • The Cominator says:

                I think if McConnell was so fanatically determined to keep China trade open (and I’m well aware that his father in law is a Chinese shipping magnate) he would never have allowed that stupid Hong Kong human rights act (that Trump did not want) to come up for a vote as it complicates the prospect of a China trade deal.

              • jim says:

                I think there will be last minute concessions by China on December 14, which approximately what happened last time.

                • The Cominator says:

                  50-50, the Chinese I imagine are genuinely pissed about the stupid human rights law and they know that if they make concessions now they look horribly weak.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  They played all their delay cards already. It’s all upside for Trump to hit them now especially if USMCA passes and it will strengthen his hand against impeachment. Phase 2 much harder than Phase 1, Trump and his team know more leverage needed to force China to the table or accelerate the divorce.

          • jim says:

            McConnell is not after a conviction, he is after a greywash, a limited hangout, in which Trump does not use the power to declassify documents and subpeona witnesses to expose the deep state for month after month, followed by an acquittal, followed after the acquittal by all the obstructive people in his administration and numerous key Democrats going to prison before the 2020 elections. The deal he is after is “acquit Trump quickly, and you will not hang”. But the Democrats, who are riding the tiger, cannot agree to such a deal.

            (CNN):

            President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like, CNN has learned.

            In conversations with the White House, the Kentucky Republican has made clear he hopes to end the trial as soon as he can …

            But the show is exactly what Trump wants. He’s made clear to advisers privately that rather than end the trial as quickly as possible, he is hoping for a dramatic event, according to two people familiar with his thinking. He wants Hunter Biden, Rep. Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify. He wants the witnesses to be live, not clips of taped depositions. And he’s hoping to turn it into a spectacle, which he thinks is his best chance to hurt Democrats in the election.

            McConnell wants Trump quickly acquitted to avoid a bloodbath. The Democrats think they can win a bloodbath, because they have the backing of admirals and generals.

            McConnell is trying to save the saner elements of the uniparty from the crazy elements. Unlikely to fly. It is Bolsheviks versus Mensheviks all over again.

            When Trump turns the trial into a show, the Democrats expect to start arresting people, arguing that it unlawful for the president to exercise authority during impeachment, that he is using his authority to pervert the course of justice, that anyone obeying presidential orders is perverting the course of justice, thus rendering the impeachment irrelevant. Maybe they can. I don’t think they can, but I expect the unexpected.

            • The Cominator says:

              Yeah even if Trump were amenable to such a deal (and I think while he may have been in the past I don’t think he is anymore) the Democrats would make it impossible.

              Also I think Durham and to some extent Barr (despite his dubious background as a Bush family man) really want to crucify them all. Durham in the past has proceeded without respect for persons (the Whitey Bulger case, Mueller was the only guy he didn’t get and that is because Mueller was protected from on high)…

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              > declassify documents and subpeona witnesses

              There’s a lawfare problem in the Senate as in the House. McConnell, Schumer and their collaborators set the rules, and McConnell is already talking about limiting the trial to two weeks. The articles of impeachment have been pre-shrunk and backpedaled to save face for Pelosi and minimize the attack surface for Trump. There will be rules limiting topics and witnesses and evidence allowed. It is already the case that subpoenas must be bipartisan, i.e. require Schumer approval.

              Trump can declassify documents but may be denied subpoenas.

              • BC says:

                Paid trolls are pushing hard for the greywashing on reddit now.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  For a hard greywash to succeed, Trump has to be removed or neutralized (McConnell leverage) so that Barr-Durham investigation is delayed past 2020 and Giuliani gets the full Michael Cohen – Paul Manafort treatment. Otherwise we get soft blackwash where declassification, Giuliani and Durham prongs of the Trump counterattack still go forward. We would not get the full glorious version where Trump calls the children of Biden, Kerry and Pelosi as witnesses, Ukrainian visitors do show & tell in the Senate, and MSM is forced to broadcast it.

                • jim says:

                  Hard greywash requires the cooperation of the Democrats. The Democrats have to say, “OK, you can hang out some of our dirty laundry, but not too much of it”

                  If they give Giuliani the full Michael Cohen – Paul Manafort treatment, they are also going to give McConnel and Horowitz the full Michael Cohen – Paul Manafort treatment.

                  People trying to give ingroup elite community favorable treatment to the Democrats, but not outrageously so are getting burned.

                  Hard to cooperate with people who don’t want to cooperate, and in fact want to kill you, and probably will kill you when they are in a position to do so.

                  We are now in an imprison or be imprisoned situation, and will likely soon be in a kill or be killed situation.

              • Not Tom says:

                It is already the case that subpoenas must be bipartisan, i.e. require Schumer approval.

                Is that confirmed? If so, then it’s god-awful, and is the one thing in here that I find to be in support of the blackpill narrative. Everything else can be explained as leverage, but there is no reason whatsoever for a concession like this unless McConnell actually does want to protect the Russiagaters.

                • BC says:

                  McConnell wants to protect the swamp because he and almost every senators in both parties are involved in the corruption just like Joe Biden.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  If the procedure for Trump’s defense to subpoena witnesses is that the subpoena is actually issued by the Senate then the existing rule (predating Trump) would seem to apply. Majority witnesses need minority leader’s approval.

                  I asked about this rule at CTH and did not get an answer. If Trump’s lawyers have unlimited subpoena power, then we get the show.

                • jim says:

                  In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiry resolutions, the minority party on the investigating committee was granted the power to subpoena. No crap about consensus subpoenas. Subpoenas were adversarial.

                  The trial process is adversarial, and Senate acts as jury presided over by a judge. Normal courtroom procedure is that the accused gets to subpoena witnesses, and it is normal and usual procedure for the subpoenas to be adversarial.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Speculation is all well and good but I’m asking if there’s confirmation. CNN isn’t a reliable source, even when you ignore the spin.

                  Republicans are a different kind of corrupt, generally; they are craven cowards who prioritize fundraising above winning or ruling. I don’t believe that a substantial number of Republican senators (forget Flake, McCain, etc.) were actually involved in the coup attempt.

                  And in that respect, Trump is the best thing that ever happened to the party, they are breaking records every month. He is giving McConnell what he really wants for the party.

                  It is just as possible that McConnell intends to use this faux promise to make the trial short and sweet as leverage against the Democrats (“you know, I think if you guys just held a vote on USMCA, Trump would be distracted and a lot of this cross examination would go away…”). Which I would argue is still kind of a bad deal in the long run, but is the kind of deal I could see him trying to make, and likely failing to make for the reasons Jim has described.

                  You can have wheeling and dealing without outright treason. That’s why I’m interested if McConnell really explicitly agreed to give Schumer veto power, which would be unexplainable and inexcusable, or if CTH is just going out on a really long limb and relying on a flimsy chain of assumptions, which they also often do.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Nixon was only in the House, in the pre-lawfare era. In 2019, the House minority has been denied all witnesses and subpoenas that it requested, under the 2018 Pelosi rules designed for impeachment and removal using the Mueller report.

                  Clinton’s impeachment was 105th Congress, using rules adopted in 1986. There was no restriction on subpoenas.

                  https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf

                  I have not found the current rules. The Clinton rules state that the Presiding Officer of the Senate (US chief justice) takes applications for subpoenas and they are issued by him, so it appears the consensus subpoenas are not relevant to impeachment. I will update if I find the actual rules of today.

                  Since the entire Senate wants to stop a Giuliani show they can still vote in ridiculous new rules anyway. Going as far as having a secret ballot is much too dangerous for them, for anything short of that McConnell can calculate how safe or unsafe it is to have his fingerprints on it.

                • jim says:

                  > Since the entire Senate wants to stop a Giuliani show

                  There is an effort happening now to detach Trump from Giuliani, and replace him with Gowdy, who is a swamp critter who would undoubtedly assist in framing Trump in the same way that General Flynn’s lawyers assisted in framing General Flynn

                  The Trump Giuliani show in the Senate would be great. The Trump Gowdy show would be at best a greywash, at worst high treason against the Republic.

                • BC says:

                  You can have wheeling and dealing without outright treason. That’s why I’m interested if McConnell really explicitly agreed to give Schumer veto power, which would be unexplainable and inexcusable, or if CTH is just going out on a really long limb and relying on a flimsy chain of assumptions, which they also often do.

                  CTH isn’t a trustworthy source on anything due incorrect world view. For months after Mueller was appointed he thought he was Trump’s man there to root out the black hats while everyone else saw it as the disaster it was. He fundamentally views the world from a money perspective instead of a power and status perspective.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “CTH”

                  I’m sorry but literally who?

              • BC says:

                CTH is conservative tree house, a blogger who came to prominence during the Zimmerman case and was one of Trump’s earliest supporters.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  CTH (ConservativeTreeHouse writer Sundance) is a Trumpist, traditional Christian, antileftist actuary with weapons-grade analytical skills. He periodically achieves “open-source intelligence” breakthroughs on Spygate, Zimmerman and other matters months or years before they hit the news. Is one of the few with credible analysis of Trump economic foreign policy. Predictive accuracy much higher than any other writer I have seen but tends toward (unfortunately realistic) political “fear porn” at times. If read with some filtering is quite valuable unique content.

                  Contra what was posted above, I do not remember CTH ever theorizing Mueller was a white hat. He has been severely critical of “trust the plan” Trump-base pacification campaigns. If someone has a link to such a spectacular misfire by CTH it would update my estimate of his skills but he’s still an often amazingly perceptive analyst.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Yeah, CTH does some pretty great forensic work and was the first – as far as I know – to actually put all of the pieces together around Mueller and Russiagate. Anyone who read his stuff knew months ahead of time how the investigations were going to end up. He deserves recognition for that.

                  But I’m careful not to blindly trust someone to perform well in one area because they performed well in a different area. This isn’t forensic analysis, he’s not doing a postmortem, he’s reading tea leaves and trying to make predictions. And while he may be correct, I don’t have any precedent to assume that he is – in this particular area, he is really just another dude with an opinion.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  CTH correctly predicted everything on impeachment that has happened in the House. He was the only one to identify, many moons ago, the role of the Lawfare group (that later provided the House impeachment lawyers Goldman, Eisen, Berke) and the design of the Pelosi rule changes after the 2018 midterm elections.

                  For the Senate he seems to be saying only that it’s complicated and dangerous because Uniparty. IIRC he tweeted briefly about the Senate subpoena rules but didn’t develop it further.

                • jim says:

                  Senate subpoena rules do not matter, because the Senate functions as jury, and the judge, Chief Justice Roberts, calls the subpoenas.

                  Chief Justice Roberts is a solid uniparty member, and is industriously compliant in Fisa court misconduct, so the question then is will he be party to the greywash, Horowitz style?

                  I think he would eagerly support a greywash, but the Democrats will threaten to impeach him or to arrest him in the middle of the impeachment proceedings if he does not engage in a total whitewash. He will not be able to find a greywash consensus position.

                  The core impeachment issue is whether, as Chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States, it was reasonable and appropriate for Trump to ask that western misconduct in the Ukraine be investigated. In which case, all evidence of western misconduct plausibly known to Trump at the time, or reasonably suspected by Trump at the time, is relevant. Did Trump have sound non political predication for asking for Democrat misconduct to be investigated, or was it just to give his enemies a hard time?

                  It will be very hard for Roberts to turn down subpoenas on a question so central to the impeachment, which is reason to suspect that Trump manipulated the uniparty into impeaching him on this question. I think Trump caused a scandalous version of the phone call to be leaked to a known mole.

                  Concerning Giuliani’s problems, it is absolutely impossible to move money between the US and some other place without committing a dozen felony offenses, which laws are enforced in a selective and arbitrary fashion. Anyone charged with money transfer crimes is being targeted for other reasons, and Giuliani’s clients are being targeted, presumably to pressure them to concoct Giuliani offenses, which will then be used, General Flynn style, to pressure Giuliani to concoct Trump offenses, and to deprive Trump of his lawyer in the hope of installing a lawyer that is in the uniparty’s pocket, as General Flynn’s first set of lawyers were.

                  I only move money between the US and other places in amounts of $500, at irregular intervals, as cash, and via multiple jurisdictions, even though my transfers are completely innocent and boring. It is extremely inconvenient. Mostly I use untraceable bitcoin these days. Bitcoin is highly traceable if you do not understand how it works, but I understand how it works. I spent a great deal of time and energy figuring out how to legally transfer money internationally, and the bottom line is that you just simply cannot. Every single person, from Zuckerberg to the Mexican maid sending money home to feed her family, is breaking more laws than you can shake a stick at.

                • BC says:

                  Contra what was posted above, I do not remember CTH ever theorizing Mueller was a white hat. He has been severely critical of “trust the plan” Trump-base pacification campaigns. If someone has a link to such a spectacular misfire by CTH it would update my estimate of his skills but he’s still an often amazingly perceptive analyst.

                  You don’t read CTH as much as I do. He was an original supporter of “trust the plan” and pushed it and the storm for quite a long time. When he’s wrong, those posts go down the memory hole, he never owns up to his mistakes. He does good analysis but his conclusions are often way off and have a tendency to way over reach.

                  Again, not a bad guy but he’s very often wrong.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Senate subpoena rules do not matter

                  I agreed with you on this up above after looking into it, and was only correcting the impression that CTH had pushed that idea other than a tweet or two.

                  Trump’s best defense is a small variant of what you say. The Democrats have permanently welded themselves to the position that Foreign Interference and manchurian candidates must be investigated to the ends of the earth. That is the defining mantra of their party and media organs since 2016. A Vice President and presidential candidate known (just from public reports) to be owned by Ukrainian oligarchs and the Chinese government qualifies as a Predicated investigation target if ever there was one, and much more than candidate Trump ever did. Force the democrats to admit that Trump should have sicced the FBI and CIA on Biden to protect the purity of American politics, that they want these great institutions sicced on Biden just in case there might be something out there influencing our elections; and that their only quibble is some twatwoffle about also putting Ukrainians on the task.

                  Many Washington elites were using Ukraine as a general nexus of corruption that sloshed back into American politics to an extent that is currently unplumbed. Ukraine, a poor country, was #1 in donations to the Clinton foundation in 2016. Inquiring minds want to know and our leader is obligated to find out.

  14. >“Leftists are nicer and politer than rightists, in part because they are always worried about microaggressions, in part because all bad language oppresses some official victim group, in part because they tend to have no real friends, thus feel weak individually, and unable to openly confront people individually.”

    I think leftist niceness tends to look cringing. I have received a business offer from a man whose politics are moderately liberal but he is too “cringing nice”. I.e. if his views are the least bit challenged he is running head over heels back into the motte, no attempt to defend his actual views. And something is putting me off about this, my gut is saying don’t accept it. Cringing nice is fake nice, and fake people are backstabby, if not for political reasons then for financial gain.

  15. The Cominator says:

    “Leftists are nicer and politer than rightists, in part because they are always worried about microaggressions, in part because all bad language oppresses some official victim group, in part because they tend to have no real friends, thus feel weak individually, and unable to openly confront people individually.”

    Don’t see it personally. Whites from the American South tend to be the most right wing and most polite in the country, whites from Boston the exact opposite.

    • jim says:

      Well, if you take left wing nutcases from San Francisco, and sane people from San Francisco, the leftists tend to be more nice and polite when they are not trying to derail your life.

      • The Cominator says:

        Are the leftists in question hippie leftists or progressive leftist…

        They are not quite the same, hippie leftists DO tend to be nice. The progressive ones not so much.

      • The Cominator says:

        A good litmus test for your nice leftist vs your purely and consistently evil leftists is are they a vegetarian.

        If a vegetarian probably genuinely motivated by misplaced and deluded compassion, if not probably just pure evil.

        • Not really. Plenty of pshychopaths among the vegetarians and vegans. If there is a correlation between compassion (deluded or not) and vegeterianism/veganism, I’d say it’s more likely reversed. A vegan might cry over a sick dog and then break a babies neck like a twig without blinking. Check out those vegan MMA fighters on youtube, just observe them for a while while having a dark triad personality checklist beside. Might be surprised.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          For women:

          https://twitter.com/CovfefeAnon/status/1197264929214140417

          For men? I suspect that there’s a lot of evil but also that the lack of essential nutrients causes strange behavior.

  16. Christ sits at the right side of God. The right is always associated with God. But the left is associated with Satan and all things degenerate. The left hates white Christians, and just white people in general, because Satan constantly seeks to destroy God’s Spirit-breathed creation, the white race.

    The deplorable situation we find ourselves in today is no more complicated than the forces of God verses the forces of Satan. Call them leftists, progressives, atheists, communists, or whatever. In the end they’re all just satanists, whether it’s by ommission or commission.

    • jim says:

      Well, actually it is more complicated than that.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      “satanic left” has a nice ring to it. “entropic left” also good.

    • info says:

      RockingMrE has good videos one youtube about this.

      • kawaii_kike says:

        RockingMrE is a deluded bluepilled faggot that spouts nothing but lies and half truths. He believes that the narrative of history is oppressive monarchies slowly becoming enlightened democracies with an abundance of individual liberties.

    • RedBible says:

      So I decided to take a bit of a look at the contents of your site, and have to say I’m not impressed with how (as they say) “blue-pilled” you are on women. Only a few pages into the transcript of the “CIOz special 03” and one can see for themselves the “respect women” themes, and the idea that doing anything that could cause envy or jealousy in a woman is bad and evil. I’m also not impressed with how more time seems to be spent on insulting the strawman opposition than on actually building your argument.

      One cannot have a reasonable discussion about monogamy vs. polygyny with one that is “blue-pilled”, since they see polygyny as “unfair & unequal”.
      One cannot have a reasonable discussion about monogamy vs. polygyny with a man that is (as they say) a “beta boy incel” since he almost certainly feels that without enforced monogamy, he will end up wifeless and childless.
      One can, however, have a reasonable discussion about monogamy vs. polygyny with guys like Jim (and some commenters on this blog) since they can already get (and keep) women in the current state of sexual anarchy, it can be reasoned that they will not be advocating for monogamy out of self interest, but because they actually believe it is what is best for society.

      • Not Tom says:

        I only skimmed, but it seems to be a mixture of satire and serious content, which I always find off-putting, because it’s an excuse to label anything egregiously wrong or even posted in bad faith as just satire.

        Normal people are sometimes serious and sometimes sarcastic, but when you’re running a publication of any kind, you really want to make it clear whether you’re Breitbart or Babylon Bee. Mixing news/opinion and satire is a recipe for mistrust.

  17. Steve Johnson says:

    A leftist government is apt to murder millions, and a leftist sister is apt to murder her brother for the inheritance.

    Nod to Alec Holowka here.

    Stupid guy lived this post.

    • jim says:

      Any sexual harassment allegation made by the infamous and notorious Zoë Quinn is unlikely to be well founded, but not only did his company and those around him take it seriously, he himself took it seriously.

      Which is probably why she accused him – it was a shit test that he failed, and which I have passed many times. Fertile age women rarely if ever complain about actual sexual harassment. Every workplace sexual harassment accusation, as near as all of them as make no difference, is a complaint not about sexual harassment, but about a failed shit test, albeit women who hit the wall are apt to complain about real sexual harassment that occurred many years ago, but somehow they neglected to complain about it until it stopped happening.

      But, looking inwards, he probably figured he sexually harassed her by interacting with her while thinking evil thoughts.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        But, looking inwards, he probably figured he sexually harassed her by interacting with her while thinking evil thoughts.

        I think he just failed to defend himself because he was trapped by paradox.

        “I didn’t do what she said but only bad people don’t *believe women* and I’m not a bad person so I believe her but I know she’s lying but …”

        He’d rather die than change social teams and side with the Evil guys who say that Zoe Quinn is a liar.

        • jim says:

          > He’d rather die than change social teams and side with the Evil guys who say that Zoe Quinn is a liar.

          Literally.

          Zoe Quinn is a notorious liar, and he died because he would not say so, or probably even think so.

    • *ooes googling* What? August 2019? Is Quinn _still_ relevant in current_year?… I thought GamerGate actually won and thus Quinn got memory-holed and is flipping burgers somewhere. VD said GG won so I thought it won. I haven’t followed it personally. This does not look like winning.

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        Quinn wasn’t the target of gamergate; the target was the journalists who covered for her and coordinated to launch a ‘gamers are dead’ campaign (VD is counting the ones who got fired as victory).

        Quinn couldn’t really be targeted since gamers don’t buy her stuff and she targets and victimizes other progs (who all maintain she was subjected to an online hate campaign for no reason).

      • Steve Johnson says:

        The reason I noted that jim’s post makes a nod to him is because his sister – who is enjoying his estate as heir – both piled on when he was alive and made a statement after his death exonerating Zoe.

      • Not Tom says:

        VD has a habit of declaring victory before the victory is won.

        GG certainly won several tactical battles against the game journos, but the New York Times and other dinosaur media can afford to drag it out for years and years, and even dredge it up again after most of the public has forgotten and try to rewrite history.

        From a certain perspective, it’s true that GG won. From a much broader perspective, they absolutely lost, and could never possibly have won, and the proof is in the game studios and publishers who get woker and release woker games every year. At best, I might say that GG won a pyrrhic victory.

        IIRC, Vox is also involved in game development and still draws some sort of income from that industry, so perhaps he views it as a victory that the industry is getting woker and dying as a result, just as he sees it as a victory that comics and sci-fi publishing are getting woke and going broke. He competes with them. I don’t blame him for looking at these as an opportunity – I would too, in his position. But if you don’t personally stand to profit from acceleration of the holiness spiral, you might want to check if your own definition of victory aligns with his, or with anyone else telling you that accelerationism is winning.

  18. Allah says:

    This one was a bit all over the place, is this intended for new ‘members’?

    • jim says:

      You don’t understand our shibboleths. Try to figure them out

      • Leon says:

        You say in this post the elite are not reproducing, but I could have sworn in a previous post you said they were reproducing. Has something changed? Do you have stats for either conclusion?

        • jim says:

          Wealthy white males are reproducing a little above replacement. White females of all classes are reproducing far below replacement. White fertility has been falling since the failed divorce of Queen Caroline.

          Elite white males tend to have more than two children, but fewer than four grandchildren, because their daughters are apt to marry late or remain single.

          • Pooch says:

            So this hints that wealthy white males are marrying non-white women?

            • jim says:

              Nah, wealthy males are marrying checkout girls from the supermarket, their daughters are getting PhD’s from Yale in seventeenth century lesbianism, and not getting married till late if at all.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Personal observation is that they’re marrying Asian women who are more gold-digger-ish (or at least more tolerant of nerdiness) than white women.

                For every nerdy white guy marrying an Asian woman there are two white women out there trying to claw her way to the top of the booty call list of a dark triad guy.

      • Allah says:

        It’s the repetition that gave me this impression. It’s as if you’re running out of material and stitching together your own quotes from before.

        I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you made an updated introductory post.

        • alf says:

          I gave you the benefit of the doubt

          Proud of how it took you about 10 seconds to hide your hatred behind niceness.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          Invention generally involves iteration with minor variation.

          For pure novelty you have to read things that are old and static, but new to you. Which, incidentally, is the model for indoctrination processes such as academic education. In the limit, rote memorization of randomly generated gibberish is literally the most efficient way to satisfy a need for new unrepeated information.

        • jim says:

          This post gives the definition of good and evil – that the words are just not an arbitrary assignment of the world into “us” and “them”.

          When did I previously post on this topic?

          This post was provoked by a complaint in another forum about me using the words “good” and “evil” – such childish, old fashioned, ignorant bigoted words that dismiss entire categories of people as less than human and shut down intelligent discussion between properly sophisticated people.

          I revisited the holiness spiral, since that is what is turning the state religion evil, and addressed the Old and New Testaments to show that the definition presented here is consistent with long established tradition.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            It seems to me that people that reject the words “good” and “evil” are likely to be crypto-leftists, at least in the sense that they share their irresponsibility and insanity.

            Unwillingness to call things by their name is a sign of being an agent of chaos, furthering destruction and evil by maintaining and increasing confusion in the area, preventing a solution to be found.

            Mind sharing the forum? I’m curious what forum you’d read where people would say that.

            • jim says:

              I have suggested that you get an invite.

              They are good people, but there is a certain amount of purple pill and enlightenment among them.

          • impenitent says:

            Been pondering that whole Good and Evil thing, whether an absolute Good and absolute Evil does or can exist.

            Can’t shake the conclusion that it does have to exist in some form. There just about as to be an optimal moral code that all sentient life would be best served by adhering to. Our problem is we aren’t anywhere near being in a position to even ask any of the prerequisite questions we would need answers to to begin tackling that ultimate code.

            We would need to know WHY does the universe exist, WHAT are we doing in it, WHO is in charge, if that question is a nullity, etc. Basically we would first need the Ultimate Question. The moral code part probably falls out of the Ultimate Answer quite logically and obviously.

            The extent of what we can do at our current level of understanding is much what you are suggesting, observe with a dispassionate scientific eye what works and what doesn’t work as moral software to use as a base to build successful civilizations around and discard what doesn’t work.

            So while ultimate morality isn’t culturally defined, that isn’t a reason to insist that any variation in the moral codes of civilizations is heresy. Only that good and decent people either saw different cases when they were drawing conclusions on these questions or had different goals when laying down a code. Long customary usage has great value as a reality of how humans are wired, so trying to force every society onto one code is unlikely to be worth the trouble unless it is a matter of stamping out the sort of things that simply can’t be co-existed with. So human sacrifice, communism, etc. might be worth risking the downside of cultural imperialism to stamp out but not less critical differences.

          • Allah says:

            You frequently talk about “large scale cooperation” and “cooperate/cooperate equilibrium” but literally speaking, it seems you last posted on “good and evil” nearly a decade ago so yes, it might have needed an update. Can just search for “xyz” site:blog.jim.com on google to find previous instances of you posting on each of the topics in this post.

Leave a Reply for R7 Rocket