Holiness and corporate performance.

Notoriously, corporations that are Social Justice converged behave in ways that are not only evil, but self destructive, leading to loss of shareholder value.

It is difficult to objectively assess social justice convergence, but we can expect it to have a pretty good correlation with the company’s business model – a green energy company is going to be full of social justice warriors, and receive lots of investment from fund managers who are trying to earn brownie points from the government, rather than brownie points from investors, whereas a gun company is probably trying to make good money by making good guns.

“Watts Up With That” recently did a ten year comparison of such companies, and found that over ten years, holiness investing lost nearly all your money, while sinfulness investing doubled your money.

Twelve years ago, holiness investing consisted largely in investing in providing mortgages for single women, Hispanics, and blacks. And all that money disappeared also.

However, while holiness investing is terrible for investors, it works extremely well for management, as for example Jon Corzine, the world’s most regulated and regulating financier, who without informing his customers proceeded to use their funds to rescue Greece.

Jon Corzine’s customers were eventually paid back by burning JP Morgan, illustrating that when you do business with progs, someone gets burned. The short of it was that various financial entities who were improperly paid with money belonging to Jon Corzine’s customers had to give it back, so that they are out of the money, they got burned, yet somehow Jon Corzine is still smelling of roses.

Corporations that go left tend to disappear or get hollowed out, unless they have some kind of state protected monopoly.

116 Responses to “Holiness and corporate performance.”

  1. AnonCow says:

    Vanguard holders have been asked to cast their proxy votes, one of the interesting proposals that somehow made it onto the vote card was:

    A shareholder proposal to institute transparent procedures to avoid holding investments in companies that, in management’s judgement, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.

    The board of course recommends shareholders vote no. Makes me wonder which shareholders got the proposal on the card to begin with.

  2. Samuel Skinner says:

    Related:
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/31/google-issues-ultimatum-to-conservative-website-remove-hateful-article-or-lose-ad-revenue/

    Tldr:
    Google sent an ultimatum to Liberty Conservative to remove an article or lose all their ad revenue. The article was about the differences between factions of the alternative right and Nazis.

    My prediction skills aren’t great but attacking Nazis and attacking people who provide definitions of Nazis combine together extremely obviously- namely the definition expands and more people get censored.

  3. Garr says:

    Jim, what do you think “evilness” is? (I mean, what’s your “theory of value”?)

    • peppermint says:

      Jim says good is civilization and evil is barbarism, which was a typical perspective and encoded in the D&D rules 50 years ago. Today, to the official belief system, good consists of saying you’re good, comparing yourself to Harry Potter, and virtue signaling with displays of altruism.

      Supposedly, caring for others vs caring for self is good vs evil, but truly caring for others means respecting the law, the chaotic good genxers and millennials larp about does not exist, and taking on hardship for the freedom of yoir people, like the heroes of Charlottesville did.

      • Cavalier says:

        “Civilization” is an amorphous concept without well-defined definition. There are definitions, but no two are quite the same.

        When you encounter something like this, you know you have stumbled upon a wordplay power play, a form of liberalism, a useless, empty, form of nothing.

        When you say “save civilization” or anything such as this, what you are really saying is, “I deserve power”. And then, of course, you go about mobilizing a pseudo-army on ideological grounds, because The People have the right to organize to pursue their interests.

        • peppermint says:

          Okay, in the old NRx frame we used to take for granted, civilization meant great works being constructed, as contrasted with other societal goals which also claim that label. When you say a word, its primary meaning should be understood instead of a living document reconstructed meaning.

        • alf says:

          Civilisation is a natural concept, the fruition of groups of hominids, similar to how cells make up a body. Well not entirely since cells in the body are a lot less hostile towards one another than humans in a civilisation.

          Further defining civilisation is a matter of making the right cuts. E.g. whether you want to talk about Western civ, Hajnal line civ, England, or white English males. All this comes after acknowledging civilisation exists.

          Its not saving civilsation because I am so altruistic, it is saving civilisation because I am a selfish bastard.

        • jim says:

          Civilization is the art of living together in large numbers without too much killing and stuff. It is trickier than it seems. When cities are population sinks rather than centers of art, learning, and technological advance, you are not doing it right.

          • ilkarnal says:

            Cities have always been populations sinks. Always. This is not dependent on whether they are centers of art and learning.

            • jim says:

              Pretty sure that until McArthur emancipated Japanese women, Japanese cities were population sources, not sinks.

              Similarly, Ashkenazi Jews were always urbanites, and enjoyed massive population growth, until they started converting to progressivism.

              It is easier to have population growth in rural areas, because it is easier to keep women under control and kill off white knights in the countryside, but if your cities criminalize white knighting and the city police restore runaway girls to their proper owners, you get population growth in the cities.

              The difference is how easy it is for a woman to find a new protector and disappear with him. Just stop that behavior, and you get population growth in the cities.

              • ilkarnal says:

                As population density increases, disease load increases (very important in the past) and functional anonymity increases (important both then and now.) The most important enforcement mechanisms are informal and personal, they do not involve the police or the courts. Being able to start fresh with new people on the drop of a hat undercuts this completely.

                I don’t know much about Ashkenazi living conditions in the middle ages, but the Hasidim today thrive in cities by being extremely isolated, forming what you might call small town conditions within the city. This can definitely work, it’s the ‘functional population density’ that matters not the population density per se, but it means something completely different from how cities work today. If you applied this principle you would have ‘cities’ that are really a geographically close but socially isolated cluster of small and insular communities.

                But… the reason cities exist in the first place, despite their impractical and expensive nature from a physical perspective, is the very thing that makes them dangerous, the huge explosion of social options you experience when you step in. The Hasidim enjoy the fruits of this without sacrificing to it – if everyone was like them then you would just live spread out, there’s no need to endure the expense and discomfort of such close agglomeration if it is not accompanied by close social agglomeration.

                • ilkarnal says:

                  By the way, Hasidic population growth completely undercuts your point, because they grow despite the legal and police actions you advocate. This proves my point that the most important enforcement mechanisms are informal and personal, and will be unless the state becomes involved far more frequently and consistently in everyone’s personal life. Which is possible, but would require revolutionary new techniques and institutions. You couldn’t do it with the legal system and police we have now, you would need something capable of a much lighter and cheaper touch.

                • ilkarnal says:

                  despite the legal and police actions you advocate.

                  Despite them not being in place, I meant.

        • pdimov says:

          Civilization is that which enables greater complexity and greater efficiency.

          IOW, civilization is order, low entropy.

          Cthulhu swims left because second law. Leftism is cancer.

          • Garr says:

            Good = complexity-promoting then? Good = pro-order?

            But wouldn’t you want to work the psychic freedom of a society’s individual human components into the account of what makes it good? And psychic freedom seems to require some degree of physical freedom.

            In a good society, people can meditate (which requires leisure-time) and enjoy trees and sunsets (which requires ability to move around independently — taking a walk). Their meditations can lead their thinking and imagining in unpredictable directions (which precludes the hypnotic/brain-washing style of education).

            So is “good = complexity-promoting” not enough, or does a complete account of complexity/order already include some reference to the freedom (?) of the system’s components?

            • pdimov says:

              Complexity-enabling, not promoting.

              Freedom is not antithetical to order. Order enables freedom. Without order, nature (and your fellow man) is trying to kill you and eat you (take your stuff), so you’re not free to spend your time on frivolities.

              Leisure time presupposes efficiency, efficiency requires complexity.

              Enjoying trees and sunsets nominally away from civilization requires a civilization from which you can be away. Without such invisibly backing you up, not much enjoyment is left.

            • peppermint says:

              Are you going to stop there, or next say that without thirteen year old girls right to experiment with their sexuality for self-actualization with multiple 50 year old pakis being protected, civilization is worthless?

              Jim has given a positive definition: people being able to expect to be able to invest in what is theirs.

              Here’s another: civilization is when people can talk about what concerns them and negotiate instead of immediately going to plotting violence, war is hitting people who disagree and barbarism is the state of constant warfare.

              Sunsets and walks in the park is a female definition. Everyone wants it, but it’s a proxy for what matters.

              • Garr says:

                “Are you going to stop there” — yes, I’m going to stop there!

                “Sunsets and walks in the park is a female definition” — hmm … it seems to me that men like to look at beautiful things, while women like to think of themselves as liking to to look at beautiful things.

                Anyway, sunsets and walks were just supposed to suggest an additional consideration; the investment/civilization approach seems basically plausible.

      • alf says:

        Chaotic good exists. Its just a matter of realising that lawful good is the law for a reason.

        • Garr says:

          “Forces of chaos” as the antagonist within the dramatic picture?

          If you go with “good = liked-by-God”, then you can think, “God likes the overcoming of chaotic forces by orderly agents, so God likes it that there are chaotic forces to be overcome, so it’s good that there are chaotic forces.”

          (“Chaotic forces” = whatever it is that motivates “out of control” kids to run around breaking stuff.)

        • peppermint says:

          Chaotic good consists of asserting that you’re the good guy while doing whatever, justifying yourself not in terms of civilization but the retard tier paradox that because you care about others more therefore you have the right to do whatever you want. Antifa are chaotic good.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Good is what one finds comfortable, evil what one finds uncomfortable.

          In the long run, people are comfortable with what works, because what doesn’t work disappears, and people who are uncomfortable doing what doesn’t work disappear.

          Good is defined, in the long run, as that which achieves military victory in the Darwinian sense.

          Almost everything progressives want to do results in military weakness, and more so in the Darwinian sense than the Napoleonic sense. Progressives assert that these things are civilisation, and we trade off the ability to survive and expand for civilisation. Which is incoherent nonsense.

      • Cavalier says:

        My point exactly.

    • jim says:

      Compare and contrast the Thoughts of Chairman Mao, with the Wisdom of King Solomon.

      One tells his people to do evil, the other tells his people to do good. King Solomon was sustaining, encouraging, and enforcing a society in which a man could plant crops knowing that he would be the one who harvested them, where a merchant could transport goods from where they were made to where they were needed knowing he would not be robbed, and a man could raise children knowing they were his own children and no one would take them away from him, while Mao encouraged his followers to destroy all these things.

      Social Justice Warriors destroy what is closest to them, thus destroy their own families and the businesses at which they work. They tell us sexual perversion is chastity, and property is theft, that marriage is justified by sexual love, rather than sexual love justified by marriage.

      • Garr says:

        Peppermint gives the kind of answer I was looking for: (according to Jim) good = civilization-promoting, evil = civilization-thwarting/destroying.

      • Cavalier says:

        >Social Justice Warriors

        It really makes me wonder where you hang out and with whom that you have ever encountered one of these people.

        • peppermint says:

          People I otherwise respect tell me every day that women need more free healthcare and “healthcare”, that niggers need more free shit and the right to beat people, including cops, without consequence, that cop-killing blm is good, that antifa is good, that we need a UBI, that trannies have the right to go to the women’s room, and so on.

          What they really hope for is free shit for themselves, but, the White men amongst them aren’t ever going to get free shit, they’re going to get beaten, robbed, enslaved, and murdered, and the White women amongst them are going to get the same thing.

          But they persist, because the lure of free shit is just so strong.

        • jim says:

          I am, unfortunately, extremely close to one of these people.

          They are dangerous and harmful to those closest to them.

          • Cavalier says:

            My condolences.

          • peppermint says:

            I know a woman who got fat, her husband got a divorce, she fucks niggers now, he takes care of the kids, she calls him names at every opportunity, he still has a good job and has a younger, hotter woman, she posts on facebook about feminism and blm while working a child’s job, and somewhere (I know of a few places) there’s a child with an xbox and no money to buy a pc because she stole his job (it’s not her kid, his father takes care of him, it’s her sister’s kid).

            I really don’t know what we’re going to do with these people after the revolootion, but maybe His Majesty can force them to wear fitbits if they want any healthcare and food stamps. I mean, women aren’t bad people, they’re just misinformed and need to be told to do good things instead of bad things. She could easily be a librarian or teacher or park ranger given proper incentives.

      • ilkarnal says:

        Mao was very successful. Beat the Japanese, beat the Americans. Played a weak hand incredibly well. Under his tenure the Communists went from beaten-down rebels to the undisputed rulers of the world’s largest empire. The catastrophes of the Great Leap Forward undoes none of that. You don’t get to point at the failures and ignore the successes. Also, the significance of economic stumbles in very poor developing countries is vastly exaggerated, along with the significance of (themselves inflated) body counts.

        It is a terrible mistake to accept the modern degenerate value-system that views pain and death as inherently sinful to inflict. Even your modification of this principle – applying it only when the pain and death is inflicted on one’s ‘own people’ – is irreparably cucked. A leader often must be willing to risk extreme hardship and copious amounts of pain and death to achieve great things. Bodies strewn along the path to greatness are no sin, whether the path was ultimately forged to its end or not.

        Even if Mao did kill 100 gorillion Chinamen, this would not dim his glory. He didn’t, and it is laughable to compare those killed by ignorance, poverty, and overambition to those killed directly with bullet or blade. Number of deaths is not a particularly important moral statistic, number of murders isn’t either, but those using this rubric are offensively sloppy with that which they claim is of such overwhelming importance.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Huh? America beat the Japanese and supported Mao along with the USSR against Chiang who was barely less of a commie anyway. Until the early 2000s China was always a fake great power with that status only because the US kept insisting. And of course the US is supposed to be China’s great enemy or whatever today. Par for the course for that last crazy century.

          In the 20th century communism retarded Chinese economic development by about 50 years and in the 21st it threatens genocide of their whole race as low testosterone men struggle even harder than Europeans and Africans to reproduce with no state-backed marriage or social status advantage over women. That would be fine by me if every other civilised race weren’t circling the same drain.

          • ilkarnal says:

            America beat the Japanese and supported Mao along with the USSR against Chiang who was barely less of a commie anyway

            Yeah, Mao and the Americans were on the same side against the Japanese. Then they were on different sides on the Korean peninsula, where China clawed back hard-fought American gains on that front with their counter-invasion.

            In the 20th century communism retarded Chinese economic development by about 50 years

            Bullshit.

            and in the 21st it threatens genocide of their whole race as low testosterone men struggle even harder

            Even less forgivable bullshit.

            That would be fine by me if every other civilised race weren’t circling the same drain.

            Including staunch anti-communist countries like, say, Singapore. That’s a hint. Low fertility has nothing whatsoever, to do with capitalism vs communism and little to do with left vs right, and everything to do with urbanization and medical advances.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              “Yeah, Mao and the Americans were on the same side against the Japanese. Then they were on different sides on the Korean peninsula, where China clawed back hard-fought American gains on that front with their counter-invasion.”

              OK, so Mao’s great achievement was to fight a war in which the front line ended up in the same place as when it began, in some other country.

              “Bullshit.”

              Whatever.

              “Including staunch anti-communist countries like, say, Singapore. That’s a hint. Low fertility has nothing whatsoever, to do with capitalism vs communism and little to do with left vs right, and everything to do with urbanization and medical advances.”

              There aren’t any anti-communist countries, only more or less communist countries. Communism is not a purely economic ideology, it is the idea that all persons are or ought to be the same. Feminism is communism.

              • ilkarnal says:

                OK, so Mao’s great achievement was to fight a war in which the front line ended up in the same place as when it began, in some other country.

                Not in the place it was when China intervened – yes, quite an accomplishment for a group of ill-equipped and ill-supplied infantry against the most technologically advanced military in the world.

                There aren’t any anti-communist countries, only more or less communist countries.

                Stop raping the language, we might need it later.

                • jim says:

                  > > There aren’t any anti-communist countries, only more or less communist countries.

                  > Stop raping the language, we might need it later.

                  Communism really is universally pervasive. Even if outright open collectivization has been abandoned almost everywhere, outright capitalism has also been abandoned everywhere. Arguably the most capitalist major country is China, which has a central plan, calls itself socialist, and where capitalists are subject to capricious and confiscatory meddling by high party officials.

                  And China is allowed to get away with some degree of capitalism because nuclear armed. If anyone else tried it, color revolution, and if the color revolution failed, genocide.

                • pdimov says:

                  I’d say that most poor countries possess a relatively high degree of capitalism by necessity (despite the natural tendencies of the population) because the alternative is quick starvation. Socialism is a luxury good.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The only places divorce is formally legally and unions formally banned – i.e. places that have freedom of contract as Thomas Jefferson would have understood the term – there is no security of physical property, and vice-versa.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  *divorce is formally illegal

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Not in the place it was when China intervened – yes, quite an accomplishment for a group of ill-equipped and ill-supplied infantry against the most technologically advanced military in the world. ”

                  The Chinese military was made up of units that had been fighting since the 1920s. The US military was so unprepared they had

                  Army officials, desperate for weaponry, recovered Sherman tanks from World War II Pacific battlefields and reconditioned them for shipment to Korea. Army Ordnance officials at Fort Knox pulled down M26 Pershing tanks from display pedestals around Fort Knox in order to equip the third company of the Army’s hastily formed 70th Tank Battalion.

                  Additionally the US army fielded blacks in significant numbers (Truman started the push for Desegregation in 1948). Oddly enough, blacks did not greet the opportunity to get maimed horribly or die with enthusiasm and there were problems with morale and fleeing from combat.

            • jim says:

              > Low fertility has nothing whatsoever, to do with capitalism vs communism and little to do with left vs right, and everything to do with urbanization and medical advances.

              Low fertility has nothing to do with urbanization or medical advances, because poor rural third world people with emancipated women also have low low fertility.

              Here is the cause of low fertility.

              Decadent civilizations usually have low low fertility, because decadent civilizations usually emancipate their women. This is not a new problem.

        • Anony-maus says:

          Mao was a great war leader. He was a terrible peacetime leader. Such is life.

  4. Severian says:

    Jim do you think this British female police officer is enjoying herself or just afraid?

    https://twitter.com/MBGANews/status/903298509222400000

    • jim says:

      We would need to see her face to know.

      But if you are alpha and charismatic, you can grab them by the pussy and it is not sexual harassment, whereas if you are beta, looking at them longingly from a distance is sexual harassment. Whether it is fear or a sexual response to his alpha attitude, either way the problem is that being black makes you alpha, and being white makes you beta. Need to legalize private violence and make concealed carry a class thing, that high status elite people are apt to be armed.

      I would make concealed carry license conditional on owning a good quality gun with silencer, laser sight, and red dot sight (thus expensive) and conditional on attending a course in gun lore and target shooting, and passing a test in gun lore and target shooting – and then make the training and the test a standard part of the elite educational stream.

      I would also considerably liberalize the conditions under which it is legal to shoot people. In addition to burglars and stuff, also people aggressively looking for trouble, and it would be legal to shoot someone who sleeps with your wife or betrothed, and legal to shoot your wife or betrothed if she sleeps with someone else. This would result in female sexual preference having eugenic, rather than dysgenic consequences. Husbands who were able to kill them for bad behavior and legally entitled to do so would appear much hotter in the eyes of their wives, and the thought of having their babies much more attractive.

      • Cavalier says:

        >being black makes you alpha, and being white makes you beta

        And I’m a monkey’s uncle.

        • jim says:

          I am pretty sure I know more about women that you do, and that video confirms what I know. Regrettably, in our society, it is women who decide who is alpha and who is beta.

          • Cavalier says:

            If you scour the Earth for special snowflakes, you’ll find them, and enough of them to build a nice narrative, to boot.

            But, if you take a step back and look at the whole picture, you find an overwhelming trend: the best women flock to the biggest cities. I rather suspect that they are not going there because the distant big-city nigs are so much more alpha than the local townie nogs.

            Let the lumpenprole nigger-lovers boil off, lol. Once again, proggism makes sense when you look at what it actually achieves instead of what it claims to achieve.

            • jim says:

              The best women in terms of chastity quite definitely do not flock to the biggest cities, or if they do, they swiftly become unmarriageable.

              It is not obvious to me that the best women in terms of cuteness flock to the biggest cities, and if they do, the trend is far from overwhelming, and if they do, it is to get some alpha cock.

              • Cavalier says:

                I have wandered from the back of beyond to the far side of nowhere, and I have observed, with some few notable exceptions, a great, hulking, smoking ruin-of-humanity-gene-pool. “Big-city”, of course, is a bit of an overgeneralization, an approximation of my general point, but it’s more accurate than it isn’t.

                If it isn’t obvious to you that the cutest girls are overwhelmingly concentrated in the same few areas, consider the life-cycle of the stereotypical suburbanite: born in a suburb, grows up in the suburb (or suburbs), leaves to a concentration of “civilization” (i.e. college), moves to a different concentration of “civilization” for money and mate, and if successful but not successful enough, moves back to a suburb to continue the cycle.

                If more successful, becomes an urbanite, where the loop is tighter.

                If wildly successful, becomes an absentee lord, living in various “hot spots” around the world, connected by small jet.

                At every tier, cream is skimmed. The degenerates do whatever they’re going to do — nobody cares about them —, but the others place themselves in position as best as they model the world in order to move up. When a dim girl moves to a “big-city” (proxy for “civilization”) and finds herself with more cocks in her bodily cavities than names on a typical high school lacrosse team roster, it wasn’t because she went seeking after a country kilometer of cock — it really did “just happen”.

                • jim says:

                  If the cream was being skimmed, we would be ruled by the cream, and it is obvious we are not. Indeed this is the major part of our problem. Observe the written output of our elite. Getting dumber. Observe elite art. Getting uglier. Observe elite chicks, observe the women of the elite. With a few imported from overseas exceptions like Trump’s wife, getting uglier and dumber.

                  We are in the third childhood of human reason.

                  Yes, some cities like Singapore and Dubai are sucking up the smart fraction, but they are not sucking up the hot chicks all that much, and apart from Dubai, they are not reproducing, and even Dubai is not reproducing all that well.

                • jim says:

                  I have wandered from the back of beyond to the far side of nowhere, and I have observed, with some few notable exceptions, a great, hulking, smoking ruin-of-humanity-gene-pool

                  I have been wandering the world in search of chicks that are virtuous and hot, and have had my best luck in the far side of nowhere and the back of beyond. I purchased a house in the far side of nowhere, and found the best people.

                  You can read on the internet the community of people that searches the world for hot chicks, and they are staying well away from Manila, let alone New York.

                  My personal lived experience is congruent with theirs, and incongruent with yours.

                • jim says:

                  > At every tier, cream is skimmed.

                  Looking for cute girls, and I have been wandering the world looking for cute girls, the mother load is in the back of beyond and the middle of nowhere. I seem to wind up hitting the same places as other people who cruise the world for cute girls and it is not New York.

                  But let us instead look for smart people, since if the cream is skimmed, it should concentrate the smartest, more than it concentrates the cutest.

                  In the above link, we compare Harvard grads, recruited as the cream of the cream to the very center of wealth and power, with my cleaning lady, recruited from the back of beyond to clean a house that is a very long way from any center of wealth and power.

                • jim says:

                  > the cutest girls are overwhelmingly concentrated in the same few areas.

                  There is a world wide internet community of perpetual travellers cruising the world looking for the cutest girls, and they are always posting from the far side of the back of beyond using a shaky internet connection – like the internet connection I am using right now, from the far side of the back of beyond, while I cruise the world looking for the cutest girls.

                  The elite is not recruiting the smartest people, and it certainly is not recruiting the cutest girls. It is recruiting fat loud lazy blue haired feminist warpigs.

                  I am posting this from the best hotel I can find in this area, which has an archaic toilet, a cold shower, adequate air conditioning, erratic internet, erratic electric power, and, most importantly, a spiked steel fence and a twenty four hour guard, because I am getting uncomfortably close to the bloody borders of Islam.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I’ve traveled internationally several times, but none of those experiences could possibly be representative, so my real scope is limited to the contiguous United States. Sorry, that probably wasn’t clear. I imagine that other places, places outside of the great grinding capitalist-communist behemoth are, indeed, far less skimmed. Here, though, in truly Bumfuck, Nowhere towns, I really just don’t see any top-tier girls. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Plus, you have to consider, if there is any significant smart fraction skimming, well, that’s just as important as aesthetic appeal, if far less visceral.

                  >I am posting this from the best hotel I can find in this area, which has an archaic toilet, a cold shower, adequate air conditioning, erratic internet, erratic electric power, and, most importantly, a spiked steel fence and a twenty four hour guard, because I am getting uncomfortably close to the bloody borders of Islam.

                  Do you find yourself strangely attracted to the Negroid admixture of the locals?

                  >There is a world wide internet community of perpetual travellers cruising the world looking for the cutest girls, and they are always posting from the far side of the back of beyond using a shaky internet connection

                  Indeed; they’re engaging in a form of arbitrage, geopolitical and socioeconomic both, seeking to access yet-unskimmed cream they would not otherwise even encounter back in their home country. You have to consider what it is that makes, for example, New York, so unattractive to the sort of person who would abandon his home country and put up with mud-people and dirt-civilization in order to score. Surely it is not because large cities do not contain a thick vein of supple young women, but because those supple young women are unavailable to them… for one reason or another, perhaps that reason being insufficient funds to live as a wastrel minor aristocrat in a global city.

                  Thus, arbitrage.

                • jim says:

                  It is indeed true that there are zero hot chicks at the bar, the church service, or at the gym in Bumfuck USA, but have you noticed who is restocking the supermarket shelves in Bumfuck USA?

                  Now I suppose you can argue that that in-USA arbitrage. And perhaps it is. Obviously when Bumfuck USA girls go cruising, they get on a bus and travel four hundred miles to nice spot far from Bumfuck USA, somewhere wealthy people from the big city go to get far away from the big city. And there they will go to the gym. But it is also the case that girls should not really be making themselves easy to meet and social controls are stronger in Bumfuck USA.

                  But it does not seem to me that they head to New York. Rather, they head to New York’s out of town recreation points: Tourist town USA.

                  Yes, you can find hot chicks in the bar in San Francisco, and you cannot find hot chicks in the bar in Bumfuck USA. But the hot chick in the bar in San Francisco has a dick count and a sexually transmitted disease level that rivals that of gay men. She got the sexually transmitted diseases because she let that other guy penetrate every orifice bareback, but you, you she made wear a condom.

                  If you want to find hot San Francisco chicks with a reasonable dick count, head to Tahoe. And the hot chick that you find in Tahoe is as likely visiting Tahoe from Bumfuck USA as she is from San Francisco.

                  If you look for hot chicks in Tahoe, then sure, obviously a lot of cream skimming is going on, but if you consider city of residence of hot chicks temporarily in Tahoe, it is not obvious that there is a lot of cream skimming is going on.

                • alf says:

                  my experience is hottest girls are attracted by big cities (shopping, studies, hip) but the longer a young girl lives in the city the uglier she gets, thousand cock stare and all.

                  Most virtuous girls per definition are hidden from prog culture, so mostly found in the middle of nowhere. But lots of hot girls feel the pull of the city. Something about optimising hypergamy I guess.

                • peppermint says:

                  This girl I liked went to NYC to be some guy’s #4 booty call (he told her he would get rid of all the others lol) then to SF, now she’s posting increasingly revealing pictures on facebook because no one cares about 35 year old women. It’s disgusting, but there’s nothing we can do for them. All professors must be executed.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >but have you noticed who is restocking the supermarket shelves in Bumfuck USA?

                  When white, mostly white trash, frequently with amusing accents, often with tattoos, and sometimes with smoking habits.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t go to places in the USA that have a significant minority presence, because I don’t like being a second class citizen. In all white rural areas, i see a fair supply of hot white chicks restocking the supermarket shelves.

                  Of course I expect that is true that there are no hot white chicks in areas with substantial minority presence, not because the elite is skimming them up, but because they get continually subjected to mildly coercive sex by first class citizens, which to resist would be racist, and cease to be hot. Minorities, not elites, are skimming them off.

                  And you can tell who are the lords and who are the peasants by who walks down the middle of the pavement and who scuttles out of their way. You think girls are going to fuck the men who scuttle out of the way?

                  If you want to get your dick wet, you don’t go to places where you have to scuttle out of the way of the lords of creation. This is not because all the hot chicks are going to Harvard. We are seeing elite dysgenesis, not elite eugenesis.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Of course I expect that is true that there are no hot white chicks in areas with substantial minority presence, not because the elite is skimming them up, but because they get continually subjected to mildly coercive sex by first class citizens, which to resist would be racist, and cease to be hot. Minorities, not elites, are skimming them off.

                  I haven’t spent much time in places overruns by “minorities”, but when I have I was never bothered, and I never had to scuttle out of the way, and I never saw white girls there who didn’t appear to belong where they were.

                  Nature sheds no tears for the weak.

                • jim says:

                  I haven’t spent much time in places overruns by “minorities”, but when I have I was never bothered, and I never had to scuttle out of the way

                  I am a keen observer of hot girls, and my observations of where the hot white girls are differs from yours.

                  Indeed hypergamy never sleeps, but its effect on the distribution of hot white girls is orthogonal to elite recruitment.

                  You are describing an America that Harvard imagines America to be, which is based on what America was like in 1880, but since 1880 America has been less and less like that, and since 1980 America has not been like that at all.

                  You are describing today’s society based not on what is in front of your nose, but on your readings of the holy texts of today’s progressivism, which base their account of America on the holy texts of yesterday’s progressivism.

                  You are giving an account of America that comes from a group that has been ignoring the testimony of their senses for decades or a century.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I’m currently living in a reasonably prosperous suburb-area of borderline-Southern Red State, and reality is exactly as I have described: the high school girls are unimpressive both physically and mentally, the local college is apparently bereft of intellectual activity, and on occasion that I venture into the vicinity of the local African colonial outpost, I’ve never, not once, scuttled out of the way. The blacks and I either ignore each other, or they defer to me, and the girls they seem to have in their orbit, when white, are clearly white trash: pierced, tattooed, dyed, fat, or some combination thereof.

                  That isn’t to say that I enjoy this reality of ours. The blacks should literally bow and scrape, and when I go to the nearest real city’s mall I should spot more than literally one bangable white girl in an ocean of black and brown mud. It is tremendously depressing, especially when I consider the pictures I’ve seen and first-hand accounts I’ve heard of malls (and other spaces) full of fit young white girls in the decades before post-America. But your claims of nog territorial macho-supremacy are unobserved by me.

                  If you want to argue against cities being beauty shredders, take it up with Roissy.

                • jim says:

                  Obviously you are not going to see any cute white girls any place where there are a significant number of nonwhites. This is not an indicator of elite skimming, but rather failure of elite skimming.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The nearby high schools are almost entirely white, and the blacks appear to self-segregate as with anywhere else.

                  The nearby colleges are almost entirely white. There’s a community college that’s split perhaps 50:50 or 65:35; still nothing of any significance to report.

                  Where the white people live and work there is no significant nonwhite presence.

                  There’s a mall with some nonwhite presence; nothing of note.

                  I’ve traveled cross-country through Deep South states and stumbled into a few malls and other places with a black supermajority; nothing. In fact, thr clerks I interacted with at one of those malls were perhaps the most gracious I’ve ever encountered.

                  I’ve ridden metro/subway rails and been the only paleface in the car; nothing.

                  We’ve all seen the chimpout videos, and I wouldn’t wander a ghetto at night, or during the day, but in “white spaces”, even spaces overrun by blacks or browns, I haven’t scuttled and haven’t seen any scuttling. Sorry.

                  The “racial question” just isn’t very important, and frankly, I find myself more indifferent by the day.

                • jim says:

                  in “white spaces”, even spaces overrun by blacks or browns, I haven’t scuttled and haven’t seen any scuttling.

                  If you had only denied that you scuttle, I might have believed you. But when you said you don’t see scuttling, I know that you don’t see it because it seems normal and appropriate to you.

                  I see scuttling, and I see a shortage of hot chicks in places with even a moderate minority presence. If you don’t see scuttling, it is because you have internalized deferential behavior to blacks. I recall a black comedian riffing on how blacks can jump white queues, so blacks see scuttling. The cartoon “Fritz the Cat” parodies deference of white people to black people, as well as parodying female enthusiasm for assholes and asshole behavior, so the writers and intended audience of “Fritz the Cat” see scuttling. Observe Fritz’s body language, and even police body language, in the presence of blacks. Fritz scuttles, keeps his head down, and his shoulders hunched. His normal predatory asshole behavior towards females only shows towards black females when he is on drugs, and even then it is toned right down. “Fritz the Cat” is about ten percent bad behavior by social justice warriors, fifty percent bad behavior of women and female pursuit of narcissistic assholes, and forty percent deferential behavior towards dimwitted blacks.

                  Noticing white deference to blacks is a big part of the comedy in “Fritz”. If you cannot see scuttling, you will wonder what the joke is. Much of the visual physical comedy is Fritz’s body language towards blacks.

                  Recall the discussion of the Trayvon Martin incident. People who blamed George Zimmerman were constructing fantasies of bad behavior by George Zimmerman, and in those fantasies Zimmerman was not doing anything that was actually bad, just acting non deferentially, acting the way that any watchman would behave to any white person who drew attention to himself by acting oddly and out of place, so those people have internalized scuttling.

                  In the Zimmerman Martin fantasies, Zimmerman fails to show appropriate deference, Martin becomes righteously indignant and calls him out for his disrespectful behavior, then Zimmerman shoots Martin. So the people constructing those fantasies, and their intended audience, have internalized deferential behavior towards blacks.

                • peppermint says:

                  A nigger pawed at my gf when I was ordering snacks at McDz. Now she’s afraid of niggers. Yeah, I’m trash for taking her there. That means I deserve it, avert your eyes.

                  A nigger walked boldly down the aisle in the supermarket shortly after I met her and as we pressed ourselves against the edge of the aisle she turned her butt towards it involuntarily. That means I’m a failure at life and she just needs the bbc, right?

                  The blond White man and the blond White woman in Stargate SG1 wouldn’t have put up with that. Instead, the man’s wife divorced him because their one kid died, and the woman was a grrl power physicist soldier capable of beating up historical male warlords because she knows kung fu.

                  After you start worshiping White women and telling niggers to be proud of who they are, no amount of logical or religious arguments or White privilege will make White babies.

                  If you tell everyone they’re allowed to live anywhere, work anywhere, sleep with anyone, but Whites need to not take anything from others and freely give when asked, it takes a rocket surgeon to understand why that’s not second class citizenship leading to genocide.

                  The problem is credentialism from universities where credentials replace reason, and the arguments in the universities that inevitably led to purity spirals of puritanism, transcendentalism, and secular humanism.

                  All professors must be executed.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I see white Americans scuttle even when there aren’t any blacks around. It seems to be their standard mode of travel. At work I walk with a straight back, head up, and don’t smile at people I don’t know. The average middle aged white American seems vaguely intimidated by my demeanor, though it was just standard where I previously lived in Europe.

                  Perhaps it helps them rationalise scuttling around blacks if they also scuttle around some random well dressed white guy who is twenty years younger than them and probably junior to them in the official hierarchy as well. It’s egalitarian supplication, of course.

                  Blacks, on the other hand, have walked into me rather than give way, even when it was clear that I was walking there first, that the corridor is more than wide enough for both of us, and that I do not intend to give way.

                • jim says:

                  Blacks, on the other hand, have walked into me rather than give way, even when it was clear that I was walking there first, that the corridor is more than wide enough for both of us, and that I do not intend to give way.

                  Quite so. This reflects their realistic expectation that white people will scuttle out of their way. People who fail to scuttle find black misbehavior immediately impacts them. If someone says he does not notice black misbehavior, he scuttles deferentially.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, White Americans will scuttle for anything, because White Americans are terrified, because the US is the least free country in all of history.

                • StoneMan says:

                  @Peppermint
                  It’s freer than Stalin’s regime. People like us would already be in the gulag if this were the USSR.

                  To be fair, cultural Marxism is worse than straight Marxism in some ways, but honestly the statement that this is the least free country in all of history is, frankly, wrong.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The first day I spent in America I walked through the ghetto, and didn’t scuttle, and didn’t have any problems, and actually someone even stopped and waved me across the road at a broken traffic light, which they would not have done where I previously lived in Europe. The ghetto looked frightening, but there were actually no problems. I am sure there are worse ghettos were there would have been, but this one looked pretty bad to me.

                  In an office building owned by the US government, I am trivially mistreated by blacks. Not that they are especially bad people, they just believe it to be in the rules that I ought to be mistreated, and ought to let them mistreat me. When they do so and I refuse to be mistreated, though, it becomes apparent that it is not in written any rule that exactly, strictly, exists, and that they do not really have any recourse against me, and that if they were to push it they would probably end up punished, not me, despite a vague sense in all concerned that I was in the wrong. As in the Zimmerman vs Martin showdown.

                  From which I conclude that a lot of America’s problems are basically voluntary, due to cuckery. The British government is cucked, but on a personal level there does not seem to be an understanding that blacks will overpower whites in any encounter in Britain. There is the fact that Muslims will usually overpower whites in any encounter because they will bring ten times as many guys, but that is slightly different. I believe things are similar in Australia, except that in Australia maybe muslims can’t yet bring 10x as many guys. In America, whites say “Ow!” before they get hit. Is it a coincidence that it took a mestizo to shoot Trayvon Martin?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >If someone says he does not notice black misbehavior, he scuttles deferentially.

                  You got me. I don’t really walk down the middle of the sidewalk or mall “hallway”, and guys much larger than me don’t really yield, and when I make eye contact with blacks they don’t really look away first.

                • jim says:

                  If you want to pick up girls, you don’t scuttle, and you don’t slide up against the wall as other people walk down the middle. I don’t walk down the middle, but I don’t slide up against the wall either. Whereupon the bad behavior of those who do walk down the middle becomes apparent.

                • Cavalier says:

                  And I don’t really have the coldest icy blue eyes you’ve never seen.

                • peppermint says:

                  Russians were still allowed to be men and have wives. Americans are far less free.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I am not a stone cold killer either. What I do not understand is the extreme fear of being physically hurt. The worst that can happen if you stand your ground is that you are bowled over. I have not been bowled over in this sort of corridor peacocking but have in other circumstances. It just isn’t that bad. Walking into someone really isn’t bad at all, mostly it’s just embarrassing, and if you feel you are in the right it is not embarrassing. Skulking in the corner with my head down is humiliating, which ought to be psychologically painful, much more so than being bowled over.

                  Although Americans are oppressed, they are also brainwashed. Other low fertility nationalities aren’t so supplicant in their daily manners.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >If you had only denied that you scuttle, I might have believed you. But when you said you don’t see scuttling, I know that you don’t see it because it seems normal and appropriate to you.

                  Here’s a little anecdote: I was once, several years ago, in the international section of one of the biggest airports in the world, and I was cut off by a short Arab fuck in a dark gray suit who drifted through my path like I wasn’t even there, and my memory of that event is crystal clear, like a shard of glass is my unforgiving brain, and every time it comes to mind it pisses me off just as if I were there again. Like now.

                  But, I’ll grant you that it’s possible that I haven’t noticed others scuttling, so I’ll pay closer attention in the future.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I’m still thinking about this, flipping through my memories, but all I can remember is stuff not unlike this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9kGsYv1CdrI. No selfies, of course, but general deference. “Yes sir”, “which way is the store/restaurant/gate/whatever?” “oh, right over that way [smile]”, etc., though I still acknowledge the possibility of a persistent bias.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Are there any high schools without bullying?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Are there any high schools without bullying?

                  Artistic orientation high school
                  |
                  Demographics: 75% female
                  |
                  1/4 of men are gay, 1/2 of men are effeminate
                  |
                  Zero tolerance for violence
                  |
                  Low achievers are kicked off early
                  |
                  Voila, no bullying

                • jim says:

                  The proposition that girls, gays, and effeminate men are less likely to engage in bullying is not merely false, it is hilarious.

                  On the other hand, the proposition that talented people, that people selected for talent, are less likely to engage in the cruder forms of status jockying is plausible.

                • StoneMan says:

                  @Peppermint
                  Men in Gulags don’t have wives. Not in a real sense.

                  This OMG 21st century America is the _WORST_COUNTRY_EVER_ bullshit is pathetic, mopey sniveling.

                  You do not have it worse than men sent to Gulags for no crime, Peppermint. Don’t be such a bitch.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >The proposition that girls, gays, and effeminate men are less likely to engage in bullying is not merely false, it is hilarious.

                  Okay, but my point is that as a heterosexual man in this environment, I went pretty much un-bullied, nor did I bully anyone. If the girls, gays, and effetes were bullying each other, that had nothing to do with me – people treated me well, and I treated them well.

                  I was bullied relentlessly and violently in my shitskin-majority bad-neighborhood kindergarten and primary school, so despite* going to a liberal artistic tolerant cosmopolitan “feminist-but-not-misandric” high quality high school, I still ended up becoming Hitler.

                  *or is it… because?

        • peppermint says:

          This is why feminism is over, male feminism no longer gets White men laid. Instead, White male feminists are seen as creeps, and loudly signaling your interest in marriage and backing that up by making the signaling sacrifice of asserting some alt-right stuff gets you laid. Therefore the kids are alt-right.

      • pdimov says:

        “Whether it is fear or a sexual response to his alpha attitude…”

        Those two things are even substantially correlated. Assuming of course that she’s afraid of him and not of being labeled racist and having to complete 44 pages of “why I’m not a racist” reports.

        • peppermint says:

          》 implying there’s a difference between fear of X and fear of social consequences for being insufficiently obsequious towards X
          》 what is society and what is noble privilege

  5. Mister Grumpus says:

    Anyone who can set up a mutual fund that buys into anti-SJW companies, and short-sells SJW companies, can surely make himself some money.

  6. Will says:

    Speaking of politics and investing, what do you think of the MAGA fund Jim?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-01/maga-there-now-etf-investing-companies-support-trump-and-republican-party

    Not sure whether I’d buy it. Seems like the kind of company that would donate to Trump would be concerned with profits over holiness, but the kind of company that would donate to cuckservatives likely cares a lot about holiness and this etf confounds the two.

  7. OldStudent says:

    Torture is not ❤️

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Because torture is love’s true converse,
      Jim gave Frances a ride in a hearse;
      Old Scholar has returned,
      Only now she has learned,
      That emojis are cheaper than verse.

  8. Jim,

    Does cryptocurrency count as holiness investing or sinful investing?

    • Cavalier says:

      Dividends signify investment.

      Capital gains signify speculation.

      There is no state without a currency and no currency without a state.

      • peppermint says:

        If capital assets are allowed to change value, capital gains are investment. If all changes to valuation need to be precalculated, we are essentially in a precalculated command economy instead of a market.

        • Cavalier says:

          If a stock returns a dividend, you buy the stock in order to receive the dividend.

          If a stock does not return a dividend, there are two reasons to buy: you expect the stock to return a (commensurately high) dividend in the future, or you expect to be able to pawn the stock off to some other, bigger sucker at a higher price in the future in order to pay for your retirement.

          If the pool of suckers dries up, the “capital gains” stock goes *poof*, while the “dividend” stock remains just as valuable as it ever was.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            How can the pool of future buyers dry up if it still has realisable dividend or liquidation value?

            There’s no logical difference between profits internalised as capital gains and profits paid out as dividends, and the choice is almost always down to tax optimisation strategy rather than any fundamental difference in investment strategy.

            • Cavalier says:

              Your statements make perfect sense if you consider the stock market to be fundamentally rational, money to have an intrinsic value, and Alan Greenspan to be some kind of economic genius.

              In truth, even Bear Stearns paid a dividend.

    • jim says:

      Official doctrine has not yet come down from on high.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I now notice, with your help here above, that I have never seen anything in the MSM ever anywhere about whether crypto-currencies are “OK” or not. And when I do, I expect it will be sudden, loud, unanimous and from all directions.

  9. Glenfilthie says:

    I still don’t get it.

    The idea of going into business is to stay there so you can make more money. Any exec with a pulse and a triple digit IQ should know that SJW’s will sink his company, and possibly he could lose his own job to some affirmatively actioned vibrant.

    Something’s not adding up here, Jim. I can see how you might have the right of it in certain cases; but this much widespread convergence…?

    • jim says:

      Bank of Beverly Hills will tell us.

      The Bank of Beverly Hills suspected that lending people with no job, no income, and no assets money to buy million dollar homes in Beverly Hills was a bad idea, but did so anyway the to please the regulators.

      The regulators were enraged, and destroyed the bank for lack of faith, sincerity, and enthusiasm.

      Coutrywide bank under Angelo Mozilo was founded to take advantage of the regulator’s enthusiasm for affirmative action, (Angelo was the nominal brown founder, the face for the actual white founder) and Angelo was a true believer, who genuinely considered lending money (at high interest rates) to people of color to be a highly lucrative strategy, in part because it was markedly easier to get a person of color or a single woman to sign up for extremely bad terms – easier to get people with short time preference to sign for extremely bad terms.

      As a true believer, the regulators enabled Mozilo to take over other banks. Takeover bidding contests, instead of promising more money for shareholders, promised more money for women, people of color, and political activist groups. And thus not only was the banking industry 100% true believers (because insincere doubters like the Bank of Beverly Hills got purged) but the banking industry came to be dominated by one eyed enthusiasts, the chief enthusiast being Angelo Mozilo, who believed more strongly than anyone.

      The faith in lending to single women and people of color comes from the entirely visible hand of the regulators, comes from the destruction of the Bank of Beverly Hills, and the bids of Angelo Mozilo.

      Fast forward to today: Engineers who receive uniformly glowing reports, not a single dissenter, at their job interview, have poor performance.

      Why so? The lack of dissent means that interviewers are afraid to dissent. There are certain people that it is career suicide to refuse to hire. If someone is merely very good, there will still be some interviewer who does not like him. The uniformity reveals fear. The fear reveals that the hire is political. Political hires fail to perform. Everyone knows this, and when the file says that his interview reports are uniformly positive, everyone secretly knows what it actually means. “Political Commissar. Watch out!”

Leave a Reply for Severian