Angry mob meme

The Democrats are an angry mob of crazy vicious moral degenerates.

Trump:

“You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob. Democrats have become too EXTREME and TOO DANGEROUS to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law – not the rule of the mob.”

Well, then, if the other party is an angry mob, democracy cannot really continue.

Democracy relies on a certain amount of comity, trust, and mutual tolerance keeping the stakes down to something that people can afford to lose, a general acceptance of playing by the rules.

Progs instituted a new rule: That if a male is accused by any women anywhere, even if there is no likelihood they ever met, different schools, different circles of friends, hang out in different geographical areas, even if the woman is ugly and the man handsome, even if the woman has no evidence and is strangely vague as to the place and time where this supposedly happened, even if there is no indication that the two ever met, or were ever in a situation where they could have met, well then, the man is guilty, because we cannot possibly doubt the victim. If you doubt the victim, the poor pitiful victim, you are a rape apologist.

And then, in a startling display of balls, Republicans refused to play by these rules. Democrats were outraged.

Eric Holder:

“When they go low, we kick them. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about,”

So, republicans must be punished for noncompliance with the 2018 rule until compliance is obtained, since failure to comply with the latest unilaterally announced progressive rules is obviously unacceptably bad behavior.

What, I wonder, will the 2019 rule be?

If Republicans must be punished, can they ever allow a mere election to return Democrats to power?

And if the Democrats do regain power, chances are that Republicans are going to be punished in a way that makes it impossible for them to ever return to power by democratic means.

I am not predicting that democracy will dramatically and visibly disappear tomorrow, because the Roman Republic never dramatically and visibly disappeared. Rather, we will have elections that increasingly resemble the style of today’s California or the 1934 German plebiscite.

645 Responses to “Angry mob meme”

  1. […] Angry mob meme […]

    • Haraklus says:

      I can’t reply inline for some reason, but it seems clear to me that:

      1) We were long overdue for rate increases, but it’s unclear that this most recent raise as justified
      2) They are nonetheless targeted at Trump, as it has been used to smear the Outer Party for decades immemorial
      3) They are already hurting the real economy. I know 2 people in my immediate circle who were planning on buying new houses that no longer are. Prices in my neighborhood have fallen back to what they were 6 months ago.
      4) Trump’s actions won’t change rate increases, but he is fomenting revolt against the Fed to deal with this issue long-term.

      IMO, Trump is going to try to pull a Putin, and nationalize the Fed by bringing it under executive control. He can only do this if he wins the senate by a wider margin than the paltry 51:49 with a couple of cuck swing voters. If he gets the 53:47 we’re expecting, his chances look better. Here’s hoping.

  2. Mister Grumpus says:

    Call me pussy, but my worry is that the D’s fatwa-posting, if garnished with few-to-no real-toothed arrests for assault, property damage, etc., will start to sound “strong horse” to people.

    Anyone please explain why I’m being unnecessarily pessimistic. So really please do.

    • jim says:

      If the Democrats get away with implementing their fatwa, then they rule, and the government will fall into line.

      Do the Republicans have the balls to call in the warriors to deal with the problem? Looks to me as if, with their backs to the wall, and Trump telling them to grow a sack, they grew a sack.

    • jim says:

      Physical attacks in locations where Democrats control the police were tried with Trump rallies and with ICE. This was countered by federal cops. Trump has been dealing with this tactic for quite some time.

      • Bob says:

        >Trump has been dealing with this tactic for quite some time.

        Could any kind commenter point me toward more info? Not tired of seeing winning.

  3. Zinvader Mim says:

    Well, where I come from, “strong horse” just means “China white,” so…..

  4. Karl says:

    Or an election like Spain 1936. Just one election no side can afford to loose was enough to start the Spanish Civil War.

  5. >”Democracy relies on a certain amount of comity, trust, and mutual tolerance keeping the stakes down to something that people can afford to lose, a general acceptance of playing by the rules.”

    This is really what I meant that democracy requires a sense of unity, patriotism, nationalism and suchlike. A nation with high unity can have a well functioning democracy for a long time, although eventually it will break down. They have to trust each other that everybody wants the good of the nation, just different ways. This trust, unity, asabiya is largely built by wars, common enemies, and also kings who try to forge their territories and peoples into a nation. When a nation has high unity, is very patriotistic, they may think they can go on without and king and they can, for a while. As long as everybody is putting the national interest above their group interest, it is fine. But eventually the democracy will more and more devolve towards competing group interests.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      The mechanism for that transition is individualism.

      If someone comes along and says “the good of the nation is just an automatic emerging property of everyone maximising their personal wealth”, that’s bad for your culture of unity.
      Similarly if someone comes along and says “each group should be represented in institutions according to their proportional representation as a population share”, that’s bad for your culture of unity.
      Similarly if someone comes along and says “you gotta live your life do what you want to do”, that’s bad for your culture of unity.
      Similarly if someone comes along and says “there’s really no such thing as objective reality – we construct a narrative according to our internal states”, that’s bad for your culture of unity.
      Similarly if someone comes along and says “we don’t need a religion: since every man can be trusted to manage his financial choices and his sexual choices, he’ll be smart enough to figure out the over-arching meaning of his very existence”, that’s bad for your culture of unity.
      Similarly if someone comes along and says “we don’t need to be frugal: government debt isn’t like household debt – our spending is in fact investment”, that’s bad for your culture of unity.

      We have all of that and more besides. The question is, how much of that liberty are people willing to shed. We know the answer the Romans gave: none.

      • There is an extremely fine line to dance between too much individualism and too little, the other extreme being treating people as nothing more than cells in a social organism. It somewhat paradoxical, people have to treated both as individuals and cells in the social organism, both ends and means. Plain simply because those are the facts on the ground: we are both. The individualist forgets one aspect, the marxist another aspect.

        This isn’t easy.

        A perhaps useful model is to see people as individuals bound by contracts, which contracts are not necessarily freely chosen: some are just given, duties we are born into. Scruton: we owe our parents, despite not having chosen to be born at all.

        This is Edmund Burke’s attempt to pull the individualistic poison teeth out of the idea of society as a contract: include the dead and the unborn. This results in the kind of contract that we cannot always choose freely, but are born bound to it. We owe the dead, and they are not around to argue about it anymore. He also noticed the rights of the dead protect the unborn. We cannot pay back, hence we pay forward.

        (Note: my nickname implies that I don’t believe people are individuals. This is meant in the sense that I do not believe people are indivisible, which is what in-dividual means. I don’t believe persons are one unit, but I think everybody has a lot of internal struggles, not one will but many conflicting wills and urges and passions and all that. This position argues with individualism in the usual sense from the viewpoint that individualism in the usual sense places a lot of value on respecting what people want, free choice, consent and all that. And from my angle: if part of me wants to lose weight and another part of me wants to eat cake, exactly which will should others respect? The realization of the divided, conflicting nature of the will, choice, consent makes it far less of a sacrament than in liberal individualism.)

        • Javier says:

          CR is a dishonest Fifth Columnist who is trying to turn NRx Socialist. Stop engaging with him.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Disagree – Communist Revolutionary has lots of benefits.

            We mock him and use him as target practice to build group cohesion.

            We get to learn to recognize Marxism dressed up as reaction.

            We get to bleed off anyone stupid enough to buy his act (although no one commenting here has been).

  6. Denny Trent says:

    We have blacks Muslim Jews asians latinos white women homosexuals and the trans community on our side

    You have a group of angry white males

    I like our chances.

    Face it you guys lost

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      White women just got thrown under the bus, and cis-feminists last year.
      Muslims are just in it for the gibs. Put strings of diversity and poz on those gibs and we shall see: they’re on the fence basically.
      Blacks are rather similar. Give me a Caribbean mother over a white cat lady any day. (Actually don’t, but rhetorically it works. I just can’t bring myself to lie. That’s why we have the GOP.)

    • Calvin says:

      Imagine gloating about a coalition of the defective, inferior, and straight up freaks.

    • eternal anglo says:

      >You have angry white males
      >You guys lost
      You better be trolling

    • And they never gonna be at each others throats? Muslims vs. Jews and gays, asians vs. blacks, Catholic latinos vs. feminists about abortion, and so forth?

      • jim says:

        Of the groups listed, the only one that can fight are conservative Muslims, and they will reliably stab their allies in the back.

    • Bane Blumpf says:

      So we have the only demographic that matters.

      Meanwhile you have the demographics that:
      Stink like shit
      Are ugly (we have the hot white babes)
      Cuckold you

    • Chad says:

      As we all know, the trans community is notorious for there fighting prowess, and advanced warfare tactics. Truly a force to be reckoned with.

    • peppermint says:

      Q: why are men who take hormones to make themselves incapable of physical labor and fighting and women who destroy their ability to bear children or serve even as whores considered a power group?
      A: because White men humor them

      Your team is forced to smite the rando and publicize it.

      Does CR smugly tell us men who destroy their ability to perform physical labor or fight and women who destroy their ability to bear children or get fucked are really whatever sex they claim while smugly telling us that come the Revolution he’ll be recognized as holier than his peers who work for and invest in capitalists?

      White socialists are increasingly ready to turn on the Coalition of the Billing, but since their leaders belong to the Dhimmicrats, their only option is to accept the King’s offer of peace and freedom in exchange for work and virtue.

      In the 50s the people were unable to respond aggressively enough to socialism because everything seemed pretty okay, there weren’t ugly buildings, garbage, falling apart stuff and foreigners everywhere, and it’s hard for ordinary people to tell the difference between a witch hunt and committees protecting the people from dangerous heresy. We needed a king back then but couldn’t get one because the need wasn’t pressing enough.

      Now it is, and we have our God-Emperor.

      You have lost, and will soon lose everything, and die recognized by your family as a hated enemy. The Arc of History just got bent into a paperclip (History is your god? Fortune is a strumpet)

      Taylor Swift is old and fat and was offered awards she didn’t deserve after years of being denied awards she did. Do they offer you anything tangible? Ever notice how often Democrat whores write about having sex with Republicans?

      (PS – CR – you think you’re an advocate for the working man who takes his meager earnings to 711 to buy a quarter pound big bite, a cup of coffee, put a nip of vodka in the cup of coffee, and hang out with his bros or take a walk. Why don’t you try doing that for once in your life? You won’t, because the lvl 3 ghouls will dismiss you as a lvl 1 ghoul for it, as you dismiss me as having a false consciousness and expecting to some day be the capitalist)

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        “White socialists are increasingly ready to turn on the Coalition of the Billing”

        First truthful and non-retarded thing you’ve ever said.

        The protests up and down France, across nine cities, with tens of thousands being tear-gassed in the street

        were not considered newsworthy by the BBC, the Guardian or the Independent.

        RT and Fox had video footage and the Mail and Express had first-hand interviews but not a squeak from the left-wing media in support of tens of thousands of workers protesting ‘reforms’ to their standard of living.

        If the dissident right doesn’t claim the niche of actually giving a damn about workers, we want our bloody heads read.

        “Why don’t you try doing that for once in your life?”

        My father grew up in a railway carriage, my grandmother picked potatoes in the fields by hand and my other grandmother grew up in an Irish orphanage.
        I’ve done every type of menial work imaginable.
        The average wage in my town is the minimum wage.

        Thanks to the 1930s, my grandmother imparted good habits to my father, who imparted them to me.

        None of your Goddamn business of course you smug entitled cuck.

        • peppermint says:

          We want workers to get paid what they are worth, which they’re not, and not have half and more of it taxed away from the start with various hidden taxes taking most of the rest, and left alone instead of having the government telling them how to treat their families which means they don’t get families, what healthcare to have which means none and even what snacks they’re allowed to buy which means beans and rice with maybe vegetable oil and hot sauce.

          You want to put workers in government housing, meaning worse than trailers with neighbors who keep them up at night and prevent them from having nice things.

          Your father and grandfather were workers and family men, but you don’t identify with them.

          Go to 711 and eat a hot dog if you identify with workers.

          • Koanic says:

            Amen! The Old Testament has many rules and norms regarding the fair treatment of the working class. The destruction of same today is vile, and Jehovah is destroying the USA as punishment for it.

            Cheat the poor, and there’s no shield between SWPL and Diversity anymore. All the hells of Africa are too little punishment.

            • peppermint says:

              The four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance: fratricide, sodomy, oppressing the poor, depriving the working man of his wages (can’t find a cite in five minutes, will search more later)

              The unforgivable sin:
              despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, envy of our brother’s spiritual good http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3014.htm

              • Koanic says:

                The first paragraph sounds right. But wow, that link is a gigantic pile of Talmudic nonsense.

                Jesus’ meaning was clear – insult me all you want, and I’ll forgive. Which he did, on the Cross. But insult the Holy Spirit, and you won’t be forgiven.*

                Which makes sense. If you’re so far gone that you can admit the miracle, see the man’s character, and still call that Satanic rather than Divine, then your soul is too far gone for saving.

                Judas knew he erred. Satan’s legions know they erred. But it’s too late for them.

                There’s a cutoff. Heaven has standards. In Hell, the damned beg for mercy, and receive none.

                *I have no opinion on whether this “unforgiveable sin” was a purely local event like the pericope adulterae or a universal salvific principle.

                • peppermint says:

                  St. Thomas Aquinas is a Talmudist?

                  You are not alone with St. Jerome’s Bible, as translated by King James. The college of saints is with you.

                  The Bible will tell you what the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance are, but not why they cry to Heaven for vengeance.

                • Koanic says:

                  By Talmudic I refer to the practice of commentarists commenting on commentarists, piling crap sky-high.

                  Aquinas calls Peter Lombardo “the Master”
                  Jesus said, “call no man master, for you have one Master”
                  The Summa is mostly Catholic Talmudic bullshit.

                • peppermint says:

                  Did Jesus forbid Christians from being slaves?

                  No, you think he forbade Christians from recognizing teachers.

                • peppermint says:

                  PS what do you think it means for a sin to cry out to Heaven for vengeance?

                • Koanic says:

                  > Did Jesus forbid Christians from being slaves?

                  No.

                  > No, you think he forbade Christians from recognizing teachers.

                  The title “teacher” is forbidden, yes.

                  > what do you think it means for a sin to cry out to Heaven for vengeance?

                  That Jehovah will not overlook it, because it was too outrageous.

                  There is no double-secret theological meaning. Lucrece’s rape cried out for vengeance. It is a human universal, and man is made in the image of God.

                • peppermint says:

                  JPII committed grave sin when he covered up clergy sex abuse, and his canonization was highly irregular. Canonization is an infallible act.

                  To be Pope, a man must first be a bishop. Bergoglio’s consecration was irregular. He regularly teaches heresy from the Chair of St. Peter.

                  Therefore the Church has lost its authority.

                  …according to who?

                  According to the rules that the College of Saints carefully wrote down for us.

                  Gaywad thinks Christians have to recognize the authority of miserable heretics and ignore their horrible crimes, or throw away the last 2000 years of European history and return to the days when Romans did whatever they could get away with, and Germanic barbarians fought for eternity in the forests, and believed that they would fight for eternity in Valhalla.

                • peppermint says:

                  Murder of JFK. The most disgusting sodomy imaginable. Oppression aimed squarely at “privileged” poor to scare everyone. Theft of wages sounds like the least of their crimes.

                  Why do these sins cry out to Heaven for vengeance?

                  What kind of vengeance would Heaven send?

                • peppermint says:

                  A progressive “Catholic” told me, ca.2k, that St. Paul was a heretic preaching homophobia. She would have liked that Bible verse.

                  Meanwhile, Glosoli prooftexts for heresy and gaywad prooftexts against everything.

                  Koanic, what’s frustrating is that you’re a better and more levelheaded man than me, so I don’t really think I should contradict you, but prooftexting against the saints is formally what it is.

                • Koanic says:

                  You’re a smart guy, Peppermint. Smarter than me on nonverbal, I’m pretty sure. I pray you’ll continue to find success on your path to righteousness.

                  Intelligent debate is always welcome. No idea what prooftexting means.

                • Koanic says:

                  Well, Wikipedia is funny for once:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext

                  I would argue I wasn’t doing THAT.

                  “the Master [Lombardo]” directly contradicts “Call no man “master””, in spirit and letter.

                • peppermint says:

                  Who has teaching authority?

                  Matthew 16 gives Peter the keys. Who gave Matthew the authority to write that?

                  Acts 1 adds Matthias as a bishop. Presumably he gets the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Acts 6 adds more bishops.

                  Paul describes in 1 Timothy 3 the qualifications of bishops and in 1 Timothy 4 instructs bishops, with verse 11 saying “These things command and teach”.

                  2 Timothy 1:6 asserts that the form of the sacrament of holy orders made Timothy a bishop, cf. “ex opere operato”.

                  So, bishops are made by a formal sacrament, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and bishops should command and teach.

                  Catholics believe that the Chair of St. Peter is infallible and, thus, are forced to believe the seat is vacant. Orthodox believe that the infallibiity of the Church rests in the entire college of bishops.

                • Koanic says:

                  Good King Josiah rediscovered the book of the law, and reimplemented it. God blessed him.

                  Jesus mocked the traditions of the elders, and quoted scripture to refute them.

                  > Who has teaching authority?

                  It’s decentralized, as it always was throughout the Bible. Even when the hereditary priesthood existed, there were prophets outside of it.

                  > Matthew 16 gives Peter the keys.

                  The Catholic interpretation of this passage is obvious illiterate BS.

                  > Who gave Matthew the authority to write that?

                  Matthew got his authority to write Matthew from being a disciple of Jesus.

                  > Paul describes in 1 Timothy 3 the qualifications of bishops and in 1 Timothy 4 instructs bishops, with verse 11 saying “These things command and teach”.

                  You are doing Talmudic sperging in a manner alien to how the Bible interprets itself. Priestly guilds tend to do this in order to create a monopoly on scriptural interpretation. (1)

                  > 2 Timothy 1:6 asserts that the form of the sacrament of holy orders made Timothy a bishop, cf. “ex opere operato”.

                  No. Laying on of hands is the traditional method of conveying the Holy Spirit, not bishophood.

                  > So, bishops are made by a formal sacrament, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and bishops should command and teach.

                  Ibid (1).

                  > Catholics believe that the Chair of St. Peter is infallible and, thus, are forced to believe the seat is vacant. Orthodox believe that the infallibiity of the Church rests in the entire college of bishops.

                  The Bible teaches that the church is neither unified nor infallible. Each church stands or falls alone, a stick in the candelabra, as it is judged by Jesus Christ. He has zero concern for your imaginary governance bureaucracy.

                  It is the same as in Judges Israel – each tribe answers directly to God.

                • peppermint says:

                  Clerical celibacy:
                  * rejected by Nicea
                  * imposed by Gregory VII
                  * is a discipline of the Latin Rite
                  * ex-Anglican priests (from that window between the collapse of the Anglican church and the Roman church) can keep their wives

                  “Catholic priests can’t have wives” is true, and “Catholic priests can have wives” is true. The world is complicated.

                • Koanic says:

                  The Talmud is complicated. The Bible is simple:

                  https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-9-5/

                • peppermint says:

                  The Talmud is simple, it says whatever it needs to say.

                  The New Testament has a complicated history, and there are a number of books that were passed around that involve such monstrous claims as Jesus having a wife or a gay lover that were left out.

                  You can either recognize what to hold as canonical yourself, on your own authority, or recognize the authority of a number of saints and councils.

                • Koanic says:

                  The Talmud is not simple, as anyone knows who has tried reading it. And it is non-simple in a manner similar to the Summa and your tortured reasoning here.

                  The traditions of men have a complicated history, as do the stories of all liars.

                  Some books are inspired by God, and others are written by false prophets and liars. There is no guarantee, at any particular point in history and geography, that the average Christian will have access to the former uncorrupted by the latter. Best efforts are advised, and God is on our side.

                  > You can either recognize what to hold as canonical yourself, on your own authority, or recognize the authority of a number of saints and councils.

                  Authority is a gradient, not a binary. If it is a binary, then the only man who has any authority is Jesus Christ. If it is a gradient, then it varies by person, time and context. This is what we see in practice in the Bible, as when Paul withstands Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed, and divides the ministry with him, taking the lion’s share.

                  Your desire for an easy, bureaucratic answer is contrary to the spirit of the Bible. God was too smart to leave a bureaucracy for Satan to corrupt, so Satan had to invent one.

                • jim says:

                  Have to have a balance between Talmudists endlessly elaborating the Law, and Sola Scriptura. We cannot let every man do his own thing, nor a committee of intellectuals collectively do their thing.

                  What Orthodoxy is doing mostly works.

                  What Anglicanism did after the restoration and before King George the Fourth worked very well. But in retrospect, it is clear that it depended on Kings. When they got a King who was lazy and immoral, Anglicanism went to the comfort room and never returned. Orthodoxy has shown superior ability to bounce back from bad rulers and heretical primates.

                  What Roman Catholicism does has mostly worked, but now it is failing very badly, perhaps fatally so.

                • peppermint says:

                  And most of the churches are pretty terrible right now.

                  But it’s not just you and the Holy Spirit.

                  You recognize Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, probably Paul.

                  Most Christians recognize Augustine and Aquinas, not as Apostles or God, but as having read and written more than they care to.

                • Koanic says:

                  I do not want to discard Peter, who is famous for his screwups. Therefore I do not want to discard Aquinas, who is famous for his voluminously Talmudic babbling. To write something good, write a lot. Amidst the coal, diamonds.

                  You two are interested in making a Reaction, and that’s fine. I am interested in making disciples. We are interested in different levels of the problem.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >Authority is a gradient, not a binary. If it is a binary, then the only man who has any authority is Jesus Christ. If it is a gradient, then it varies by person, time and context.

                  Indeed… which would be an argument for some people having more authority than a lot of people with regards to matters of orthodoxy.

                  By what means could one describe a demo(no)cracy? Where every man is lead to believe he is his own vicar.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You’re not the first Alf, and I was dead set on departing already.

                I have better things to do than argue with people who think that just because someone funds aboriginal homeless food banks that doesn’t make them part of Zog, and that just because the richest man in the world (at the time) saves millions of African lives and votes Democrat doesn’t make him part of the problem.

                I have better things to do than argue with people who pretend they think that insisting one thinks about INDIVIDUAL voters and not generalisations about an entire group (I would say ‘class’ ROFLMAO) makes one a Marxist.

                It’s childish bullshit. You’re just apologists for the people who as we speak are literally plotting Trump’s overthrow.

                But but but but but they only clicked ‘sell’ because they had to: they couldn’t stop and consider the timing and the effects on Trump, that’d be insane!

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most massive selloff days have as a culprit either

                  1) Computer programs

                  2) Margin calls

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s like talking to a child lol

                  1) Computer programs are written by humans and generally feature all sorts of variables available to the end-user/owner

                  2) Someone had to open those levered positions. That someone will be an institutional investor, a market mover if you will. What you’re saying is they have no political agenda: it’s just a (((coincidence)))

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s a coincidence that the FANG stocks are market beaters, too.

                  If you’re riding the baby bear right now, your position in FANG is your best-performing equity asset.

                  Dow: -2.13%
                  S&P: -2.04%
                  Amazon: -2.04%
                  Apple: -0.88%
                  eBay: -0.85%
                  Facebook: +1.3%
                  Netflix: -1.47%
                  Twitter: +0.75%
                  Alphabet (GOOG): -0.18%

                  All market beaters.

                • Koanic says:

                  Don’t go, Corpse, Reanimated!

                  We’ll miss your Constant Reiteration!

                • alf says:

                  > I have better things to do than argue
                  > Continues to argue

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR seems to think the selloff is due to a cabal of evil cigar smoking wall street traders planning to screw Trump.

                  But Trump who is a capitalist himself and understands wall street did not denounce evil capitalist wall street traders, he denounced the Federal Reserve.

                • jim says:

                  And anyone who actually is a reactionary would know reactionary and Dark Enlightenment monetary theory, and would say what Trump said.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I think the reason I find it so hard to extricate myself from this blog is that it gives me a beautiful (and very rare!) feeling of superiority.

                  You completely missed the subtlety of my point Cominator.

                  Of COURSE the Fed raising rates was the cause of the sell-off. Nevertheless if we’re to be serious about human action, it has to be the case that particular individuals clicked ‘SELL SELL SELL’ today and yesterday.

                  Assuming your thesis, that capitalists are of a kind with Trump, why do you think they played such terrible 1D Chess?

                  Can’t they see that cucks and fiscal conservatives MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT be gaslit by the media telling them the cause was Trump’s tariffs, and run headlong into the hands of the now thoroughly free market and open borders Democratic Party in the mid-terms?

                  If you had a choice: click ‘SELL’ or not click ‘SELL’, and you were thinking about the future health of the nation, would it not occur to you that perhaps it might be better to sit tight and see if the Fed caves?

                  It’s quite likely the Fed might cave, but the truth is, lots of individual capitalists capitulated.

                  I’m absolutely not talking about the MOTIVES of individual small-medium capitalists.

                  But wait: why don’t the big funds on Wall Street think the Fed will play ball with them this time? Why now?
                  And if they think the Fed’s conspiring against Trump, wouldn’t they refuse to play ball with the conspiracy if they were supporting Trump?

                  The most parsimonious explanation is that investors who sold today and yesterday were washing their hands of the President as soon as the market technicals counter-signalled him. They jumped ship and seized the opportunity to hope for change: an end to tariffs, the restoration of free international trade and, reddest pill of this analysis, the restoration of open borders.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I don’t know enough about Trump’s economic theoretical model to have a firm view but my lay take is that he believes the Fed ought to loosen at the top of the market in order to keep the economy booming with historically low unemployment rates (at least as reported, by him).

                  That would be a species of Chicago School economics that most Chicagoites (Stigler, Friedman, Sowell, McCloskey etc.) would regard as reckless with regard to inflation and future shocks.

                  I don’t know ANYTHING about Nick Land’s economics. He’s some sort of algorithmic AI type or something isn’t he? I have no idea, he’s impenetrable.
                  Moldbug was an absolute Austrian, but an Austrian who believed the ruler had every right to plan the economy in any way they saw fit. He was also a supporter of state monopoly fiat money, not either free market or commodity-pegged money.

                  I’m not cemented to the ‘reactionary’ label and I don’t give a shit if you insist I’m a ‘Marxist Austrian socially conservative authoritarian nationalist’: that’s perverse but fine with me.

                  What really IS puzzling is why a self-proclaimed reactionary thinks the Dow in 2018 is basically functioning properly apart from a few distortions arising from the Austrian Business Cycle.

                • jim says:

                  The fed is tightening interest rates on Trump under circumstances where it failed to tighten interest rates on Obama. This is obviously political, and obviously a blow aimed at the mid term elections. Democrats in power, interest rates anomalously low before elections, Republicans in power, interest rates anomalously high before elections.

                  This is in accord with reactionary theory and the Dark Enlightenment: that state and quasi state actors will act primarily out of political motives, economic theory be damned.

                  Irrespective of whether sound economic theory indicates that interest rates should be lower or higher, sound economic theory was given a different interpretation when Obama was president, as Trump sarcastically observed.

                  And the fact that you failed to notice this, and failed to hear Trump pointing this out, tells me that you are lying when you claim to be on the right.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Precisely. That’s exactly what I said.

                  However, you’re only describing the scenario, not the behaviour of the individual capitalists who clicked ‘SELL’ within that scenario.

                  If you and I can see it, why did people sell?

                  There are only two reasonable explanations:

                  1. They were acting solely to maximise their personal profits, even though they wouldn’t want to harm Trump by alienating cuckservative voters put off by the cash, in which case capitalism is incapable of benefiting society by looking even two months into the future

                  or

                  2. They just didn’t care about the impact of their actions on Trump because they don’t care about Trump: whoever offers the best tax breaks and the best conditions for them making money, they’ll embrace, and while Trump was good for tax cuts and cushy government contracts, he sucked on global trade and free movement of cheap labour so no stock market bubble, no support

                  Either way, their actions harmed Trump, in that cuckservative voters may well be spooked by any prolonged correction and end up believing the media’s story about Trump’s deviation from the dogma of international free trade.
                  Lindsey Graham and Paul Ryan’s voters wouldn’t hesitate to back the Dems if it was good for their portfolios.

                • jim says:

                  > 1. They were acting solely to maximise their personal profits, even though they wouldn’t want to harm Trump by alienating cuckservative voters put off by the cash, in which case capitalism is incapable of benefiting society by looking even two months into the future

                  You are an ignorant commie, who addresses us as if we were ignorant and stupid.

                  Capitalism is not supposed to work by capitalists thinking so much as one minute into the future about the collective consequences of capitalist actions for the collective. It is the job of the sovereign to ensure that individual property rights and the resulting pursuit of long term future individual personal good is aligned with the public good. Sovereigns realized this three thousand years ago when bronze age socialism self destructed.

                  As Adam Smith tells us:

                  “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

                  If you attempt to institute a system where capitalists think about the public good, let alone the public future then at best you get the results of Venezuela – no meat at the butcher or bread at the baker, and at worst you get Pol Pot’s Cambodia or the Bronze age collapse and the ensuing centuries of darkness.

                  This is not libertarianism: It is the Book of Proverbs issued by the court of King Solomon. It is Moses on the Mount telling us “Thou shalt not covet”. King Solomon commands his subjects to use their private property for their individual private long term good, and to shut the ^&*# up about how other private individuals use their private property.

                  The recent stock market fall represents capitalists constructively and cautiously pursuing their individual personal long term future good as commanded by King Solomon and the Book of Proverbs under the constraint that the Fed is destructively and recklessly pursuing the short term collective political goal of causing Republicans to lose.

        • jim says:

          “The Proletariat” is incapable of rule. “The capitalist class” not capable either, though not as incapable as “the proletariat”

          Those who would rule in the name of proletariat intend to murder them, and after the events of the twentieth century, “the proletariat” have in substantial part figured this out.

          In every comment “Carlylean Restorationist” reveals he is unfamiliar with actual members of the working class, and despises them.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            That’s a slanderous lie. You know full well that’s not the case but you’re at the point now where it’s so IMPOSSIBLE for you to defend your capitalist idols that you’ll resort to the filthiest tactics imaginable to smear your enemies to deflect from the fundamental moral bankruptcy of your ideology.

            Damn you to hell sir.

            • Koanic says:

              > Damn you to hell sir.

              It’s literally “fuck you Dad!”

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You GFYYC.

                The capitalists are trying to coup the president as we speak with the full support of the Fed and you don’t give a damn. In fact you ATTACK people who’d do something about it.

                If you think this is an organic emergent market phenomenon, just answer me why it’s ITALY that’s now in a bear market while Facebook’s UP today!

                You filthy band of cuckolds make me sick to my stomach.

                • jim says:

                  > The capitalists are trying to coup the president as we speak

                  Obviously it is not “The capitalists” trying the coup, nor have capitalists ever been capable of coups.

                  In the Vox Day interview, leftists provide ample evidence that those owning comics and owning movie production
                  facilities generally have beliefs that would get their employees fired or beaten up.

                  Confirming the well known fact that it is Human Resources, not the shareholders, and not the CEO, that is forcing the US leftwards.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Big shareholders tend to be gamblers who got rich by being right on contrarian bets (this is from someone who achieved this recently).

                  Not the type of people to zealously follow an obnoxious state religion.

                  When Trump won cheers of lock her up rang through the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. People who make their living placing bets on the world can’t afford to believe in a state religion that totally distorts the world, because in gambling you have to be right sometimes.

                • jim says:

                  > When Trump won cheers of lock her up rang through the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

                  This is consistent with my observations of capitalists who have imbibed some alcohol.

                  If we had a state religion that only compelled belief on stuff that is verifiably true or unfalsifiable, would have more genuine support among the capitalist class, hence would provide an environment in which Marx’s theory that capitalists rule was less transparently falsified. And back when Anglicanism was the state religion in England, such a state religion did provide an environment in which Marx’s theory that capitalists rule was less transparently falsified.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  High level cuckery.

                  The Fed has been raising rates since Trump’s election in a way it didn’t for Obama.
                  The timing of this correction is not only a huge threat for the mid-terms but it was also timed to provide the perfect narrative: Trump caused this with his silly tariffs but is blaming the Fed, when everyone knows the Fed saved us from 2008.

                  Who benefits from Trump’s protectionism? Fly-over country and his base.
                  Who benefits from global free trade? The same people who benefit from Fed intervention: Wall Street.

                  If Trump caves and reverses course, they win. If he doesn’t, they extend their short positions and get rich from the panic the media creates among retail and institutional investors alike.

                  If he stays the course, there’s a CHANCE the Reps will still win the mid-terms, especially in working-class districts, but there’s also a chance the Bush-type voters who love Trump for the tax cuts will punish him for his protectionism. (I hear the libertarians right now siding with the left-wing media: it was the tariffs stupid. Free up the markets!)

                  This is an attempt to create the environment where the Dems are able to impeach. Then Wall Street gets its international agenda restored and, afterwards, permanent low rates once again.

                  And since they know when to go long, retail investors will capitulate just in time for ‘the biggest wealth transfer in history’, except it’s not from Wall Street to retail commodity hoarders (ROFL twats), it’s from retail investors to Wall Street, just like in 2001 and 2008.

                  But because you’re blinkered by your libertarian sympathies you won’t touch this utter treason.

                  You’ll side with Zog, the permanent ‘deep state’ that extends throughout the government, the culture AND the business environment.

                  Their interests are perfectly aligned, and just to rub our noses in it, the media’s pushing “the crash is being led by tech stocks” in a reverse pump&dump to pay off the gatekeepers. Zuckerberg might look anxious to you but that’s just his autism. That creep’s laughing all the way to the bank, and when Mrs Merkel comes a’knocking, “we’ll help with that”.

                • jim says:

                  The fed is not the capitalist class. Nor indeed are they capitalists.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  *when they, being Wall Street, go long

                • jim says:

                  The right is being silenced and purged. You say “The Capitalist class rules, therefore capitalists are silencing and purging the right”

                  Bleeding cool says “The Capitalist class rules, capitalists are generally right wing, therefore the right is not being silenced nor purged”

                  Obviously the right is being silenced and purged, and obviously capitalists are generally right wing.

                  From which the Reaction concludes the glaringly obvious: That “the capitalist class” does not rule, cannot rule, and has never made any attempt to rule. Culture is downstream of power. It is not downstream of money, because money is not power.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR the battle of Kavanaugh killed the Democrats chances in the midterms.

                  Stock markets have corrections, the fed is sort of screwing over Trump but Trump has ways of screwing over the Fed. Trump ain’t Reagan he ain’t going to put up with any Volcker bullshit. If rates go much higher a reckoning will come.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*argument based on Marxist class theory deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  That is not genuinely an argument, but an attempt to sneak Marxism 101 past the reader, like a Troofer who makes an argument supposedly based on the supposed fact that building seven fell straight down on its own footprint.

                  You are trying to get us to think past the sale. Instead of asserting Marxism class theory is true, you present it as a shared assumption that we all agree upon.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m an American who is technically a Republican and definitely a Trump supporter, who found the trade thing the most iffy point about Trump but who strongly supports it now. I also actually make money in stocks.

                  You are a Brit who flirts with all sorts of quasi Marxist ideas.

                  I’m telling you a big stock market correct unless there are suddenly massive layoffs to go with it aren’t going to mean shit to the midterms and that neither oldschool free market Republicans nor midwestern union “Trump Democrats” are deserting him.

                  Which one of us knows the American Republican electorate better? You get slight bonus points because I’m a literal sperg.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Marxist class theory deleted yet again*]

                • jim says:

                  Everyone here has heard Marxist class theory already, and calling it “reaction” and “methodological individualism” poisons the language that we use to communicate with each other.

                  Any post that grossly changes the meaning of our shibboleths will be censored for impeding our ability to communicate with each other, plus such posts are apt to consist of repetitious assertions dressed in ingroup shibboleths, hence apt to be censored for repetition.

                  Our shibboleths work as indicators of identity, because they are indicators of shared theory and shared frame, and facilitate ingroup communication. Attaching our shibboleths to a contrary theoretical framework is deceptive, and damages community and communication.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Kavanaugh thing has widely consolidated the weak Romney/Ryan center right pussies behind Trump.

                  Even National Cuckview won’t really criticize Trump anymore. The battle of Kavanaugh was the American left’s Stalingrad.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re behaving just like your heroes in Silicon Valley. This is not a surprise to me.
                  It’s a higher level of intellectual dishonesty.

                  Man says “think about individual GOP voters instead of thinking about ALL GOP voters” and you delete the comment because THAT is class-based thinking.

                  You’re a phoney. I see you James, I seeeeeee you.

                  Phoney.

                • alf says:

                  CR, it’s over, let it go. There’s life outside Jim’s blog.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “The fed is not the capitalist class. Nor indeed are they capitalists.”

                  Of course it isn’t. It’s just a coincidence that capitalist countries always develop central banks.

                  That isn’t important.

                  You need to stop thinking about groups and start thinking about human action.

                  Are you, as a shareholder, better off if the Fed raises interest rates, thereby making it harder for the companies you own to carry on borrowing?
                  Are you, as a shareholder, better off if the free market collapses your entire portfolio in the event of Ron Paul abolishing the Fed?

                  Of course not.

                  Someone might agitate for that outcome ideologically but when they see their 401K gaining 30% in five years, they’d be fools to bemoan it.

                  The Fed is not capitalist but its actions are perfectly harmonised to the interests of the capitalists who live in the real world.
                  The Fed means higher house prices (great if you own multiple houses), lower borrowing costs (great if you’re someone who expands and levers) and higher stock prices.

                  This is the same phenomenon as your refusal to admit that businesses, especially big corporate ones, greatly benefit from mass immigration and greatly benefit when the population doesn’t bother saving for the future but instead spends more in the present.

                  Their identities aren’t the same but their interests are aligned.

                  There’s a word for that: allies.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “But but but Peter Schiff says the government should put a stop to all that jazz. He’s a capitalist and HIS interests don’t seem to be aligned with the Fed’s and the government’s!”

                  Absolutely, but then he’s selling gold and foreign stocks ROFL

                • peppermint says:

                  Suppose the bad guys crash the economy, proving they, not the capitalists who lose when the economy crashes, control it.

                  Then the bad guys might be able to convince enough people who are nominally aligned with the capitalists to swing the election.

                  Thus proving that capitalists are evil.

                  Meanwhile you wouldn’t be caught dead eating a hot dog at 711, because lvl 3 ghouls would make fun of you for it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re very dumb Peppermint.

                  If the market crashes and stays crashy til the mid-terms, fiscal conservatives will conclude that this populist experiment needs to stop NOW. Sure there are things we like about Trump, like the tax cuts, and sure we LOVED sub-19k to almost 27k DOW. Absolutely, but down days? No thanks, bring back my genius up days plox

                  Who pushed the ‘sell’ button? Which INDIVIDUAL stock-holders pushed the ‘sell’ button?
                  All the big ones, including Comey’s computer programs and margin calls.

                  Doing that under these conditions, at this time, is either an accident (in which case capitalists inadvertently threw Trump under the bus) or deliberate, and given how much they have to gain from global free trade, that doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The narrative of capital markets as price discovery mechanisms is dead and gone.

                  I’m out of here, at long last. The lies and cuckery have just become too intolerable to me.

                • jim says:

                  Interest rates have not been set by price discovery since the development of central banking – and indeed this is a standard part of Dark Enlightenment economic theory, lucidly expressed and explained by Moldbug at his usual excessive length.

                  Nor, however, are they set by the capitalist class.

                  I favor restrictions on term transformation, because such restrictions make it possible to have something a bit closer to free capital markets and interest rates set by price discovery. But a genuinely free capital market will result in excessive term transformation, which sooner or later results in financial crisis, which results in highly centralized and necessarily state controlled central banking, as lucidly explained and described by Moldbug.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I dunno if you’re senile or what.

                  It sure looks like you deliberately ‘misunderstand’ all the time lol

                  Nobody said anything about interest rates. I said capital markets were no longer engines of price discovery.

                  Now you may agree with David Stockman that this is largely *because* the price of money is being centrally planned, and there’s certainly plenty of justification for that view, but it runs far deeper than that.

                  Markets are sentiment engines, and who plans public sentiment, according to Dark Enlightenment Theory? lol

                  Markets are also significantly moved by the biggest actors – algos and hedge funds. And what are their political activities like?
                  You might say “Republican” but that would be wrong. They’re politically “free market”, which means anti-tariff and pro-immigration.

                  Sorry but it’s the truth.

                  You might take the view that these phoney markets are just an epiphenomenon of cucked Cathedralised times, but if you give it more than a nanosecond’s thought, you’ll suspect there’s something about this that’s intrinsic to the idea of a short-term choir of micro-transactions with no eye on the long term from which societal benefits magically emerge.

                  It was always a myth spread by Whigs. “Step back and just let us be: societal goods will come on auto-pilot, we don’t need your guidance your Majesty”.

                  Yeah.

                  No.

                • jim says:

                  Obviously capital markets are and remain engines of price discovery, to the extent that “capital market” is not tightly coupled to interest rates. Which it necessarily is.

                  But, as Trump said, interest rates, federal reserve.

                  And if you were a reactionary, you would say what Trump said, and if you were not a Marxist you would not imagine that capital market prices are set by a capitalist cabal.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  No I’m thinking like an empiricist. Looking at modern capital markets, do the results they produce reflect fair value for any particular asset?

                  You’re on such thin ground it beggars belief. All I’m saying is what David Stockman and Peter Schiff say every day: stock prices are ridiculously inflated and the markets no longer care about performance, debt or profitability.

                  The idea that Netflix, the loss-making company, is worth 146 times its earnings, ought to shake you, but it doesn’t because you’re a libertarian ideologue.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  (((DAVID STOCKMAN))) had his chance to defend Trump.
                  Instead, just like the book he wrote when he thought Trump was going to lose, he chose to attack.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hspwyl5oqyk

                  Now is good ole Dave right about the Fed? OF COURSE!
                  Is good ole Dave right that Trump’s changed his tune? OF COURSE!

                  But why no mention of the timing? Why no mention that the Fed’s choosing to prick the bubble in time for the mid-terms?

                  He’s not openly telling fiscal conservatives and Reaganites to get behind the Democrats for open borders and international free trade, but he might as well be.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  And again for all you collectivists who think GOP voters are an amorphous blob, no of course I’m not saying industrial workers in flyover country can be swayed like this.
                  I’m saying Paul Ryan’s supporters might, and Lindsey Graham’s supporters might at a push, and ‘swing voters’ certainly will: people who’ve gone both ways before and will again may very well put free trade and their conservative principles ahead of stopping the Dems.

                  It’ll be touch and go, and I hope the Kavanaugh effect outweighs this attack by Wall Street.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “In the Vox Day interview …”

                  BTW, this interview has been disappeared by Bleeding Cool and the “new editor” has groveled on the company’s behalf.

                  http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/10/bleeding-cool-goes-full-sjw.html

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Archive link of Bleeding Cool Voxday interview.

                  (Archive link: http://archive.is/KgJ0s)

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  A lot of this rigamarole seems to be based on equivocating business owners and money lenders (‘the financial class’ in modern terms) with the same brush (‘the capitalist class’), when really i would say they are rather distincted.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so: Moldbug monetary theory 101:

                  Free market finance leads to term transformation. Term transformation leads to financial crisis. Financial crisis leads to central banking. Central banking leads to money lenders becoming effectively part of the state. The state denies Vox Day financial transactions to stop people from buying politically incorrect comics.

                • glosoli says:

                  https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/8/35536545_15021500233894_rId9.jpg

                  Every time the Fed ended its QE operations in the Obama years, yields fell. The Fed has no control over rates, central banks have no control over rates, never have done, never will do, just look at where rates went in the 70s, the cycle alwasy plays out the same way. They are simply providers of liquidity, lenders of last resort, rescuers of their (((chums))).

                  The whole yield curve today is c. 2-3% lower than it was during the 2006 boom period, under a Republican President, pre-crisis. Trump lies about rates being ‘too high’. If he were confident in a truly resurgent economy, he would be cheering for higher rates, as higher rates indicate demand for money, higher investment, and a boom. But Trump knows the FedGov is in a tight spot, over-indebted, and can’t cope with higher inflation or higher rates. Tax receipts are down, the game is nearly over, an 18-month period of recession is dead ahead now. Cyclical.

                  Moldbug told a pack of lies on this whole subject it seems, wonder why.

                  An example:

                  >Free market finance leads to term transformation. Term transformation leads to (((usury, allowed once the King has been bought and paid for with the gold lending of the financiers, eventually causing another))) financial crisis. Financial crisis leads to (((the usurers using their powers to force the installation of their puppets as heads of)))central banking. Central banking leads to money lenders becoming effectively part of the state (((and so now the financiers have control of the money supply. ‘Give me control of the money supply, I care not who makes the laws’, a quote from one of the most well-known financiers/capitalist families in the world.

                  The few bits missing from the flowchart I inserted in brackets, heh. It’s hard to fathom how (((Moldbug))) could have missed all of the subterfuge that goes on isn’t it?

                  The real power is not the King, not the state, not the government, it’s those who operate their usual scams in the shadows and eventually end up owning everything. I call them financiers, you could call them the Apex Capitalists too, as they make the rules and buy Kings and countries. Most of them are totally hidden, but the Payseurs is a family name that has leaked out recently via Neon Revolt and Q. Worth a look.

                  Good luck to Trump, but he’s too late to prevent them from ruining the last Christian nation in the world.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If he were confident in a truly resurgent economy, he would be cheering for higher rates, as higher rates indicate demand for money, higher investment, and a boom.”

                  Glos I’m glad Trump is president and not you. The Federal government has way too much debt to EVER want higher interest rates. The fault of congress and previous admins, not Trump.

                  Because of the amount of government debt and millenial college debt a bout of inflation (not weimar levels and not all going into real estate and oil) would be a very good thing.

                • peppermint says:

                  The solution to college debt is to charge it to the colleges and the professors.

                  The govt then sells the colleges off for redevelopment as luxury condos and the professors to serve as barstools or whatever.

                  A large part of federal debt is owned by Boomers in the form of social security liabilities. So cancel that program, at least for the ones who were registered Democrat.

                  We can resolve these crises in a way that doesn’t involve taxpayers giving more stuff to people who hate them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  My residual addiction to posting here is keeping me busy before I get in the bath. This will hopefully be the last post. I’ll leave it for you to chew on.

                  Libertarians oppose central banking and interference with the interest rate because of abstract principles. Conservatives and reactionaries oppose it for its aims and results.

                  (I take glosoli’s point that the purported goals and effects don’t match the *actual* effects and hence probably don’t match the *actual goals* either. That’s definitely true. Right now for example they’re trying to influence the mid-terms, and shareholders are pretending to be frightened just as Powell’s pretending to be objectively following his formulae.)

                  There is another angle here.

                  What if the state simply nationalised all the banks and FIXED all interest rates, permanently and never to be altered, in such a way as to incentivise saving even if there’s already a lot of saving?

                  Mises doesn’t cover this scenario, and in fact barely touches on the possibility but while it would still violate the NAP etc. etc. it’d be very, very healthy for society.

                  Short of banning usury altogether (matched with the ending of the estate tax and so on), permanently fixed interest rates on bank accounts, mortgages and everything else would make perfect sense. Long-term financial planning would become possible in ways that simply don’t exist under globohomo and didn’t exist under laissez-faire.

                  The predictable criticism of this is that since interest is the price of money on the free market, businesses could not be appropriately charged to borrow to invest and expand. Well a big part of this type of society is that it ISN’T run on debt, so if a business wants to expand it can seek direct investment on a paid-for basis. Forget all about the usury (or ‘price of time’) model.

                  Something somewhere between Iran and mediaeval England.

                  Anyway I won’t even look at the libertarians spitting the dummy over this. Just wanted to prove life isn’t a binary choice between Janet Yellen and Ron Paul.

                • Koanic says:

                  Nothing exemplifies the false promise of socialism better than Communist Revolutionary’s ceaseless threats to shut up.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              “My father grew up in a railway carriage”

              Communist Revolutionary… excuse me, Carlylean Restorationist seems to have a cartoon view of the working class.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                I’m not going to doxx myself just to placate a woman’s vagina like you, I assure you.

                I have no need to lie, unlike some.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Communist Revol… err, Carlylean Restorationist

                  I know you like buying things you don’t need with money you don’t have to impress people you don’t like… but stop blaming rich people for your stupid financial decisions.

                  And introduce your credit cards to a pair of scissors.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Rocket Man just made my point for me.

                  That’s what I’ve been saying all along and have been met with straw man arguments.
                  You just proved it by believing I was arguing for the polar opposite of what I’ve been meticulously clear was my point.

                  The lower classes do not have the agency to handle democracy – at the ballot box or on the market.
                  They need guidance from their betters, and that means a form of modern serfdom.

                  This is not a form of prole-hating but the opposite. I’ve quoted this passage before but I’ll quote it again. Laissez-faire applied to labour treats labour as just another commodity and this is deeply inhumane.

                  What it provokes in response (or reaction if you will) is ever greater calls for a say in how society’s governed and, by its own logic, safety nets from the state that should be coming from lifetime employment.

                  The butler and manorian farmhand were worse off materially than the seasonal city contractor but their lives were not subject to a kind of psychic gambling, the way the liberated proles were.

                  If we want a STABLE society, we should be deeply sceptical of the laissez-faire Whig politics of the 1820s. This American revolution sought equality by different means to the French equivalent, but it was still a revolution, a rebellion against the existing order in favour of greater DISORDER.

                  Carlyle from “Chartism”, not quoted out of context – read the whole thing if you don’t believe me.

                  “The master of horses, when the summer labour is done, has to feed his horses through the winter. If he said to his horses: “Quadrupeds, I have no longer work for you; but work exists abundantly over the world: are you ignorant (or must I read you Political-Economy Lectures) that the Steamengine always in the long-run creates additional work? Railways are forming in one quarter of this earth, canals in another, much cartage is wanted; somewhere in Europe, Asia, Africa or America, doubt it not, ye will find cartage: go and seek cartage, and good go with you!” They, with protrusive upper lip, snort dubious; signifying that Europe, Asia, Africa and America lie somewhat out of their beat; that what cartage may be wanted there is not too well known to them. They can find no cartage. They gallop distracted along highways, all fenced in to the right and to the left: finally, under pains of hunger, they take to leaping fences; eating foreign property, and—we know the rest. Ah, it is not a joyful mirth, it is sadder than tears, the laugh Humanity is forced to, at Laissez-faire applied to poor peasants, in a world like our Europe of the year 1839!”

                  “Chartism”, ch.4

                  The goal here is not for the proletariat to seize control of the apparatus of production, or of the state, and rule. The exact opposite: it’s to end the tyranny that supposes they’re capable of ruling their own destinies in the face of a world in which they have no power to do so. The goal is not to GIVE them that power, but to accept reality as it really is: some people were born to rule and some were simply not.

                  Anyway I genuinely wish this community well. You infuriate me but ultimately you’re my guys.

                • jim says:

                  > If we want a STABLE society, we should be deeply sceptical of the laissez-faire Whig politics of the 1820s

                  Trump is deeply sceptical of laissez-faire whig politics of the 1820s. But Trump is a capitalist, not a socialist, and Charles the Second, the restorer, instituted modern corporate capitalism. And the restoration plans to restore the corporate capitalism of Charles the Second, which was in some ways more regulated than modern capitalism, but in other ways considerably less.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Mea culpa.

                  I too nodded my head as Tories told steel smelters to learn to be C++ programmers.
                  I too shook my head as Scottish steel smelters who moved all the way to Northamptonshire for work and were laid off a second time turned to drink.

                  Those drunken Scots.

                  Shame on me. Eternal shame.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Is it just me whom the actual Carlyle reminds strongly of Marx?

                • Roberto says:

                  Sorry for the low effort…

                • jim says:

                  Carlylean Restorationist has a point. The actual Carlyle does have more than a touch of Marx. But Marx wanted rule by the Jews the priesthood the Vanguard of Proletariat, while the actual Carlyle wanted feudalism, serfdom, and slavery.

                  Marx wanted to centralize everything under the rule of the Jews the priesthood the Vanguard of Proletariat. Carlyle wanted each proprietor and gentleman sovereign within his own domain.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Oliver Cromwell:

                  “Is it just me whom the actual Carlyle reminds strongly of Marx?”

                  Bastiat and his kind believed that if power were shifted downward from aristocrats to entrepreneurs, it would have found its rightful resting place and entrepreneurs would bring the magic to bear on people that they do on products.

                  Marx was a reaction against this change and the negative effects it had on the lower classes. (What negative effects, I hear Tom Woods say: per capita income increased TENFOLD in the 19th century and life expectancy more than doubled. Yes indeed Tom but the spiritual malaise (BOO you Marxist you Leftist SP-RI-TU-AL ROFL you loser!) outweighed it. The worker of today is a nihilist consumer beholden to and dependant on the state. The old ‘noblesse oblige’ didn’t vanish: serfs didn’t magically become entrepreneurs any more than freed negro slaves became gentlemen. The responsibility just shifted from aristocrats to faceless heartless bureaucrats.

                  Marx’s reaction was worse than the problem he was trying to solve: raise up the peasants as Bastiat raised up the bougies! That’ll work out so GREAT! If they can’t handle insecure income and total financial autonomy, they’ll do just great at running the country!!!!!

                  Carlyle’s reaction certainly lent towards pessimistic realism about the nature of any restoration: we have to accept that the old monarchs were fakes and are not coming back.
                  His answer was at first massive state education to increase the chances of the workers doing better than they otherwise would, combined with massive power and massive responsibility for the bourgeoisie: you WILL hire these people for life, and in return the state will FORCE them to work for you.

                  By the time he wrote “Shooting Niagara”, he could already see that this little patch was never going to work.

                  It’s a grim vision, grimmer than Marx with his ponies and rainbows.

                  We’re at the bottom of Niagara right now. The population, from bottom to tom, is demoralised, degraded and cynical.

                  We need a reboot. That reboot has to be back to what worked: Absolute Monarchy. That could be Trump, in principle.

                  But to get there we have to cut away the cancer.

                  That “Letter To France” that someone linked from Social Matter, possibly (not not necessarily) by Mencius Moldbug, is a pretty decent sketch of what’s required: traditional industries, people put to work, isolation from ‘the international community’, unabashed nationalism and both eyes fixed on THE REAL WORLD, not abstract principles.

                  Where I’ve gotten myself despised here is that I think that could very well start with ending consumerism: the culture Dildo Seven accused me of supporting.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In a nutshell and from a different angle, the mindset of a genuine reactionary is not the same as the mindset of an American Revolutionary.

                  Laying economics mostly aside, here’s Ian Bostridge on music:

                  “We are living in an age transfixed by the dystopian vision of a broken society, whose anxious leaders, to the Left and the Right, immerse themselves (or pretend to – and which is worse?) in a pop culture, much of which cele­brates violence and drug-taking, and which is historically and aesthetically grounded in the tastes and predilections of the teenager. What is more, the whiff of rebellion on offer is a synthetic one, manufactured by gargantuan media companies for which this art (some of which undoubtedly deserves this label) is a commodity.”

                  A libertarian would call him a shitlib, but is that accurate?

                • You mean policies like solving unemployment with a state-ran industrial army? I think methodologies matter more than actual political ideas, because the later are constrained by time and space. The kind of actual problems Carlyle faced were different than what we do.

                  On the methodological level, there difference was huge. Carlyle’s method was try to find out the facts, the laws of nature. In that case:

                  1. Government must govern. It can use the market to solve a problem, but when it does not do so, cannot absolve itself of responsibility.

                  2. People must work. Not working is unnatural and destructive.

                  3. Does not matter if they are unemployed of their own fault or not, the long-term unemployed are usually depraved and unemployable.

                  4. So: the government must make people work, and if they are depraved, they must use the known military methods to discipline them into being able to work (he really did have a thing for marching in formation) and then provide them with work and pay, whether at private corporations or public works.

                  It seems to be a little bit of a Sherlock Holmes type method to me: try to identify the real facts, largely by excluding all known falsehood, and just accept whatever follows from them, even if it is weird.

                • peppermint says:

                  Currently there are many intelligent, capable men who are unemployed and even homeless, and women who should be their wives who are also unemployed or underemployed as Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas.

                  The unemployed may or may not be lvl 1 ghouls, depending on whether they retain their humanity, but they’re always responding to incentives.

                  Unemployment is unnatural and can only exist as the result of government making employment more difficult than unemployment, and creating the reserve army of labor to be directed at a noncom level by CR is a terrible idea.

          • The Cominator says:

            Merchants CAN rule and their have been brief periods in certain states where they have (they did briefly run Victorian England) just tend not to and tend to quickly hand power over to priests.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Your class analysis is just wrong. They’re priests themselves.

              Bill Gates didn’t suddenly change his mind and start doing all that crap in Africa: that was his vision all along and every billion he made, he saw his dreams move into reach. He wanted to change the world, to raise up the geniuses in black armour so the entire world could share in the glorious fraternity that only liberty through equality can bring.

              You too can be a shareholder in Microsoft. Buying MSFT is fungibly identical to sending remittances to Angola and Ghana.

              Libertarians are just long-distance liberal accomplices.

              • The Cominator says:

                Soros is a priest with merchantish characteristics who even regards himself 1st and foremost as a priest (he uses the word philosopher) in his own words.

                Bill Gates is not. Bill Gates for one thing had no idea just how rich he would get (he once tried to sell Microsoft to Ross Perot for I think 90 million dollars) and thus had no plan to handle the politics of his fortune…

              • jim says:

                I let this pass, because for a change you provide argument, thus not entirely wasting bandwidth.

                But not, however, evidence.

                Bill Gates was not a leftist, and in a sense is still not. Rather, upon giving up engineering, he decided to pursue status, and thus he decided to compete in a status race where priests award status, and so performs the role of leftist, much as I perform the role of dangerous bad boy when cruising for chicks. He performs high status as priests perceive status, I perform high status as chicks perceive high status.

                Most capitalists are very much like us, and not much like our enemies. I used to socialize with capitalists, and arguably am one myself. If you were in power, I would certainly wind up classed as a capitalist, much as the peasants were kulaks in Russia. They are, we are, the people that “Bleeding Cool” depicts us to be.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re erecting a philosophical zombie.

                  Bill Gates isn’t a REAL leftist because he merely behaves exactly AS IF he’s a leftist, whereas a REAL leftist behaves in an indistinguishable way but when they mouth certain words and undertake certain actions they’re doing it for REAL.

                  lol

                  No, if you vote Democrat, give them money and also give money to charities including charities in Africa, while advocating for social justice causes, you’re a leftist…. but fine if you want to get all David Chalmers about it, he’s not a leftist he’s a ‘leftist’.

                  “Most capitalists are very much like us, and not much like our enemies.”

                  You’ve presented no evidence for this, whereas I’ve linked multiple companies and their charitable donations, and multiple individual billionaires and their leftist activities.
                  I even cherrypicked the best ones from YOUR perspective not mine.

                  Capitalists act as a class, and Zog benefits that class.

                  Your class theory is totally incorrect because you see a divide between Brahmins and Optimates. Given that there ARE no Optimates of the old WASPy variety left, and given that to become filthy rich today you must play politics from day one, this divide means zilch.

                  Harry’s Razors and Eric Sprott are the best poster boys you’re going to get, and the former still funds the charity that was accessory to the rape of a woman in her own home in order to signal how much it loves the blagues, while the latter sees aboriginal hunger as his number one priority in life aside from pushing free global trade (just like Hillary Clinton).

                  I’d find this community amusing if it wasn’t so serious what you’re doing: you’re literally defending Trump’s most DANGEROUS enemy of all. The Dems blew it last week, but a stock market crash kept going by Wall Street could easily turn the tide among low tax free trade conservatives.

                • Koanic says:

                  > You’re erecting a philosophical zombie.

                  TMI

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Look into it Koan. I liked your rhyme list.
                  Philosophical zombies are a great acid test for clear thinkers. If you think the concept’s meaningful, you’re doomed and stupid; if you laugh at it, you’re a clear thinker.

                  Back to Mr Gates, for the benefit of those who can’t think clearly, I said buying Microsoft is fungible with sending aid to Angola and Ghana.

                  I’ve not seen a refutation of that.

                  If you send money to Microsoft and it ends up in the hands of that lunatic, he’s sending it to the blaggs so why not cut out the middleman and just do it yourself.

                  Same’s true of Virgin Media: you send money to Virgin and it ends up with that beardy faggot, he’s sending it to the blaggs so why not cut out the middleman and just do it yourself.

                  But but but I made money so it must be capitalism.

                  Yes.

                  Anyway I feel better for having not posted here all day, so I’m going to extend it instead of getting drawn back in, but I thought it was worth making things specific:

                  – buying a share, or a bond, or a product, of/from MS/Virgin is equivalent to sending money to Africa because that’s where it’ll end up

                  And that, fellow cis-male hetero white shitlords, is the essence of the problem with capitalism.

                  Meanwhile, the big movers and shakers on Wall Street have closed their ‘overshoot’ positions and the retail investors are following their brokerages’ advice and ‘buying the dip’.

                  Expect blood in the street but I tell you what: it’s definitely not mine.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*Marxism 101 deleted*]

    • pdimov says:

      You are cancer. When you lose, you die. When you win, the host dies, you die.

      Learn to parasite better.

    • Javier says:

      A few hundred british soldiers killed thousands of Zulus in a single battle. I like our chances.

      • Dave says:

        The Zulu king, who holds no formal power but is widely respected by his people, recently denounced South Africa’s land confiscation program, saying that without private property there can be no food. Kings are a vital bulwark against Marxism irrespective of average national IQ.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Communist Revolutionary will not like that!

          After all, if he’s a king he can simply give the order for food to exist – he’s not subject to natural laws like “no property rights, no food”.

    • Bob says:

      >We have blacks Muslim Jews asians latinos white women homosexuals and the trans community

      Whites conquered all of them once. Why not again?

    • R7 Rocket says:

      “We have blacks Muslim Jews asians latinos white women homosexuals and the trans community on our side

      You have a group of angry white males

      I like our chances.

      Face it you guys lost”

      @Denny Trent

      Angry White males have nuclear weapons.

    • Doug Smythe says:

      -Black, Muslim, Jewish, Asian, and Latino populations have many members whose views are Rightist, indeed to the point of arch-Reactionary. Once our networks are big enough for us to be able to propose the millet system to them, they’ll be on board for Restoration.

      -White Women: Almost all are heterosexual, which means that when push comes to shove they won’t turn against White men. (No matter what your grievance studies prof told you there Denny, women do not comprise a social class, and in any case lack the agency to act as one). Point already proven in the election of Trump and other populist victories.

      -Homosexuals/Trans: These individuals suffer from rare mental illnesses; there just aren’t a whole of them.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        Province of Ontario, Canada. A place full of all sorts of Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Latinos, notoriously stuck-up White women, and sex-fiends. Wet dream come to life for a guy like Denny. Earlier this year voted a populist into office who is presently challenging the Cathedral- and moreover, succeeding- like nothing I’ve ever seen, including Trump. Your arc of history can sometime bend and poke you in the ass, Denny.

      • Nikolai says:

        I am a bit worried about trannies tbh. They don’t care about their own lives, care even less about the lives of others, they’re fanatically devoted to left wing politics and there seems to be more of them every day. Ryan Landry had an episode of Weimerica where he talked about how a tranny killed his best friend’s mom at random. They stab suburban moms to death in supermarkets out of frustration with their own insanity and for a surrealist kick. Imagine what they’d do if properly motivated by politics. If the left figures out how to weaponize these people, you’d get a Scalise-type shooting every other week.

        And Trump won white women by a fairly small margin and his most vocal and enthusiastic critics are white women. Women, especially unmarried ones, greatly care about their status and supporting Trump is still low status.

        • jim says:

          One tranny is perfectly competent to kill one straight white male.

          But trannies cannot cooperate, and will undermine cooperation in any group of which they are part.

          Put a platoon of trannies against a platoon of straight white males, it will be a walkover.

          Put a platoon of nine straight white males and one tranny against a platoon of ten straight white male, still a walkover.

          • Nikolai says:

            Yes of course trannies would be no match in formal combat. But in a state of not-quite-civil-war where it’s mostly business as usual, but with a lot of political violence, I could see a lot of them going on suicide missions to take out high ranking rightists. In particular MtF trannies who possess the destructive capabilities of a man, the blind rage of a catlady and the crazed fearlessness of the mentally ill.

            • peppermint says:

              > I could see a lot of them going on suicide missions to take out high ranking rightists

              They sacrifice their reproductive capacity and health for status. Why would they throw that away?

              > MtF trannies who possess the destructive capabilities of a man,
              no

              > the blind rage of a catlady
              blindness, not rage. Catladies are in a dreamlike state, more so than other women. Does it even make sense to be enraged over LGBWTFBBQ? Women don’t do rage. MtFs do, but they are trash and their rage makes their female friends wet and any men around recognize them, and at some level, makes them recognize themselves.

              > and the crazed fearlessness of the mentally ill
              this makes them more dangerous to the extent it makes them unpredictable. We know what they are like and what to expect of them.

            • jim says:

              You assume, plausibly enough, a condition of not quite civil war, where we are not allowed organized large scale violence against those attacking us, but our enemies are allowed small scale disorganized violence against us, which is the current situation except even more so.

              You assume, plausibly enough, a condition resembling Bleeding Kansas, the prelude to Civil War I.

              Yes, quite so, quite likely. But in actual Civil War II, we win.

        • Koanic says:

          I. With Jews, you lose.

          II. Around blacks, never relax.

          III. If the gender’s unclear, there’s reason to fear.

          IV. If religion’s Islam, expect a bomb.

        • peppermint says:

          I’ve had personal contact with trannies.

          If they have their balls, their lives are lies, fear, and pain. They say, if you don’t accept me then you can suck my dick, not to Republicans who will say “…”, but to Democrat women who wonder quietly if that’s really a woman’s attitude and agree out loud, older women patronizingly, younger women on the authority of a dangerous man.

          After bottom surgery, they have a wound that tries to close and have to spend time each day dilating it. It is irritated by ingrown hair and discharges pus and blood, which they refer to as their period.

          Pit any man who lifts against a tranny who takes hormones to ruin their health, it’s no contest with any weapons.

          Now that everyone knows that men who larp as women are far from harmless, and exactly how to spot one, they will not be ignored, which is their only military effectiveness.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          Those women are either feral or have Leftists for the men in their lives. Once the men in their lives get with the programme, the women will follow accordingly, as women naturally crave and gladly receive instruction from men, especially in political matters, since in by default settings of human nature in politics the man speaks for his women.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Really? who is better armed and trained?

  7. Pooch says:

    Guessing you are saying California’s elections are rigged?

    • Calvin says:

      Pretty obviously they are, though there isn’t too much need.

    • The Cominator says:

      Hillary’s entire supposed popular vote victory came from illegal central in LA county.

      Obvious California’s elections are rigged.

    • peppermint says:

      Beyond the blatantly illegal votes, people who are not Americans are legally permitted to vote.

  8. Frederick Algernon says:

    The American Revolution is an interesting case study in terms of popular engagement. Despite depictions of unity, the movements for independence were fractured and engagement was a matter of thirds: ⅓ For, ⅓ Against, ⅓ Ambivalent. The British, led by a bunch of willfully inept generals, basically threw the game by failing to crush the For Camp. The loyalists could have kept the battle going, but their inherent loyalty to the Crown (thus Crown edicts) meant that they submitted. If either the For or Against Camps had been able to engage the Ambivalent Camp, the nature of the conflict would be different and thereby the outcome would have been significantly different in tenor.

    I see a similar situation developing in terms of the Nascent Kerfuffle. A race based struggle in the US would be White vs. White over black. The skirmishes would be localized to regions with median to low populations with substantial dichotomies of political and socio-cultural thought as well as median to high gun ownership and low per capita law enforcement numbers. There will be 3 sides: For, Against, and State. It will be indecipherable from rioting until an escalation of use of force causes local LEOs to pick a side. If/when the kerfuffle escalates to a multi-region conflagration, the primary consideration will be optics in determining who gets involved on which side for what reasons. Player 4 (Fed) will then have a terrible choice to make: get involved decisively and force a coalescence or stand by and wait, creating a competition.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      I’m not seeing it.

      https://people.uwec.edu/weicherd/USCounty2016b.jpg

      Most of the country the Democrats got less then 30%. The exceptions are major cities, college towns and areas with blacks and hispanics. The only areas with enough left leaning whites are the Pacific Northwest and New England. While antifa is rampaging through Portland, I don’t see how they can actually engage any significant numbers of conservatives- that would require going outside the city.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Warning: this link is a PDF

        https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf

        Not to agree or disagree, just adding perspective.

        • jim says:

          I would paraphrase this report as “If we murder all white male heterosexual capitalists, we will then be able to get on fine with whites, males, heterosexuals, and capitalists.”

          Or “So far legacy Americans have not yet figured out we are plotting to kill them and kill their children, and if we play our cards right, they will not be onto us until it is too late”

          Though I am sure the authors would find such a paraphrase surprising, and argue it is unfair, indeed absurd.

          This report is more of what I talked about in the NPC plague

          They fail to hear the people they describe. Because they do not listen, and refuse to comprehend, will wind up attempting to murder us. They conceptualize their refusal to listen as “We are nice guys, and you guys are just speaking ignorance, stupidity and hate. We are civil, you are harassers”.

          Eventually their niceness and civility is going to require them to kill us uncivil not nice people.

          Any description of American tribes needs to acknowledge what Trump voters are pissed off about. If no such acknowledgment, then on course for genocide and civil war. They think they are trying to listen, they think they are listening, they think they are reporting what the Trump tribe is saying, but they are not.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            I’m still working my way through, but your interpretation of the tenor seems correct. Do their numbers seem accurate? Does their methodology seem sound? I am out of my depth on surveys such as this because of my weak math skills. I’m also always skeptical about how 8,000 people can represent 300,000,000, but I am pretty sure that is also due to being a math brainlet.

            • jim says:

              I have no reason to doubt their numbers. I have reason to doubt their comprehension of what they think that they are measuring.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              That survey was almost entirely begging the question in the original sense.

              Examples:

              1) Here’s the contrasting view on police brutality:

              The police are more violent towards African Americans than others

              vs

              The police are mostly fair towards people of every race

              Hidden assumption – being more violent towards blacks isn’t necessary. Hidden assumption is wrong.

              2) Feminism:

              Today’s feminists fight for important issues

              vs

              Today’s feminists just attack men

              Entirely wrong – feminists attack the basis of society, they agitate for women to have no constraints on their sexual power, they agitate for the transfer of status and prestige from married women to unmarried women (because they’re low status to men so don’t get high status husbands).

              3) White privilege

              Many white people today don’t recognize the real advantages they have

              vs

              Nowadays white people do not have real advantages over others

              White people have biological advantages – better cooperativeness, higher IQ compared to some races, ability and willingness to innovate, etc. Whites have legal disadvantages – too many to list. Whites have social advantages from the fact that other whites are well behaved so people are willing to deal with them. Whites have social disadvantages from the fact that other races are legally allowed to use violence against them. Etc.

              4) Islamophobia

              Many people nowadays don’t take discrimination against Muslims seriously enough

              vs

              Many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated

              No “Muslims are alien invaders that are incompatible with Western civilization”.

              I could go on…

              • jim says:

                This is an excellent analysis of NPC rationalization, and I am stealing it.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                We’ll put. This will make a fine addition to my arsenal. I think the study is interesting and the data has value, regardless of the org behind it.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          I’m still note seeing it. It gives progressive activists as 8% of the population. That is 24 million people. They are ‘cosmopolitan’ which means they are concentrated in the major cities.

          • Koanic says:

            We will be fighting the civnat universalist Ulysses S. Grant assholes, not the pussyhats.

            Prepare to get knee-deep in noble gore.

            • The Cominator says:

              Union soldiers in the civil war were fighting for the Union and to a lesser degree Abolition.

              No non pussyhat is going to fight for poz and feminism, they just won’t. And pussyhats won’t be able to fight.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              Civic nationalists are moderates who believe in the default around them. Brand segregation as ‘an end to gentrification’ and they won’t care.

              The left could conceivably whip them up against ‘Nazis’… but those days are probably past and it is intensely clear Nazi means anyone who isn’t a leftist.

            • Koanic says:

              They’ll fight for the Union and against racist Nazism.

  9. Frederick Algernon says:

    Thinking back to the 2016 Campaign, the Left made an enormous stink about jack booted white men rounding up undesirables if the Demon got elected. After he ascended, no such thing occurred, but the number of illegals attempting to cross declined significantly. In addition, a predictably large number of celebrities said they would go to Canada if He Who Can’t be Shamed won. Unsurprisingly, none of them made good on the promise, but an inordinate amount of asylum seekers in the US fled to Canada and thereby voided any possibility of a permanent place in the 1st world. They made this rash and foolhardy choice based on the faulty reasoning of “high status” Twittdiots. Just food for thought.

    • Roberto says:

      Hail Cholesterolus Restrictus I (known as “the Saponaceous”) for, at long least, permanently liquidating all agents and fifth-columnists of the Cathedral such as hotdog vendors, school cafeteria ladies, insufficiently Italophobic chefs, etc.; the bland potato REICH has no room for these Zog-cucked, class-treacherous, labour-hostile WRECKERS who probably spike their own products with pozzed blood out of sheer anti-proletarian malice – amirite, fellow soyim?

      • Doug Smythe says:

        Since when has the question of banning pizza become a point of contention in Reaction? What logical connection is there between Restoration and pizza? Is it that the future King will be a sworn foe of Italy?

        • Doug Smythe says:

          Since even if he were, banning pizza would be holiness-spiraling behaviour unworthy of the proper dignity of the Throne.

          • Koanic says:

            It’s because Corpse, Reanimated prefers his hoooman FLESH lean.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            It’s so tiresome. Why are you wasting your lives on this nonsense?

            If you want to attack what I’ve actually said then go ahead, but just repeatedly going after this nonsense that I’ve never said, it’s just a waste of everyone’s time.

            I’m not taking part in the discussion any further but I will clarify when this type of thing comes up.

            What I said was not that pizza needs to be banned, I said that the large rip-off corporate chain restaurants may need to be closed. Independent, Mom&Pop type pizza places have nothing to worry about, but my prediction is that any future King equivalent would probably look on places like Franky&Benny in a dim view.

            Furthermore it has nothing to do with health PER SE. Yes those places do impact people’s health and YES I think to just go ‘lalala’ to that just because it’s the ‘free market’ doing it is wrong-headed. The reasons is this:

            Poor people, living paycheck to paycheck and saving nothing for a rainy day, who absolutely cannot afford to go to these places, are going to them on a very regular basis thanks to ‘the culture’. The person who bankrupts themself going to Franky&Benny or Bella Italia is NOT frequenting normal, sane family diners: in fact they look down on those places. They want the corporate hot dog at $15 a pop, plus a side order, a starter and all the pomp of a posh restaurant but without the posh food.
            This is extremely bad for these people, and I’m saying a sane ruler would BLAME those corporate chains because this is not normal healthy behaviour. This is the behaviour of people who’ve been brainwashed into a relationship that is very very far from the non-zero sum game capitalist philosophers talk about.

            The fact it impacts their health is an important side issue but the central issue is financial: millions of westerners are economically fragile because a tiny number of toxic shitlib corporations are ripping them off.

            The libertarians among you, who believe it’s just self-evident that all men were created equal, would just tell the victims to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop losing these psychological games.

            What I’m saying is that not only do I expect a King would be sceptical of all that equality guff, but he’d see a simpler, more direct solution then to allow the psychological games to continue while siding with the perpetrators.
            Instead, since any King worthy of the name cares about the good of the NATION and not the abstract rights of people with ill intent, he’d just shut them tf down.

            That would be GOOD for pizza shops.

            Anyway that’s the claim, unadulterated by silly distortion and caricature.

            I’m not inviting comment and I won’t answer any. You’re not speaking in good faith and at this point I have no time for any of you.

            This clarification is for ME, not for you.

            • Koanic says:

              And instead of breadsticks, we should have BRAAAIINNS

              • Doug Smythe says:

                “Instead, since any King worthy of the name cares about the good of the NATION”.

                That isn’t quite accurate, as the concept of the National interest or public good is a category of *Republican* politics. A King worthy of name cares about preserving and augmenting his own power and fortune, protecting and supporting the Church, avenging offenses against Divine and Natural law, dispensing justice/keeping the peace in his jurisdiction, and honouring the deals he makes with others while making sure they do the same.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  The worthy Kings of old had neither the legislative power nor the administrative wherewithal needed to regulate the restaurant and food-retail sectors etc. etc.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  For once a semantic nit-pick actually has value.

                  OK I henceforth disavow the term ‘King’. The correct term is ‘Fuhrer’.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re being very autistic though Doug. Ask yourself why that is, because it’s not your usual way.

                  What does it matter that technically a King isn’t a Fuhrer? Is that a “gotcha”? Seriously grow up. You know full well what I’m talking about: what does it matter that the word “King” technically doesn’t quite mean exactly precisely what I mean when I use it that way? You know full well what I’m talking about, the choice of particular exact word is totally beside the point.

                  Same goes for historical monarchs: who CARES?

                  And by the way mother fucker nobody’s talking about REGULATING anything. I said “shut down” not regulate. This is not about regulating the food industry. The food industry’s already being regulated and those bodies would likely be closed along with the corporate chains.

                  Once the principle’s out there that you do bad things, you get *stopped*, there’s really no need for state regulators. For once I’m with the libertarians: private ratings agencies and reviews are more than adequate once businesses catch on that if they do evil, they get shut down and worse.

                • jim says:

                  > What does it matter that technically a King isn’t a Fuhrer?

                  Incentives:

                  The observed behavior of Kings, who rule through legitimacy and warrior power, is conspicuously different from the behavior of a fuhrer, who takes power by riding a priestly holiness spiral, and rule through priestly power. Kim Jong-un wants to open to the world, but every time he tries it, dangerous ideas undermine his power.

                  The left wing myth is that Hitler took power in a right wing military coup orchestrated by the army and aristocracy, but this is the opposite of the truth. He took power in the usual leftist holiness spiral, smashed the officer and aristocratic class, and then promptly declared an end to the holiness spiral.

                  If he had come to power as a leader of the aristocratic and officer class, would have likely have acted in a more Kingly fashion, and likely founded a dynasty.

                  But, if ruling through priestly power, will do stupid stuff like banning pizza and plastic straws, which ultimately leads to Khmer Rouge autogenocide.

                  When a Fuhrer type shuts down the holiness spiral, he tries to switch from being a Fuhrer to being a King, but that is more difficult than you might expect. Kim Jong-un’s family has been at it for two generations, and is still having big problems making the switch. He is still riding the tiger.

                • Koanic says:

                  Much furor, no brains!

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > You know full well what I’m talking about: what does it matter that the word “King” technically doesn’t quite mean exactly precisely what I mean when I use it that way? You know full well what I’m talking about, the choice of particular exact word is totally beside the point.

                  No CR the whole crux of the problem here is that I do indeed know what you’re talking about- but *you yourself don’t*, seemingly because you think it’s autistic nit-picking to point out that words with radically divergent meanings can’t be used interchangeably, which leads you to confound radically different and incompatible things, which in turn leads you to preach Socialist dogma from a Rightist pulpit without even being aware that you’re doing it. Unlike the others, I don’t believe that you’re an impostor or infiltrator, but rather just haven’t thought your position all the way through, because you think it’s merely pedantic to do so. But it isn’t. A King is a Fuerher in the same way that a car is a helicopter; both are motor vehicles, but it pays to be able to tell them apart since they’re radically different in other ways and not functionally interchangeable. A Fuerher, like a King, is a political leader- but that’s about all they have in common since a Fuerher is the President of a modern social-democratic welfare State different from say, that of Sweden only in that it’s less explicitly feminist, more manly, and has no opposition party. A King is really just a big landowner who is too powerful to be controlled by anybody else and therefore Sovereign.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m done, I’m tired listening to you autistes go round and round picking apart every word of every sentence.

                  You know full well that I was talking about a person who has the unchallengeable authority required to simply walk into Chiquito’s and shut it tf down.

                  I referred to that as a “king” and you jumped not on the concept, which you entirely understood, but on the choice of that particular word which you point out in your autistic retarded way is not 100% appropriate for that situation because historically kings wouldn’t be interested in the health of the nation but would rather be interested in their familial interests blah blah blah blah blah

                  But you knew 100% perfectly what it was I was talking about.

                  So what’s the point in nit-picking that “king” isn’t QUITE the right word?

                  It’s not far wrong. It’s not like I said “frog’s testicle” or “cornish pasty”.

                  A king is someone with the power to shut down Chiquito’s. It’s just that, historically, all examples we have of kings would be less interested in the nation and more interested in themselves.

                  (SAYS YOU by the way!!!!!!! I don’t even necessarily agree, but it’s not worth arguing about it.)

                  I’m outta here. Jim’s rid me of this nonsense and it’s no longer confusing. It’s no longer a case of “am I alt right or am I NRx? *scratches chin*”

                  No, it’s a much simpler case now: we need to stop sperging out on the internet with all this big-brained bullshit and get the bloody job done.

                  I don’t know what that IS yet, and the early stages are the same for conservatives, reactionaries AND revolutionaries: get fit, improve yourself, learn more, create works of art, etc. etc.

                  but the end goal has changed. It no longer has anything to do with history, analysis or economics.

                  It’s about OUR PEOPLE – not our people first and then such&such – nope it’s ONLY about our people.

                  I don’t care if the end-result is an ethnically homogeneous social democratic state where everyone listens to Brahms and no-one listens to Gesualdo, or an ethnically homogeneous classical liberal republic where everyone eats steak and no-one eats bananas.

                  It’s all good with me so long as it’s ethnically homogeneous, and since you idiots place that wayyyyyyyyy down your list of priorities, wayyyyyyy behind the situationally appropriate use of words bearing in mind their historical heuristics and status or not as correct shibboleths, I have no use for you.

                  At all

                • jim says:

                  > A regulator writes a ten thousand word document and every business must implement every petty detail.

                  > A Fuhrer is entirely laid back until reports start coming in that something messed up is going on.

                  Hitler’s socialism had the same problems as everyone else’s socialism always has. Like Venezuelan socialism, proceeded to strangle itself in its own red tape, resulting in famine as usual when it ran out of other people’s money.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  ROFL!!!!!!!

                  Just when you think the autism can’t get any worse, now once again the issue of contention is not the well-specified and detailed argument, that some nameless typeless impossible-to-refer-to Leader sees evil and puts a stop to it, but rather the issue of contention is once again

                  the choice of word LOL

                  Is this site secretly The Onion?

                  I wasn’t advocating for someone to work necromancy on the corpse of Adolf Hitler: I was choosing a word that would convey the sense of “a leader with unchallengeable authority” that didn’t make Doug Smythe dribble on his Flash t-shirt.

                  But Jim knows this, it’s just a tactic. Focus on some irrelevant detail to avoid having to actually come out and say what he’s been saying all along: the Sovereign has no right to violate the private property rights of foreign corporations.

                  (No reason needed, self-evident.)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Basically it boils down to this. NRx 101:

                  “There shall be a Sovereign with primary property rights over the nation, which he may exercise only in accordance with the secondary property rights of every citizen, but this is definitely not anarcho-capitalism.”

                  Jeffrey I do hope you know what you unleashed with that stupid architecture article!

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “There shall be a Sovereign with primary property rights over the nation, which he may exercise only in accordance with the secondary property rights of every citizen, but this is definitely not anarcho-capitalism.”

                  Close:

                  There shall be a Sovereign with primary property rights over the nation, which he may exercise only in accordance with the secondary property rights of every citizen because he will bring his nation and himself to ruin if he does not

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Marxism 101 deleted*]

                • alf says:

                  Since CR is still posting his plastic shiny golden comments, might as well milk it.

                  > Speaking of Jeffrey Tucker, he nails it again

                  What?? Who is this guy, why should I care about him?? I can’t even…

                  Leftist speak can sound convincing at first glance, but with proper probing, is always exposed. And the leftist, when exposed in a matter the audience understands, will skip 1 heartbeat, and he will respond with absolute nonsense, which is misdirection in order to minimize damage.

                  After that heartbeat, life goes on as usual, and the leftist will be back to leftist boilerplate. And eventually he will find a community where he is not ‘exposed’, where he is welcomed, and he will give to that community only ever so slightly less than he takes.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The host removed the article because it proves him wrong.

                  It’s on tucker liberty dot me and it makes the case that Facebook and Paypal, Patreon and OKCupid have every right to ban right-wingers for ideological reasons and in a libertarian order we’d see much more of that and he’s fine with it.

                  He goes on to add that the platforms doing this remain, in spite of this, outlets for bad ideas – greens, communists, SJWs, and that this is a strength of capitalism LOL
                  In a libertarian order we’d get much more of that too.

                  So the bad ideas spread through the population, seize control of the means of propagation, then silence and genocide us and that’s a good thing because McDonalds and Justin Bieber.

                  Anyway I came to tidy up loose ends and now I’m leaving to wash this filth off my hands.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hitler had pretty much solved his own leftist problem with his followers with the Roehm Putsch, the problem was he had a lot of leftist sympathies himself though far more pragmatic and less purist about them then most leftist.

                  He became more of a true leftist as the war started to go badly and he started losing his grip on reality.

                • jim says:

                  Hitler’s original plan for solving the Jewish problem was quite sane: He planned to deport them to Israel.

                  Went crazy as a result of the war going wrong, and socialism failing.

                  Hitler blamed the failure of socialism on the Jews, much as the Trots blamed it on kulaks and wreckers.

                  The sane response to the failure of socialism would have been to move right. He moved left.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hitler blamed the Jews for the British not allying with him and then becoming hostile to them not so much for the Reich’s post Schacht economic problems (which he didn’t consider to be much of a problem since he was more interested in guns then butter).

                • jim says:

                  The Reich was having trouble feeding people, which is what led to the collapse of Germany in World War I. It not only cut Jewish rations well below survival levels, but also rations of various populations that it could reasonably have expected to be sympathetic and supportive.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well it was definitely the food shortage that kicked off the holocaust (something that I’ve concluded but that nobody talks about). When Hitler got Herbert Backe’s projection that 30 million people were going to starve I’m sure his 1st reaction was that he wasn’t wasting any food on any jews who weren’t classified as essential to the war economy.

                  Then he decided that they’ll siphon food through the black market anyway and decided that well he just had to kill them all.

              • Koanic says:

                Parting flounce in large amounts!

                Love to watch those manboobs bounce.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              The person who bankrupts themself

              Singular “they” – go fuck yourself leftist language destroyer.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Another semantic nit-pick lol

                It really is exactly like talking to a leftist. You’re interested in absolutely anything except getting to the heart of the subject you claim to be interested in discussing.

                You’ll talk about choice of words, style of expression, personal characteristics,
                you’ll demand precise sources, you’ll debate the boundaries between categories,
                you’ll pretend not to understand everyday words and concepts,

                anything but actually make a point lol

                This is literally penultimate comment then booooom, at last

            • jim says:

              All this is priestly stuff. You want the priests empowered over capitalists. You want the only form of status to be holiness status, and the only people with status to be priests.

              We don’t.

              Priests running the economy winds up with Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the Great Leap Forward, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Warriors running the economy is almost as bad, but warriors, unlike priests, don’t envy and covet merchant status, so are less tempted to take over and meddle in merchant affairs.

              You think you can have good socialism. Been tried. You say you will leave the small businessman alone, but you will not be able to, just as the commies said, and probably believed, they were only going after the great landowners, they wound up murdering the peasants, because if you leave any category of capitalist alone, you find he winds up undermining priestly status and priestly power, so priests who covet merchant status wind up murdering every single member of the merchant classes, even those only slightly of the merchant classes, such as the peasant raising a pig for market.

              We, of the reaction, are perfectly happy to have great and powerful capitalists, provided that they stick to their core competence.

              In a society where the priestly classes are not so terrifyingly dominant as they are in our society, great and powerful capitalists like Bill Gates will be less tempted to do what Bill Gates did, less tempted to form a a foundation, suck up the priests, and try to buy their way in to priestly status.

              You want more priestly power. We want priests under control.

              You want priests running the economy. We are fine with great and powerful capitalists running the economy. The economy is not where the power is. Your arguments, and your entire position, presupposes Marxism 101, that “The Capitalist Class” rules. No they don’t, and Bill Gates kissing the feet of the priesthood is the problem in that he wants to kiss their feet, not the problem in that a mere capitalist is allowed to kiss the feet of priests.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You’re incapable of distinguishing between regulation and stamping down on shitty behaviour.

                They’re not the same thing.

                A regulator writes a ten thousand word document and every business must implement every petty detail.

                A Fuhrer is entirely laid back until reports start coming in that something messed up is going on.
                Then when he walks into the bookmaker’s and sees a man in tears, he asks why.

                When the man says “I spent my paycheck again and no no presents for my children on Christmas Day”, the Fuhrer is in no doubt that something amiss is going on here.

                He doesn’t draft a ten thousand word document. He simply summons the owner and gives notice of foreclosure.

                No right of appeal, no due process. He sees evil, he stops evil.

                It’s not the same thing as a regulator, but because you’re a Talmudic libertarian, you can’t conceive of such a world.

                Everything has to be big-brained principles and legalisms.

                Screw that, that’s the essence of globohomo.

                You’ve done me a huge service Jim. I was still very much on the fence, still very much saw myself as fundamentally reactionary but with alt.right leanings, just like Chris Cantwell sees himself as fundamentally libertarian but with alt.right leanings.

                No longer. You rid me of it.

                Reaction is bullshit. I’m a progressive. I want society to move beyond Whiggery in all its forms. We’ll retain some of the good parts, but overall the whole mindset? It’s done.

                The world doesn’t need a restoration mindset, it needs a revolutionary mindset.

                Reaction is just bullshit.

                EZPZ to stop reading this shite now.

                You can spin Bill Gates as the victim of a bullying campaign as much as you want. It doesn’t change his behaviour, but you don’t really care about his behaviour. You care about your abstract theories and how you can somersault him into them.

                It’s sad, it’s pathetic and it’s just another part of the Whig phenomenon. We need rid of it.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  CR You think exactly like the type of Tories who founded my home country, and like them you’ll end up in the same place as the Whigs you were trying to escape from, but further Left, and with more of the vices of Whiggery than its virtues.

                  (The point about Tories is hard for American readers to understand, since there are no Tories in the USA as they all took a powder/got kicked out after the Revolution and left for Canada. A Tory is someone with Reactionary sensibilities, a loyal subject of the Crown, but since he lacks a rigorously self-sufficient intellectual vehicle of his own gets seduced by the collectivist as opposed to the individualist tendency of Liberal ideology, with the inevitable result of getting pozzed by the back-door and turning into a Socialist.)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m done, I’ve actually been done for about 3 or 4 days now, if not longer in fact.

                  I have no idea what you’re insinuating but this old meme about “CR is secretly a Marxist” was boring a week ago.
                  You’re STILL speaking as if I’m proposing regulatory prescription when I’ve said more times than I care to remember that I’m explicitly ruling that out.

                  This has always been about some ruler (I won’t say “king” don’t worry) who sees something he doesn’t like (without prejudice as to his motivation!) and simply shuts it down.

                  It beggars belief that reactionaries push back against that ruler’s right to do that, but it is what it is.

                  There’s nothing to add to any of this.

                  I say the ruler would and could shut foreign restaurant chains down until people stopped living paycheck to paycheck, and you say the ruler’s not allowed to do that and I’m a Marxist for suggesting it.

                  Fine, it’s been said plenty of times. There’s nothing to add.

                  I wish you well. Seriously I do.

                  But I have no more interest in reading this crap any more.

                • jim says:

                  > I have no idea what you’re insinuating but this old meme about “CR is secretly a Marxist” was boring a week ago.

                  Nothing secret about it.

                  • Telling us the capitalist class rules: Marxist.
                  • Telling us money is where the power is: Marxist.
                  • Telling us the King should run the economy, that the priestly class should meddle in the affairs of the merchant class: Marxist.
                  • Telling us that capitalists should think about the common good rather than each thinking of his own particular good: Marxist.
                  • Telling us that capitalist do think about the common good of the capitalist class, rather than each thinking of his own particular good: Marxist.
                  • Telling us that white working class act like black underclass because they are both insufficiently holy, inability to see the difference between white working class and black underclass: Cultural Marxist.
                  • Wants to impose holiness: Marxist
                  • Wants to impose Coke Zero in a Prius type holiness: Cultural Marxist.
                  • Thinks working class eats at Chipotle: Academic Cultural Marxist.
                  • Singular They: Cultural Marxist.

                  Repeating reaction 101: We are always ruled by priests or warriors. Culture is downstream of power. Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

                  Notice that in reaction 101, the evil capitalist class is nowhere mentioned. It is not that we are still libertarians, its that libertarians are still fighting old type Marxists, and we are fighting cultural Marxists.

                  The difference between old type Marxists and cultural Marxists is that old type Marxists want to destroy the capitalist class, which turns out to include the kulak raising a pig to market, and it turns out that Marxists cannot run an economy, whereas Cultural Marxists also want to destroy White supremacy and the patriarchy, which turns out to include the white race, the family and all white males. Libertarians let them get away with destroying whites, white civilization, and the family.

                  Libertarians defend capitalists and the kulak raising his pig. Reactionaries defend capitalists and the kulak, white supremacy and white people, patriarchy and the family.

                • Koanic says:

                  I’m not a Marxist

                  I’M A PROG

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  So the Sov is going to going to ban the restaurant and food-retail sector. Well no, actually, not the mom-and-pop pizza places, only the big foreign-owned chains, the places that sell high fat/high cal food, etc. etc. Swell. Is he going to visit them all personally and give each a thumbs-up or down? Nah, he’s probably going to hire some guys to do the legwork. How will they know which ones they’re supposed to shut down? Looks like the Sov is going to have to provide them with some formal criteria so they can make the determination themselves.

                  In other words: Ten thousand page documents. Armies of inspectors and civil servants. R E G U L A T I O N.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > What MATTERS is they’re trying to genocide us with (((oxycontin))), (((porn))), (((diversity))), (((Mid-East war))) and (((consumer debt))).

                  We either take our own side or we and everything we’ve created for the world vanishes forever within 40 years.

                  What NRx is addressing is that people have seen that the Modernist pigsty would eventually come to this point from the very start centuries ago, and that every single attempt to stop the advance of Moloch towards this point since then, whether from the Right or Left, has either failed (in the case of the Right) or made a bad thing much worse (in the case of the Left). They failed because they didn’t do their homework right, didn’t understand what they were up against, and just plain didn’t know what they were doing, and so wound up duplicating the system they thought they were against with some cosmetic alterations that they either couldn’t implement in real life, or that made things even worse before they simply reverted to what they were before. NRx has no intention of repeating a Rightist history of folk activism that ends with some naive militants being massacred or rotting behind bars, populist remonstrances that fizzle out once the Establishment tosses them a few bones and the populists figure they’ve made their point and go home, or reformers who imagine the Moloch-system can be made to stop eating people with a few easy policy tweaks, and invariably get assimilated into the Moloch-system as its own controlled opposition. Above all, it has no intention of repeating the history of Socialism, which makes the Moloch try to eat everybody at once before the experiment collapses and the system reverts to its default settings. NRx recognizes that you’re not going to solve any of the problems our people face if you try to replace Moloch with new and improved sugar-free Moloch 2.0. We need to replace Moloch with something that isn’t Moloch, and we need to figure out just what exactly it is first. This is a man-sized job that can’t be done in an hour, in a half-assed way or summarized in a slogan you can put on your bumper-sticker.

                • Calvin says:

                  “Reaction is bullshit. I’m a progressive.”

                  Good of you to come out and admit it at least.

            • 4ChanDan says:

              I figured it would be obvious to you all that your own views don’t exactly jive well with maximizing short and medium term profit. Beyond that it’s tough to convince people that the, soon to be, four billion Africans aren’t worth investing in on the off chance that they will develop into first world tier citizens with all the consumption that that implies.

              If we had good government and eugenic societies we could create more wealth in the long run for sure. But I don’t think anyone is interested in making that bet at the moment. Instead, they are all thinking that those four billion Africans will sure buy a lot of toilet paper once they have enough spare income to stop wiping their asses with their hands.

              • 4ChanDan says:

                Which is all just to say, I think it’s silly to dismiss CR as a Marxist and put your fingers in your ears. He is probably right that “capitalists” aren’t on your side as a matter of course. They are certainly divided roughly between those who think that mud world holds the promise of huge wealth and growth, and those who don’t.

                It’s not a given that just because someone is smart enough to make gobs of money that they are also DISAGREEABLE enough to overcome the third worldist religion that permeates our societies.

                • jim says:

                  > They are certainly divided roughly between those who think that mud world holds the promise of huge wealth and growth, and those who don’t.

                  Exactly zero capitalists think that mud world holes hold the promise of huge wealth, as demonstrated by their behavior when trying to make a profit. Any capitalist that harbors those kind of delusion is going to be out of business real fast.

                  Of course, Angelo Mozilo did harbor those delusions but

                  1. Angelo Mozilo was not a capitalist, but was installed to get affirmative action favors and minority business government contracts
                  2. Was out of business real fast

                  And this is obvious to everyone except those determined to believe that the capitalist class rules and who are therefore trying to rationalize away the overwhelming evidence that capitalists are being treated like a punching bag by the priestly class before whom they grovel and beg for mercy.

                  Marxism 101: The Capitalist Class rules, therefore everything that happens must be somehow be in the interests of capitalists, even if it obviously is not.

                  Reaction 101: Always ruled by priests or warriors.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Thanks for being the voice of reason Dan.

                  They won’t listen.

                  I already pointed them to:

                  1. Eric Sprott giving a hundred million bucks to aboriginal peoples and the homeless
                  2. Harry’s Razors (Tom Woods advertiser) funding the Bronx Freedom Project AFTER it paid for a woggo to rape some poor cow in her own home whilst on bail for obviously guilty crack possession
                  3. The venture capitalists sitting on the editorial board of ProPublica, the doxxing organisation that has the Charlottesville Four sitting in jail as we speak: GO BUY THE STICKERS – RIGHT BRAND CLOTHING DOT COM – BUY THE STICKERS
                  4. The fact that someone who can’t afford to rent will tend to have a couple of hundred bucks left over and at these interest rates they’d be crazy to save it – and that’s good for retailers and service providers
                  5. The fact that low IQ high time preference muds spend every penny they get – and that’s good for retailers and service providers
                  6. The fact that the same applies to permanent welfare dependant underclasses demoralised in the labour market and shut out of society
                  7. The fact that when you buy shares in a corporation and they give their profits to (((charities))), you might just as well send your money to the blagues yourself
                  8. That episode of Tom Woods with Michael Matheson Miller called “The Poverty Cure” lol

                  They just lied and cheated and pulled me up on tiny autistic semantic technicalities like “don’t say ‘single parents’ that’s not our shibboleth” (I shit you not).

                  Then they made it personal: you hate poor people, you’re a Marxist academic, you’re a left-winger blah blah blah as if any of that matters.

                  What MATTERS is they’re trying to genocide us with (((oxycontin))), (((porn))), (((diversity))), (((Mid-East war))) and (((consumer debt))).

                  We either take our own side or we and everything we’ve created for the world vanishes forever within 40 years.

                  When the boomers die and leave what’s left of their frittered wealth to the cats’ home, we’ll see First World Poverty the likes of which no-one’s ever dreamt.

                  Meanwhile the Jimian ‘reactionaries’ will be arguing over where to draw the line between Christian fundamentalism and Freehold capitalism so Queen Meghan can obey the rules they lay down.

                  NRx is done.

                • Koanic says:

                  > NRx is done.

                  You can’t even predict when you’re done.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  This is true. That’s why I always use Woods Super-Wide – for *her* virginity.
                  20% extra free if you come now.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa were profitable. Somalia, in the brief time it was free of UN / catspaw rule, was rocketing toward profitability.

                • jim says:

                  Somalia during independence sucked considerably less than when ruled by “the international community”. Still sucked.

                  Problem is that international community rule tends put to power in the hands of stupid violent vicious criminal people with mobile bandit incentives, the most extreme example of this being Haiti after the earthquake. After the earthquake, it was ruled directly by Harvard and the State Department, with Harvard PhDs on every corner, yet would have been better off being ruled by ten gangsters from East Palo Alto.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa were profitable.

                  Yes, in reality – but in Communist Revolutionary world Zimbabwe and post apartheid South Africa are more profitable because they have “better” consumers.

                  To a sane person this demonstrates that pushing countries from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe isn’t done for profit. To a Marxist it merits a wall of text response to distract from getting owned.

              • jim says:

                Nuts.

                Only a commie can make himself stupid enough to believe that.

            • Roberto says:

              >Poor people, living paycheck to paycheck and saving nothing for a rainy day, who absolutely cannot afford to go to these places, are going to them on a very regular basis thanks to ‘the culture’. The person who bankrupts themself going to Franky&Benny or Bella Italia is NOT frequenting normal, sane family diners: in fact they look down on those places. They want the corporate hot dog at $15 a pop, plus a side order, a starter and all the pomp of a posh restaurant but without the posh food.

              People who behave like that deserve to be removed from the gene pool for being dumb, impulsive, and inferior. Now you will strawman: “You are a libertarian who believes in egalitarianism…” No, I am an absolute anti-egalitarian who wants inferior kinds removed from the gene pool, and want there to be eugenic mechanisms in place to implement SOCIAL DARWINISM which removes inferior kinds from the gene pool with great efficiency. People are not equal, inferior people, dumb people, and impulsive people (unfortunately) exist, and I couldn’t care less if they ceased to exist, in fact I want them to cease to exist because they are inferior, and if their own actions are self-destructive, they should be allowed perish by them.

              Capitalists create value, while inferior, dumb, and impulsive people behave in self-destructive ways, and there needs to be a mechanism in place to reward the capitalists for their creation of value, and to WEED OUT the inferior people. Inferior people are either actual niggers or behave like actual niggers, and Social Darwinism is removing such people from the gene pool (or at least allowing them to remove themselves from the gene pool by their own self-destructive, impulsive, and dumb behavior), which is eugenic and pro-social.

              “B-b-b-but Social Darwinism leads to a Socialist reaction…” Not if there is a King in place who can shoot the brains out of all Socialists, which is what reaction seeks to have. Capitalism creates value, capitalists create value, niggers and those-who-behave-like-niggers are inferior kinds who deserve to perish *for being naturally and inherently inferior*, Socialists want to protect the inferior from the negative consequences of their dumb, impulsive, and self-destructive behavior, whereas Social Darwinism means allowing — even encouraging — people who are *naturally* and *inherently* INFERIOR to remove themselves from the gene pool and from society through self-destruction.

              People are unequal, natalism for intelligent, industrious, and competent people should be encouraged, while anti-natalism for dumb, impulsive, and incompetent people should likewise be encouraged. This is not egalitarianism but the very opposite of egalitarianism; it is the recognition that SOME PEOPLE ARE NATURALLY SUPERIOR WHEREAS OTHERS ARE NATURALLY INFERIOR and the incentivization of natalism for the former and anti-natalism for the latter. Natalism for competent people means that those who create value should be allowed to prosper in accordance with the value they create, and anti-natalism for the incompetent means that those who behave self-destructively should be allowed to perish in accordance with their nigger-like behavior.

              Most whites do not behave like niggers, nor would it be pertinent if they did, since Social Darwinism isn’t demotist and doesn’t care *how many* (or *what percentage of*) people need weeding out; what matters is that those who create value — who indeed happen to be white male capitalists — are allowed to prosper, while niggers and those-who-behave-like-niggers are allowed to perish by their own self-destructive behavior. Absolute Monarchy would mean that the King allows capitalists to create value and to prosper in accordance with the value they create, allows all those who create value to enjoy the fruits of their value-creation, and shoots the brains out of Socialists, Marxists, and Cultural Marxists who seek to impede the creation of value by agitating to protect dumb, impulsive, and self-destructive people from the negative consequences of their own behavior.

              In short, there needs to be a King to protect value-creators from egalitarian Socialists like you who are opposed to Social Darwinism because you think that value-creators and those-who-behave-like-niggers should both be encouraged to breed. No, value-creators should be encouraged to breed and to prosper and those-who-behave-like-niggers should be encouraged to disappear from the gene pool and from society.

              “B-b-b-b-b-but how is that different from globohomo?” you ask disingenuously. It is absolutely different because no immigration, particularly no immigration from the mud world, because inferior kinds are eliminated, because patriarchy, because marriage, because family-formation, because ethno-nationalism, because non-pozzed state religion, because free association, because freehold, because technological singularity, because no democracy, and because no Socialism, no Marxism, and no Cultural Marxism. That you would ask “how is ALL THAT different from globohomo?” (as you have asked previously) shows that you don’t give a damn about all the things that the right-wing cares about, and only seek to agitate for Socialism, aka the protection of the dumb, impulsive, and incompetent from the negative consequences of their own behavior.

              Jim is right: you were never a right-winger. The most basic and fundamental impulse behind rightism is it’s a positive thing (not a negative thing) that the naturally superior supplant the naturally inferior, that the naturally superior should be allowed to breed, prosper, and enjoy the fruits of their value-creation as much as they would like, whereas the naturally inferior should perish, if not by active sterilization or extermination, then at least by their own impulsive, dumb, self-destructive. nigger-like behavior, from which they should certainly *not* be protected. You are a nanny, and the only reason you pretend to be a right-winger is that you’re looking for justifications to implement Socialism, which is exactly what the right-wing wants to do away with!

              White male capitalists and wiggers are not equal, and those who — sincerely or insincerely — agitate in favor of the latter (and against the former) are Socialists, and are the very people NRx seeks to escape from.

              • The Cominator says:

                “People who behave like that deserve to be removed from the gene pool for being dumb, impulsive, and inferior. Now you will strawman: “You are a libertarian who believes in egalitarianism…” No, I am an absolute anti-egalitarian who wants inferior kinds removed from the gene pool, and want there to be eugenic mechanisms in place to implement SOCIAL DARWINISM which removes inferior kinds from the gene pool with great efficiency. People are not equal, inferior people, dumb people, and impulsive people (unfortunately) exist, and I couldn’t care less if they ceased to exist, in fact I want them to cease to exist because they are inferior, and if their own actions are self-destructive, they should be allowed perish by them.”

                Still it should be done humanely, sterilize them. No murder or anything like that…

                • Roberto says:

                  Exactly. I never suggested death squads against retards. Heck, even sterilization is not necessary. I simply suggest letting them perish by their own dumb, impulsive, and self-destructive behavior (as they deserve *for* being inherently inferior), which is the diametrical opposite to what CR wants.

                  Now, when it comes to people who seek to ameliorate their own condition, there can be safety nets, assistance, and so on. But if a person is inferior, and consequently chooses to behave like a nigger, then he should live and die exactly like a nigger. That’s all there is to it.

                • Roberto says:

                  At this point, CR usually says, “But if there are dead bodies lying around in the streets, or just people in tears and all that, then Socialism will naturally follow, as Marx errr Carlyle predicted…” to which the proper reactionary answer is: “Socialism will absolutely not follow, because the King, who wants to incentivize value-creation, who wants natalism for competent people and anti-natalism for incompetent people, will shoot the brains out of the Socialists.”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*repetitious lies deleted*]

                • Roberto says:

                  >You will ban private charities from preventing [people] from dying in the street

                  Who said anything about banning private charities? I’m not even principally against (minimal) state charity. I’m simply against banning capitalism to protect those-who-behave-like-niggers.

                  >You won’t ban hostile alien corporations

                  Actually, that may sometimes happen – *but not to protect people-who-behave-like-niggers from the consequences of their own self-destructive behavior.* There can be some right-wing reasons to ban Domino’s Pizza, but these are absolutely not the Socialist reasons you insist on.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Strawman and a lie.

                  Roberto never said anything about banning charity, Roberto said he would ban active socialists.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If you’re not willing to prevent people from preventing the deaths of all these people you want out of the gene pool, how are you going to ensure it happens?

                  You haven’t thought it through. You just make edgy statements because you’re edgy.

                  When people were starting to starve in the streets as a result of laissez-faire applied to labour, institutions sprang up to patch over the ill effects.

                  I’ve said this more times than I care to count.

                  Those institutions evolved into the modern welfare state.

                  There are two predictable consequences of laissez-faire:

                  1. Workers will want more of a say in the laws of the land to combat what they perceive as injustice
                  2. The welfare state will quickly emerge

                  It always has, everywhere this nonsense has been tried.

                  If you don’t want the welfare state, you have to have secure jobs for life that will buy a family home from one man’s wage.

                  Even then, people like me would still favour a social security safety net for exceptional situations, but under your system of “let the fuckers rot”, you’ll get full spectrum welfare statism every time.

                  Nobody’s going to put up with people starving in the street or stepping over dead bodies in the mall.

                  They just won’t stand for it, no matter how much you yearn for them to.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Strawman and a lie.

                  Roberto never said anything about banning charity, Roberto said he would ban active socialists.”

                  No, it’s not a strawman, it’s a consequence.
                  You cannot have people starving in the street unless you criminalise attempts to prevent it.

                  A strawman is reading “I want the leader of the country to put a stop to the Franky&Benny culture” and responding to “I want to ban pizza and diet coke”.

                  You’re intellectual lightweights who see yourselves as heavyweights.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Actually that’s not QUITE true. If the West really does become truly multicultural, it’s quite possible the mystery meat mudbloods WILL tolerate stepping over bodies in the street.

                  To achieve your dream of eugenics, the irony is you’ll have to destroy civilisation first.

                  Anyway why am I typing lol I should get to the gym. There’s cuckicanes here, pale echoes of what’s hitting Florida and Indonesia, so I can’t do any gardening: epic gym session it is then.

                  Good luck cuckolds!

                • jim says:

                  You are making the standard left wing argument for the welfare state.

                  It is bullshit, and that it is bullshit has been demonstrated by experiment. Capitalism simply works. Welfare state simply fails.

                  Consider for example, the best medical system in the world is Singapore, which is close to being the most capitalist and least socialist medical system.

                  I have experienced the US healthcare system (welfarist), the Canadian healthcare system (even more welfarist), the Cuban healthcare system (socialism), and the Singaporean healthcare system (capitalism). Obvious that welfarism fails, socialism is terror and mass murder, capitalism works.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Roberto has said he doesn’t object to even a safety net for the willing to work as he said and neither do I (I’m doing more then okay financially now but during the Bush/Obama depression I was almost a 99er on unemployment and it wasn’t for lack of looking) .

                  Jim’s attitude towards children who lost their fathers horrifies me, I think bastardy should be cut down 95% to 99% by various methods but living ones should not be mistreated… nor should anyone cause unfortunate accidents… I’m not inclined towards cruelty AT ALL unless I’m attacked first but for civilization to survive the following actions must be taken.

                  Layabouts and the kind of low agency people you describe should be sterilized, the freedom of better people should NOT be curtailed to accomodate the negative externalities they create. This leads to socialism.

                  Politically active leftists need to be killed, they are a threat and an enemy. Even those not inclined to be active cannot have roles in the government, media, banking, or teaching and especially teaching of non hard sciences (I could see allowing a leftist who was a good physicists to teach physics but he can’t run the department even if he is a scientist of Newton or Maxwell’s caliber).

                  If they throw America into civil war there can be no mercy or they will come back.

                • jim says:

                  > Jim’s attitude towards children who lost their fathers horrifies me

                  Children who lost their fathers due to death or abandonment should of course be protected. The problem is bastards, who should not receive state protection. State protection for women and children should be mediated through the family unit, represented and headed by a man. If a woman is widowed, she and her children should receive protection from the state as part of the pension arrangement for that man.

                  An offense against a woman or a child should be dealt with as an offence against a husband or father of those males that the state is obligated to protect.

                  The ruler wants women to provide sexual, domestic, and reproductive services to those who support his state through working, paying taxes, or fighting (and retirees who supported it in the past, etc) and therefore does not want them providing sexual, reproductive and domestic services to other males.

                  Therefore, should provide protection for the wives and children of those males in good standing, and support and enforce their patriarchal authority, and should not provide protection for whores and bastards of those males not in good standing.

                  If a woman has a bastard, it is overwhelmingly likely that the father is not paying taxes, etc. So, if someone bumps it off, should not pay undue attention. Women need to be coercively prevented from spawning bastards, and if the coercion fails, then the bastards become a problem preventing them from being assigned to some more suitable male.

                  In the event that they have a bastard with a suitable male, they should of course be shotgun married to that male, the husband forced to guide, supervise, support, and protect his wife and child, and the wife and child forced to honor and obey. But from what I know of human nature, I think that case likely to be uncommon. The normal case with bastards is that they were having sex with someone whom the state is unlikely to approve of.

                • Roberto says:

                  CR, you’re making a simple matter unnecessarily complicated. 🙂

                  Private charities may exist. Even minimal state charity may exist.

                  But if, despite all the charities in the world, you decide to squander all your money on various stuff, and consequently suffer (i.e. suffer for behaving like a dumb, impulsive nigger), then it’s your fault, not the fault of capitalists.

                  If you get sick or die as a result of your own dumb, impulsive, self-destructive behavior, it’s still your fault for being an inherently inferior specimen, not the fault of capitalists. If you have 90 IQ, and behave like 90 IQ, and suffer for it, the problem is you, not capitalists.

                  And if you insist that capitalists are to blame for people behaving like dumb impulsive niggers, the King — who views Socialism as cancer due to it being destructive to his Kingly purposes — will treat *you* like cancer.

                  If you, the Socialist agitator, insist that capitalists need to be punished because the retarded behavior of those inherently inferior people with 90 IQ makes those inherently inferior people with 90 IQ suffer from this or suffer from that, then the King will have no choice but to physically remove you by various means.

                  >under your system of “let the fuckers rot”, you’ll get full spectrum welfare statism every time.

                  See, that’s part of the reason NRx wants a King – so that he will not allow his state to descend into Socialism, and so that he’ll physically remove Socialists who insist on it. You are the enemy, CR.

                  >Nobody’s going to put up with people starving in the street or stepping over dead bodies in the mall.

                  A King said, “There shall be capitalism, and those who agitate against capitalism, those who are Socialists, need to be physically removed.” And in due course, all Socialism is physically removed, those who create value are allowed to prosper and breed, and those who behave like niggers perish by their own self-destructive behavior. Now, go ahead CR – try to stop the King from exercising his authority to implement capitalism and eliminate Socialism. Go ahead.

                  You *are* the enemy. Still don’t get it?

                  >You cannot have people starving in the street unless you criminalise attempts to prevent it.

                  I’ll repeat the point, dumbass.

                  Private charities may exist. Minimal state charity may exist.

                  Socialism, blaming capitalism and capitalists for those-with-90-IQ behaving like niggers, living like niggers, and yes – *dying* like niggers, will indeed be criminalized. Your agitation will indeed be criminalized.

                  The King will allow those who create value to prosper as much as they like, will allow them to breed, will encourage them to practice natalism. And the King will allow those who behave like niggers, those who behave in a dumb manner, in an impulsive manner, in a self-destructive manner, to perish by their own nigger-like behavior. And if you attempt to force the King into protecting those who behave like niggers by banning capitalism and penalizing capitalists, the King will ban *you*.

                  Still don’t get it?

                  “When Social Darwinism is implemented, Socialism rises inevitably as a reaction…”

                  No, because when there is a secure King in place, an absolute monarch, he will prevent Socialism from existing. The King will allow private charities, and perhaps will implement some basic safety nets to help out those who want to help themselves, those who’ve been struck by misfortune, etc. But those who will tell the King, “People who squander their money, including charity money, on various stuff are suffering, and therefore, Your Majesty, you need to ban capitalism,” it is these people — it is *you* — who will be physically removed.

                  >If you don’t want the welfare state

                  You need a King to prevent Socialism and physically remove Socialist agitators who blame the suffering of those with 90 IQ on capitalism and capitalists. Very simple matter.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also nobody would be starving in the street under a king who fully embraced capitalism.

                  Mass unemployment is always or at least almost always caused (money supply and banking is always “socialized” to some extent and occasionally you get deflationary crisis and this can cause periods of unemployment, in such cases the state SHOULD deploy a temporary safety net) by regulatory socialism. Trump has done all he can to eliminate regulatory socialism and as a result there is no unemployment.

                  His support in poor black communities has skyrocketed because even previously hopeless blacks with criminal records now have jobs.

                • Roberto says:

                  By the way, if eugenics is implemented (by whatever mechanisms) and those who behave like niggers are removed from the gene pool, eventually there will be very few such individuals.

                  And if capitalism is fully embraced, and Socialists get helicopter rides, then eventually there will be mass genetic engineering, and “people with 90 IQ” will be a thing of the past.

                • Roberto says:

                  The difference between the reactionary perspective and the CR one boils down to the following:

                  CR: “My absolute monarch will shut down capitalism to protect those who irresponsibly squander all their money from the negative consequences of their own behavior. The King needs to physically remove capitalists.”

                  NRx: “Our absolute monarch will shut down Socialism and will allow those who create value (overwhelmingly white males) to continue creating value, to breed, and to prosper. The King needs to protect capitalism, which benefits him, and needs to physically remove Socialists from society, since they threaten capitalism with their Socialist agitation or with Socialist terrorism.”

                  And, as has been point out innumerable times, the King needs capitalism and benefits from the incentivization of value-creation, and therefore has every logical reason to behave as NRx wants him to behave, and to remove Socialists of all shapes, shades, colors, and forms from society.

                  As such, the King will ban Socialists of the standard “welfare state” variety, and will likewise ban Socialists of the CR variety, as both types of Socialists undermine his interests, undermine his ability to benefit from the creation of value, and — dare I say it? — undermine his plan to conquer the stars, which should be an integral part of Restoration Religion in my opinion.

                  CR BTFO on a cosmic scale.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Well you either do or you don’t want to prevent people from feeding the hungry.
                  I understand why someone would want low IQ dysfunctional people to be removed from the gene-pool for eugenic reasons and I’m absolutely NOT calling you a leftist for favouring that.
                  What I’ve said over and over is that normal people, seeing people starving to death in the street, would take action.

                  Private charity at first, but eventually through the state, one way or another.

                  Your path – laissez-faire and devil take the hindmost – leads to where we are today. Those workers suffering from interrupted labour and demands that they do more for less, move hundreds of miles, etc. etc. etc. will agitate for the vote first, and financial guarantees after.
                  The general public, distressed workers or not, will feed the bums themselves, then give to a charity that does it for them, then agitate for the state to do it.

                  What you’re calling for takes us to globohomo, on top of being a white-killing policy, hence a scum policy.

                  You need to get off the fence. If you don’t FORCE people to let the bums starve, they won’t do it. You can’t have your cake and eat it, you either force them or you don’t.

                  And if you DO force them, how is that purer and more virtuous, more ‘right-wing’ than me telling Franky&Benny to FO.

                  It’s just wishful thinking.

                  Either way, you’re someone who wants to get rid of large numbers of white people so you’re every bit the enemy of the good as any leftist.

                • Roberto says:

                  >What I’ve said over and over is that normal people, seeing people starving to death in the street, would take action.

                  Okay, let them do private charity on behalf of those-who-behave-like-niggers if they so desire. That has nothing to do with the King, who benefits from the incentivization of value-creation. And if the Socialist agitators attempt to draw the King into this, helicopter rised.

                  >Private charity at first, but eventually through the state, one way or another.

                  Nope. You have private charity, and you have minimal state charity (perhaps). Anything else is Socialism which is against the King’s interests, and the King won’t allow it. And if you try to force him into banning capitalism, helicopter ride.

                  >Your path – laissez-faire and devil take the hindmost – leads to where we are today.

                  My path is not laissez faire, nor will it lead to the welfare state if the King says, “There shall be no Socialism, period.” Which is partly why NRx wants a King: to prevent agitators like you from rising to power within the state and implementing *any* kind of Socialism, be it of the “welfare state” variety or of the “ban corporations” variety.

                  >Those workers suffering from… will agitate for the vote first, and financial guarantees after.

                  The workers never agitate, priests like you agitate, and will receive helicopter rides for doing so. Again: that is part of the reason NRx wants a King: to give agitators like you, who call for Socialism on behalf of [insert victim group real or imaginary], helicopter rides.

                  >The general public, distressed workers or not, will feed the bums themselves, then give to a charity that does it for them, then agitate for the state to do it.

                  The “general public” will not “agitate for the state to do it.” Priests like you will agitate, as you already do, and will receive helicopter rides.

                  >What you’re calling for takes us to globohomo, on top of being a white-killing policy, hence a scum policy.

                  Nope. Have already explained why it’s the diametrical opposite policy to globohomo, and why, far from being anti-white, it is the most pro-white system conceivable.

                  >If you don’t FORCE people to let the bums starve, they won’t do it.

                  Sure, let them feed the nigger-like bums if they so desire.

                  >And if you DO force them, how is that purer and more virtuous, more ‘right-wing’ than me telling Franky&Benny to FO.

                  Nobody said anything about preventing the people from personally feeding nigger-like bums if they so desire. But the King will be 100% pro-capitalism, and will give helicopter rides to priest-agitators who seek to abolish capitalism, like you (CR).

                  Also, incentives matter. Incentivizing the creation of value and good breeding is inherently more right-wing than propagating the genes and the existence of those-who-behave-like-niggers. Your failure to grasp that betrays unfamiliarity with right-wing thought.

                  Anyway, again, there can be private charity, and perhaps some safety nets by the state for those who seek to help themselves, for those who’ve been struck by misfortune, etc., but there cannot be Socialism, and if you blame the capitalists for the fact that some people behave like niggers (and suffer the consequences of nigger-like behavior), the King will send you on a helicopter ride.

                  >Either way, you’re someone who wants to get rid of large numbers of white people so you’re every bit the enemy of the good as any leftist.

                  “Get rid” is misleading; nobody proposed killing those with IQ 90, just letting them suffer the consequences of their own self-destructive behavior. And there aren’t all that many whites who behave like niggers, anyway (it’s mostly niggers who behave like niggers); but “getting rid” of those who do behave like niggers is *pro-white*, because it improves the quality of the white gene pool by removing dysfunctionals from it.

                  Allowing the dysfunctional members of a race, any race, of an ethnicity, any ethnicity, to remove themselves from the gene pool, is good for that race and for that ethnicity. That is how whites became the master race in the first place – extreme eugenic selection pressure. And if whites ever stop being the master race, it will probably be due to dysgenics, due to failure to have natalism for the competent and anti-natalism for the incompetent. If whites become wiggers, will be defeated by yellows. Thus, it’s in the interest of the white race to allow the functional members to breed and the dysfunctional members to remove themselves from the gene pool.

                  Eugenics is inherently right-wing, though of course, should be done humanely, not by killing the retards with death squads, but by letting them weed their own selves out. Capitalism will do that, hence, capitalism is pro-white. Leftism is agitation against white male capitalists and on behalf of [insert victim group real or imaginary] by priests.

                  NRx wants a King to give helicopter rides to priests who agitate for Socialism on behalf of [insert victim group real or imaginary].

                  That means that the Feminists will be physically removed, the (((Ethnic Activists))) will be physically removed, and the wignats will be physically removed.

                  Wignats are always on the Left, because they are invariably Socialist whiners. Come the Restoration, wignats will be given a choice: become pro-white (meaning pro-capitalism), or cease agitating. Those who will not cease agitating will be given helicopter rides.

                  The Grand Inquisitor, on behalf of the Archbishop, will order you to recite the religious mantra, “Eugenics is pro-white and pro-civilization, capitalism is pro-white and pro-civilization,” and if you fail to recite this mantra with enough sincerity, you’ll need to practice your swimming a little bit.

                • Roberto says:

                  The long story short is that inherently inferior people (who are usually — indeed, almost always — non-white) tend to behave in a self-destructive manner, and the pro-white and pro-civilizational policy is allowing those who behave in a self-destructive manner, those who behave like niggers, to perish by their own dumb and impulsive behavior.

                  There can be private charity, and there can be safety nets for those who’ve been struck by misfortune (etc.), but a person who behaves like a nigger is inferior, and should live like a nigger and die like a nigger.

                  Reading “people who behave like niggers should die like niggers” fills CR with an irresistible urge to cry, “Well, in that case, Socialism will be inevitable, because the people shall rise up.” No, the people, and especially those people who create value (whites, males, and capitalists), shall not rise up. The priests shall rise up, and have in fact already risen up, and that’s why there needs to be a King – to give the agitating priests helicopter rides.

                  At this point CR blurts something about how the NRx absolute monarchy is “anti-white,” so he needs to be reminded that, first of all, the society envisioned should be ethnically homogeneous, or close to ethnically homogeneous, which in itself is pro-white; that capitalism allows the most industrial and inventive whites to prosper, and incentivizes eugenic breeding, thus is pro-white; and that eugenics in general allows or even encourages the dysfunctionals to weed themselves out of the gene pool, which is pro-white. Hence, NRx is pro-white, and CR is anti-white.

                  Wignatism is not pro-white. Wignats are Socialists, are crybaby whiner nanny priestly agitators who envy rich white males, and their agitation leads to anti-natalism for the most competent whites and to natalism for the most incompetent whites, which is the very opposite of eugenics and the very opposite of civilization-fostering policy. Thus, wignats are anti-white and anti-civilization, no better than dykes and kikes, and come the Restoration, will be told by the King to cease agitating, “or else.”

                  That which is good for value-creating rich white male capitalists is good for white civilization, those who agitate against value-creating rich white male capitalists are anti-white, those who agitate for banning capitalism on behalf of poor oppressed niggers, poor oppressed women, poor oppressed sodomites, poor oppressed aboriginals, poor oppressed peasants, poor oppressed workers, poor oppressed wiggers, or poor oppressed [insert victim group real or imaginary], are wolves in sheep’s clothing, are anti-white and anti-civilization, and come the Restoration, will be told by the absolute monarch to shut up or receive helicopter rides.

                  CR, who previously advocated:

                  >You’re found in possession of cannabis resin? You die.

                  >You’re found intoxicated outside your home? You’re beaten to a pulp.

                  >You’re found to have procured the services of a prostitute? Instant castration and excommunication.

                  is in no position to complain about anyone wanting to “kill many white people,” given his own expressed desire to murder, severely injure, or violently sterilize 90%+ of whites.

                  CR is an enemy of the white race, an enemy of white civilization, and an enemy of human prosperity in general. Capitalism is pro-white, technology is pro-white, eugenics is pro-white, and those opposed to capitalism, opposed to technology, and opposed to eugenics are anti-white and anti-civilization, and come the Restoration, will be sent on helicopter rides.

                • Roberto says:

                  I will add that Luddism is leftism, that it’s common for leftists to complain, “Technological progress will create great disparities between the very rich and everyone else, thus we need to halt technological progress,” and that in agitating against capitalism and expressing Luddite schemes, CR reveals himself as a member of the priestly class, of the same old chorus that calls for stopping the advance of technology because “muh disparities.” It is and has always been crybaby whiner Socialism, and dressing it as reaction, does not actually make it reaction.

                • Roberto says:

                  In addition to whining about technology “only benefiting the rich; b-b-b-but what about the poor?” Luddites usually bring up how the Silicon Valley Engineers and the billionaires associated with them are white (ugh) and male (ughhh). CR, without noticing that he sounds exactly like a black Jewish lesbian Feminist with a degree in POC studies, repeats the same lines used by leftie Luddites, only substituting “capitalists” for “rich white males,” as if there is any great difference between the two categories.

                  CR’s line about how “the people will agitate” reveals him as a Marxist, as a Marxist priest agitating for (“predicting”) anti-capitalist revolution on behalf of the proletariat, and illustrates exactly why the NRx absolute monarchy is so urgently needed – to put a stop to the anti-white, anti-capitalist, and anti-civilizational agitation of priests like CR.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re a retard.

                  “You are making the standard left wing argument for the welfare state”

                  No. I’m making, and not for the first time, an accurate empirical prediction that people will not tolerate people starving in the street as Roberto wishes them to do.

                  First they will intervene themselves, then they will establish charitable foundations and finally they’ll offload the responsibility onto the (by now) democratic state in the belief that since they’re not paying for it directly, they’re getting it for nothing.

                  It’s a tragic and oft-repeated story of history borne out time and time again.

                  I am absolutely NOT making the case *for* the welfare state, leftist or otherwise.
                  I’m making the prediction that IF you do what Roberto wants to do, you GET the welfare state.

                  Either you can’t read or you’re just a liar. I think by now I know which it is.

                • jim says:

                  > > “You are making the standard left wing argument for the welfare state”

                  > No. I’m making, and not for the first time, an accurate empirical prediction that people will not tolerate people starving in the street as Roberto wishes them to do.

                  Few people will be starving in street, and those that do, will be precisely those who are incapable of organized collective trouble making. As individuals, they will make trouble by stealing, by hunting other people’s cattle and gathering other people’s crops. As individuals, they will sentenced to execution or slavery. Problem solved.

                  No one riots, or is likely to riot, against the Singaporean healthcare system.

                  The reactionary program is to facilitate cooperation among those competent at large scale cooperation, impose authority on those who are otherwise likely to be uncooperative. Those starving in the street will be those who are entirely useless to troublemakers in the elite, useful only as mascots, not as shock troops.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Children who lost their fathers due to death or abandonment should of course be protected. The problem is bastards, who should not receive state protection.”

                  This might be a dumb question, but what is the difference between a bastard and a child who was abandoned by his father?

                • jim says:

                  In practice, bastards are seldom the result of paternal abandonment, quite possibly never the result of paternal abandonment. Paternal abandonment is contrary to human nature, or at least contrary to the nature of the more highly evolved races.

                  In almost all cases, bastardy is the result of women screwing around, and therefore ditching the guy they previously had sex with. Men who screw around don’t ditch the woman they previously had sex with.

                  If your girl is fucking someone else, she abandoned you. You did not abandon her.

                  Male misconduct is polygyny. Female misconduct is hypergamy and serial monogamy. Thus female misconduct leads to bastardy, male misconduct does not lead to bastardy. Bastardy is normally a result of serial monogamy. When a woman sleeps around, she is ditching the father of her child. When a man sleeps around, he is not ditching the mother of his child. Bastardy is an indication that the women is not fucking the father of her child – likely because he is in jail or unemployable. And if the father of her child is someone more suitable (a taxpayer, a subject of the sovereign in good standing) she is not honoring and obeying him.

                  Some cases of bastardy will be solved when we compel women to honor and obey the fathers of their children, when we forbid them to abandon the fathers of their children, forbid them adultery. The remaining cases will be almost entirely cases of males reproducing whom we do not want to reproduce, small time criminals, vagrants, and suchlike. Killing those bastards is desirable for eugenic reasons.

                • Roberto says:

                  >finally they’ll offload the responsibility onto the (by now) democratic state

                  No, you’re not going to sneak this presupposition past the reader: the state will not be democratic, plain and simple. That’s not what “absolute monarchy” means.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  No. I’m making, and not for the first time, an accurate empirical prediction that people will not tolerate people starving in the street as Roberto wishes them to do.

                  Just like Karl Marx was only making an accurate empirical prediction that the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the capitalist class – it’s inevitable. Certainly this isn’t an effort to generate cohesion in a group by spreading a myth that your victory is inevitable.

                • jim says:

                  > an effort to generate cohesion in a group by spreading a myth that your victory is inevitable.

                  You nailed it.

                  Hail fellow straight white male reactionaries. The victory of your our enemies is historically inevitable. History is against you us. </sarcasm>

                  In reality, history tells us that leftism always self destructs. Its only victory is that it may well take us with it. Leftism is the memetic equivalent of cancer. If a cancer is victorious, it dies with its host.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Marxist version of history deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  We are familiar with your version of history, and have heard it far too many times.

                  Actual history does not much resemble it.

                  Feel free to argue for your version of history, provided you provide actual evidence. And by actual evidence, I mean you need to provide contemporary sources, sources written at the time of the events, rather than 2018 sources.

                  If you argue for your version of history, with evidence, that I will not censor.

                  Simply asserting whig history and Marxist history without evidence or explanation is a waste of bandwidth, and I censor it to economize on reader bandwidth, much as I censor the much repeated, unsupported, unexplained, and absurd troofer claim that World Trade Center Building seven was not on fire, not significantly damaged, and fell straight down on its own footprint.

                  And while we are at it, how about providing evidence for your much repeated claim that being raised in an intact family has no significant effect on life outcomes. No, the uncontroversial and obvious fact that family environment has little effect on adult IQ is not evidence for the proposition that family environment has little effect on adult socioeconomic status, marriage, and staying out of jail.

                  Your version of history is as nuts as the troofer account of the fall of the towers. You can argue for it, but if you merely assert it, I am going to censor you. We have all heard it asserted far too many times before.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*repeating the same lies, yet again, without providing any evidence or explanation, deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I welcome left wingers to debate. But endlessly repeating the same old far too familiar leftist script is not debate. If you want to argue for left wing claims, make an argument, provide evidence, don’t waste bandwidth by just reasserting the same old all too familiar cant as self evident over and over again like an NPC.

                  If you provide evidence, I will respond with counter evidence. If you stick to the same old far too familiar script, I will delete.

                  Give us sources for your claims about history.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Some cases of bastardy will be solved when we compel women to honor and obey the fathers of their children, when we forbid them to abandon the fathers of their children, forbid them adultery. The remaining cases will be almost entirely cases of males reproducing whom we do not want to reproduce, small time criminals, vagrants, and suchlike. Killing those bastards is desirable for eugenic reasons.”

                  Eugenics should always be done by sterilization, only done by death in cases of severe criminal misconduct by individuals. Lets not repeat the mistakes of the Third Reich in this regard…

                  NRx should unironically adopt the motto of “don’t be evil” (especially when unnecessary) at least for optical reasons.

                  As such living post 3rd term bastards should not be killed and should be protected like any other king’s subject.

                  Gen Z is supposedly pretty right wing but a lot of them are angry fatherless boys and bastards (its not just blacks anymore), the optics of them reading that their mothers should have been forced to stay with their fathers is great, the optics of arguing that they all should have been killed is horrible.

                • jim says:

                  If we can abort a second trimester child whose father very much wants that child, where is the problem in aborting a post third trimester bastard?

                  A society that is fine with aborting a much wanted second trimester child, will have absolutely no problems dealing with the bastard problem.

                  > As such living post 3rd term bastards should not be killed and should be protected like any other king’s subject.

                  The sovereign should protect those men that uphold the social order, and their children. He should enforce their duties towards their wives and children, and their wives and children’s duties towards them. The rest are not his concern.

                • peppermint says:

                  The argument that they should participate in a movement that would have them pay for other mens’ bastards is demoralizing.

                  If bastards are to be allowed to live, they must be forced into monasteries, and only permitted to leave if they perform an extraordinary service to the nation.

                  Producing bastards can’t be allowed to be a legitimate sexual strategy.

                • jim says:

                  Spawning bastards is a parasitic reproductive strategy. It cannot be allowed to succeed, it must be a biological a dead end. If birds could cooperate, should cooperate to put cuckoos out of business.

                  The simplest solution is to not extend protection and support to single mothers and their demon spawn. Single mothers get enslaved, and their owners find that their slave girl’s demon spawn is an inconvenient encumbrance.

                  A more sophisticated and humane solution is to deny bastards the possibility of reproduction, but that is complicated, and not altogether incentive compatible.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I have no problem with taking them away from their irresponsible single mothers if they can’t support them but I wouldn’t tolerate their foster care being anything like the catholic church death camps for them…

                  Future bastardity would be cut down 95-99% by insisting on unmarried women who have no responsible male willing to claim the child get an abortion (as early as possible in the pregnancy).

                • jim says:

                  You are expecting responsible behavior among unmarried women. Maybe, but this is inconsistent with my observation of female nature. Perhaps your observations differ from my own. Women will spawn bastards if exposed to stimuli that would (in the environment of evolutionary adaptation) indicate that this strategy works.

                  This behavior is likely to be most effectively discouraged by providing an environment in which this strategy seems likely to fail in the way and for the reasons that the environment of evolutionary adaptation might cause it to fail.

                  Either we kill bastards and enslave their mothers, or we provide a social environment that generates the stimuli that in the environment of evolutionary adaptation would indicate that single mother is going to be enslaved and her bastards killed.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I would GREATLY discourage the existence of unmarried women above the age of say 21 or 22.

                  I would be humane to bastards, I would be pitilessly severe to unmarried women over a certain age.

                  Basically women would lose nearly all their rights as human beings if they didn’t have a male guardian who above a certain age would HAVE TO be their husband and not their father or adoptive father. Widows would be a special category.

                  Fathers would be encouraged to begin arranging their marriage after the age of 14, I would put all emphasis on early marriage and none of this late virgin marriage crap which is highly unnatural.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  lol what

                  Provide sources to prove there were no welfare states in white society before 1850 (which everybody knows is true)

                  Provide sources to prove that liberal trade precedes (as opposed to following) mass franchise democracy always and everywhere (which everybody knows is true)

                  It just reeks of desperation. You clearly have an agenda and I just had a chill run down my spine.

                  I know EXACTLY what that agenda is and glosoli was right all along.

                  The goyim know.

                • jim says:

                  The welfare state was not a response to capitalist oppression of the proletarian masses, but to the failure to control sexual misconduct by women and their propensity to have sex with violent criminals, resulting in a horde of bastards born in dark, wet, and muddy alleys in the rain: The agitation for the welfare state was “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, which were about humanizing bastards and their violent criminal fathers, not about the oppression of the proletariat by the evil capitalist class.

                  Mass democracy in England started in 1832. Liberal trade started in England in 1846. Therefore liberal trade did not cause democracy. Rather, democracy was caused by leftism, and liberal trade was subsequently caused by the accidents of political alliances made by ascendant leftists.

                • jim says:

                  Notice that I am providing contemporary sources, “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, while you simply assert Marxist history to be fact.

                  Subsequent assertions that Marxist history is simple and uncontroversial fact, for which no evidence needs to provided, will be deleted.

                  Subsequent assertions that Marxist history is true will need to be supported by evidence that it is true.

                • jim says:

                  “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables” depict bastards as spawned by irresponsible aristocratic gentlemen, rather than random thuglets, but if that was the case, if the authors actually believed that to be the case, why do they also humanize the violent criminal scum who actually spawn bastards?

                • peppermint says:

                  …implying that you think women have agency, and children are fungible.

                  Take away the assumption that children are fungible and, if there are going to be bastards, I’m going to make sure they’re mine.

                  Take away the assumption that women have agency and it’s bizarre to warn and then much later punish them when they could be controlled.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “…implying that you think women have agency, and children are fungible.”

                  If you are talking to me its more that I think the bastard (who after all didn’t do anything wrong himself/herself) is a legitimate object of pity and the shrewish unmarried feminist woman who DID DO lots of things wrong and made herself so unlikable that no man would have her is a legitimate object of pitiless severity.

                • jim says:

                  The bastard did nothing wrong, but we just cannot let this reproductive strategy succeed, for if it succeeds, will be followed.

                  The bastard did nothing wrong, but the inevitable imposition on well behaved males to support and protect the bastards of badly behaved males is wrong.

                • peppermint says:

                  > The agitation for the welfare state was “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, which were about humanizing bastards and their violent criminal fathers, not about the proletariat.

                  > Mass democracy in England started in 1832. Liberal trade started in England in 1846. Therefore liberal trade did not cause democracy.

                  Two massive redpills in one post.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, pity and pitiless, as if your sentiment matters. Everything, including your sentiments towards single women and bastards, is about sex, and sex is about reproduction.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Between reforming the state religion allowing for early arranged marriage allowing marriages by abduction over a certain age (for women) by any responsible male who will have them and subjecting women who are unmarried over a certain age to semi Taliban like discrimination I think the number of feral women can be cut down to less then 5%.

                  By mandating future abortions for those feral women who can have no responsible male claim them and the child the number of FUTURE bastards can be cut down to insignificance.

                • jim says:

                  Quite true.

                  But a society that can enforce abortions on badly behaved women is morally similar to a society that can close its eyes to the convenient disposal of inconvenient bastards, and in fact it is easier to cooperate in not cooperating to protect bastards, than it is to cooperate in enforcing abortion on women who do not want to abort.

                  Killing bastards is incentive compatible. Enforcing abortions and then protecting bastards who evade that enforcement is not incentive compatible.

                  And I don’t see any substantial moral difference. If anything, enforcing abortion seems worse, because we all have to cooperate in enforcing abortion, while we can tsk tsk and politely avert our eyes from whomever finds himself in charge of inconvenient bastards.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The bastard did nothing wrong, but we just cannot let this reproductive strategy succeed, for if it succeeds, will be followed.

                  The bastard did nothing wrong, but the inevitable imposition on well behaved males to support and protect the bastards of badly behaved males is wrong.”

                  Jim but under our policies the numbers of future bastards (probably around 1-2% of what it is now) will be so insignificant that it will not be a problem. This will make cruelty in such cases unnecessary and furthermore optically stupid as we don’t want to create a cause celebre for future leftists in future generations (when memory of the leftist plague has faded and inevitably inquisitorial discipline relaxes).

                • The Cominator says:

                  Nobody but a few Catholics gives a shit about early term abortions and because as we both know the Catholic Church was running death camps for bastards and even non bastard orphans (as recently as the late 1950s they are not to be taken seriously (furthermore the restoration will ban the Catholic Church entirely and make local Catholic Churches become Orthodox churches).

                  There WILL BE a lot of people who are greatly bothered by things happening to actual children. That people didn’t care so much before the age of antibiotics is because people frequently saw multiple numbers of their own children die.

                • jim says:

                  Second trimester is not early. Child looks and acts human.

                  If no one (except of course the husband, and he does not count) genuinely gives a shit about second trimester abortion of much wanted children, then I do not believe that anyone genuinely gives a shit about death camps for bastards.

                  The proposition that abortion is OK, and death camps for bastards is not OK is internally incoherent, and aborting second trimester children against the will of the husband and father is grossly and blatantly evil in a way that death camps for bastards are not evil.

                  Catholic death camps are an argument for abortion of bastards. They are not an argument for a woman’s right to choose. But equally, abortion of bastards is an argument for Catholic death camps.

                  Obviously if we allow, or politely close our eyes to, death camps for bastards, we should allow abortion of bastards. And probably should enforce abortion of bastards. But I predict that enforcing abortion of bastards will prove difficult.

                • peppermint says:

                  Will you answer the argument that, if there are bastards, I will make sure they are mine?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Will you answer the argument that, if there are bastards, I will make sure they are mine?

                  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN92g5VX0AESzqk.jpg

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And aborting second trimester children against the will of the husband and father”

                  I was NOT talking about that, I explicitly said the mandatory abortion thing will be if the child has no responsible man to claim them.

                • peppermint says:

                  What does mandatory mean?

                  If I hide my harem of your family members for nine months, can I keep the bastards?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim child death camps and child mass graves are just absolutely not something people will tolerate if they can see.

                  The ancient Romans were by modern standards extremely cruel but in the process of overruning Carthage the legionaries found the mounds of charred child bounds of the infants sacrificed to Baal. Even given how cruel the Romans were the Roman troops were so revolted by this that human sacrifice (which occasionally happened in Rome) was very quickly banned afterwords throughout the provinces and the Romans insisted strongly that all people they came in contact with ban it as well.

                • jim says:

                  But people don’t want to see.

                  And we are not going to have death camps and all that. In order that women respond appropriately, we need to provide an environment that seems like it causes the death of bastards in the same way that bastards would have been killed in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation. We are going to make the murder of bastards as individual and private as possible. You won’t see the state killing off bastards, because the state will not be killing off bastards. But if bastards somehow wind up dead, the state will lack curiosity.

                  The state killing off bastards would fail to get the desired response from women, because too different from the environment of evolutionary adaptation. Charismatic alpha males killing off the bastards of women under their authority will get the desired response from women.

                  Repeating: To obtain the desired effect on female behavior, the social environment has to look to women like the social environment that caused the death of bastards in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation.

                • Nikolai says:

                  >We shouldn’t talk about letting single mothers kill their bastards it’s bad optics, don’t be evil

                  >Btw we should have mandatory abortions for bastards

                  Lmao

                • peppermint says:

                  To make one kind of murder different, involve gas chambers and ovens. Except that abortion, which openly involves clinical and industrial processes, is an individual, hidden thing, and at the same time mandatory by public law.

                  You’re still arguing – snetimentally, in the manner of a woman – that women will inevitably spontaneously agitate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And we are not going to have death camps and all that – bad optics. We are going to make the murder of bastards as individual and private as possible. You won’t see the state killing off bastards, because the state will not be killing off bastards. But if bastards somehow wind up dead, the state will lack curiosity.”

                  This won’t be so bad since murder investigations are a local government matter anyway and I don’t imagine for optical reasons the king will be issuing orders to local governments that no murder investigations if a bastard dies.

                  If you’re merely saying its not a concern of the central government that is fine because murder investigations are not a central government concern in most cases.

                • jim says:

                  That women only reproduce under the authority of a male that they are socially obligated to honor and obey, and legally obligated to obey, a male that is socially obligated to love them and cherish them, and legally obligated to take care of them, a male that is socially obligated to have sex with them, and they legally and socially obligated to have sex with him, is ultimately a central government responsibility.

                  That the media then proceed to present this as the only possible model of family is a church and state responsibility.

                  In this environment, local governments would find it socially and legally difficult to keep bastards alive.

                  In this environment, the central government does have to deal with the problem of women engaging in sexual activity outside this arrangement – has to do something about women who engage in sexual activity outside this arrangement, has to shotgun marry sexually active women, which means it has to prevent households headed by fertile age females.

                  If the central government prevents households headed by fertile age females, and enforces marriage, the bastard problem will mysteriously be taken care of, in ways that no one will be inclined to ask too much about.

                • Koanic says:

                  Based Judah on the bastard question:

                  “BRING HER FORTH AND LET HER BE BURNED.”

                  Lion indeed.

        • jim says:

          Pizza being sinful (and Zero Coke and prius being holy) is part of our current state religion. A sane state religion would not pay attention to that kind of matter.

          Now if the state religion was Judaism derived, or Islam derived, would doubtless ban pork. But the state religion of Restoration England, and the King of Restoration England, would not, and did not, get involved in such matters.

          Actually existent Judaism, and actually existent Progressivism, is holiness spiralling, and does get involved in such matters, and, because holiness spiralling, its intrusion gets ever more intrusive.

          Banning Pizza, or banning plastic straws, is priests denying status to the merely wealthy, priests taking over everything. The theory of reaction is that when you have incentive alignment, when a holiness spiral gets you fired from state and quasi state institutions, and if you are obstinate about it, crucified, the King and his apparatus of rule will not be interested in meddling in everything.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Pizza being sinful (and Zero Coke and prius being holy) is part of our current state religion. A sane state religion would not pay attention to that kind of matter.”

            Sane state religion would be that pizza isn’t sinful but being fat is, and especially so for a woman in fertile years.

            • jim says:

              > Sane state religion would be that pizza isn’t sinful but being fat is, and especially so for a woman in fertile years.

              Of course.

              I regularly complain that I am struggling with lust, gluttony, and wrath, with less than total success.

              Television and comic strip villains should display physical symptoms of the those sins that leave characteristic symptoms.

  10. Mister Grumpus says:

    Say Jim (OT),

    You often recite that childless post-fertility women pretty much want to tear down everything around them. Or if not “want to”, they “act as if”.

    Not saying that I disagree exactly, but could you put an intellectual framework around that to help me understand you? Like an evo-psyche explanation?

    • eternal anglo says:

      IIRC he described it as smoking out the alpha, cruising to be beaten and raped by a man manly enough to punish them for their bullshit.

    • peppermint says:

      What do childless old women from conservative families do?

      Loudly support Dhimmicrats.

      What do childless old women from leftist families do?

      Fuck Republicans and anything but White Dhimmicrats.

      What should the evolutionary opinion on a woman past fertile age without children be?

      She should destroy the world that prevented her from reproducing in the hope that her younger sisters and nieces can avoid her fate

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Smart, bro. So the “logic” being that whatever the situation was that caused her to not reproduce — but not also starve to death — it must have been seriously messed up AND is probably also being experienced by her closer relatives.

        So therefore, she should play herself out by just wrecking the shit out of everything and maybe-just-maybe helping the chances of her younger relatives. Because whatever the situation was, if there were no men to come along and knock her up in her teens and 20s, then yeah, things are so terrible that they should just get nuked and cross their fingers on a long shot.

        When females run amok.

        And since “no men to _____” probably also means “even her brothers aren’t ____”, then fuck them too, evolutionarily speaking, am-I-rite?0

        OK yeah. P-Mint gets the Smart Cookie award yet again — at least from me — because this makes modern day Sweden/Germany/etc. make real logical sense.

        “If I flip over all the tables, kick down all the doors and bring in as many Moslems as I can, then maybe my little cousins can still get raped in time to reproduce, because the local guys around here just aren’t putting out.”

        “Migrants Welcome.”

        Wow man. I love this blog.

    • Brie says:

      Evolution is not totally efficient, especially if choices are limited.

      • peppermint says:

        True. Evolution doesn’t care enough about women who can’t reproduce to program them effectively. Taylor Swift just came out as a dhimmicrat, but Enya has never wavered. Maybe she had a stronger family and church, maybe she’s just made of better stuff.

        They both, of course, should have been able to sing their way into a prince’s arms. But we don’t have any princes, and army captains are mysteriously low status.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Ever take a computer program past its limits and crash it? Ever given invalid data and the computer does not compute? Ever seen a robot react to an unfamiliar situation?

      Evo-psyche is not science, it is guesswork and pattern analysis. Women are programmed to respond to stimulus. They are designed to give birth. Take them outside their design parameters and all hell breaks loose.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      I suppose I need to think harder about just what situations and events, back in the EEA, would-or-could have resulted in childless-and-infertile-but-not-also-dead women even existing in the first place.

      And also yes, there certainly are “don’t care” states that simply never happened, and are therefore perfectly “unaddressed” now. Like women giving birth to children that they’re not genetically related to, as Jim pointed out earlier.

      • peppermint says:

        White women who can’t get a husband don’t reproduce.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          You mean historically, right? Because now we have little mulattos every dang where.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Most mulattos come from mulattos mating with mulattos.

            A sort of perverse ethnogenesis if you will (and the sort of thing NWO perverts have been masturbating over for centuries [figuratively, but also sometimes literally]; it’s easy to feel like a winner if all your competition rides the short bus after all).

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Central distinction: seeing your neighbors as competition to be defeated.

    • Alrenous says:

      It’s not adaptive, it’s more like a spandrel.

      A childless woman resents the surrounding society for not shepherding her properly. This is a normal resentment trigger.

      A human programmer would have put a sanity check on the resentment. If resent_world > 300, then resent_world = 300. That sort of thing. The actual brain has no such thing, and resentment can spiral indefinitely. Sometimes due to comorbid reasoning bugs, sometimes simply due to repeated exposure.

      The stimulus reaches intensity the rest of the brain isn’t designed to handle, and thus literally – very literally – drives the poor girl insane.

  11. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Suppose a man gains revelation.

    By what means could he express it?

    The character of revealed truth is insuperable from the medium through which it may be expressed; more or less able so to do. An artist works with the clay he has.

  12. Charles Neumann says:

    Social matter not only have stopped linking you Jim, but now link to articles that argue against you:
    https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/09/19/this-week-in-reaction-2018-09-16/

    I guess these are the consequences of noticing.

    • Chad says:

      Just wait, soon they’ll be denouncing the comics and 10 year old girls too

    • Roberto says:

      It’s not an article “against Jim.”

      • Charles Neumann says:

        Sure, its a “nitpicking”. Jim is “not totally wrong”, but still wrong.

        Social matter will link a debut article about Jim, straight after Jim calls out social matter. But won’t link Jim himself. Sure, the article itself may be fine, but the timing is coincidental. I wonder what went on behind the scenes.

        • Roberto says:

          Aidan MacLear is an excellent blogger and poster. Socialist Matter is bad enough and you don’t need to make stuff up to make them look bad. They look bad enough as it is.

          • Chad says:

            It’s no coincidence Social Matter stopped featuring Jim, and now will slowly shill against Jim with random bloggers. They are acting very butthurt and feminine, like little girls, and we all know what Jim wants to do to little girls

            • Roberto says:

              Aidan MacLear is not a random blogger.

            • Roberto says:

              >They are acting very butthurt and feminine, like little girls, and we all know what Jim wants to do to little girls

              So you’re saying that Jim wants to coerce Social Matter into behaving properly with a stick, and should Social Matter resist such coercion with its volcanic sex drive, marry Social Matter off to a husband who will take care of it.

              Sounds good to me.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                The absolute madness that Jim incites when he makes his posts on adolescent female sex drive is telling.

                Jim: “Young girls notice men when disturbingly young. Bad, therefore tie up girls to keep them from trouble, get married as soon as feasible.”

                Somehow everyone interprets that Jim wants to have sex with twelve year old girls out of the previous two sentences. All because they know what is going wrong but are too cowardly to admit it.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Residual Victorian morality: obviously if girls are having sex at a disturbingly young age, must be blamed entirely on evil lecherous predatory men making them do it. If Jim says it is not evil lecherous predatory men, but fallen female nature, then he must be an evil lecherous predatory man himself.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  What about it exactly? The official statistics show that young girls are having a lot of sex, which would be a surprise if they had no sex drive.

                  Is the controversy that young girls who we know are sexually active would, according to you, rather have sex with the boys in their age segregated class than with, say, Justin Bieber or Ronaldo? If that is so, how do you explain their behaviour at any pop music concert?

                  Everyone knows that jim is saying, or knows enough to prove it to himself in just a few lines. He just knows that it is something he is not meant to think.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          To carry the metaphor further, the last person that needs a beta white knight to rescue them from critique is Jim.

          • Charles Neumann says:

            No one is trying to do any rescuing. Simply pointing out how dodgy socialist matter is.

            I’m sure that dude’s blog post is fine, but who cares. They won’t post Jim, only critiques of Jim.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              And that bugs the shit out of me. I’m sure there is a reason, but until they share it we can’t assess the validity thereof and are forced to guess. I know Aidan; he and I discuss Jim often. I am a Johnny-come-lately to Jimblog but it has assisted me greatly on my path. I have made a number of soft inquiries as to why his posts aren’t on TWiR but haven’t received an answer. It is not my place to question my betters. I do make sure to post his blogs to the reddit when they appear. I cannot and will not speak for Aidan, but I am absolutely certain his extremely soft critique was in no way an attempt to supplant Jim’s canonical position.

              You could just ask him here (he is a regular commenter) or on his blog.

            • alf says:

              Nick still links me.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      No one should care about Social Matter, a group of community organizers who weren’t big enough for the big leagues (DNC) or the little league (GOP) and so are arm wrestling the Libertarians for control of the even littler league. Their nominal strategy is to be irrelevant, and their real strategy is to hope some little league scout finds them and picks them, at which point they will forget they ever weren’t leftists, as libertarians have done.

  13. Pyrrhus says:

    It seems that the rot set in earlier than 1832 in England…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Relief_of_the_Poor_1601

    • jim says:

      1832 was democracy

      1601 was welfare for the deserving poor – not an attack on the family. Nothing wrong with 1601 acts, and nothing very wrong with the later relief acts under Cromwell.

      We saw an attack on the family during Puritan rule, in the events leading up to Cromwell seizing dictatorial power, but it went away in the restoration of Charles the Second, and returned two centuries later with “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      The first poor laws were to replace the relief provided by the monasteries, which were the leftism of their day.

      You need some kind of law for dealing with the poor, for we shall have them always with us, even if that law is just shooting them out of hand. People don’t like that, partly because they’re sentimental, but partly because useful people sometimes become poor. So a system of gruel provided to able bodied men in exchange for make-work labour makes sense.

      What the Elizabethans did not have was welfare for feral women that supported them indefinitely at the same level as a low productivity working man.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      This is pretty much exactly right.

      As soon as labour came to be viewed as a commodity like wheat and cotton, the welfare state was inevitable.

      The original solutions were hand-outs with no strings attached, resulting in ballooning dependency.
      The knee-jerk solution to this problem was the Workhouse, and strings quickly became necessarily attached as Workhouses observed drunks climbing over the walls of the Workhouse to go and sell their Workhouse-provided shirts for beer before coming back and claiming to have lost or damaged their shirts.
      The next step in the process, as always, was state intervention and a kind of combination of open welfare and government assessment&regulation.
      The to&fro of too many strings attached to too few strings attached continues to this day.

      Poverty causes charity, charity causes abuse, abuse causes regulation by the private sector, regulation by the private sector causes claims of injustice, claims of injustice cause state intervention, etc. etc. etc.

      Meanwhile the OTHER effect of commodity-labour is ever greater calls for democratic inclusivity. Once the plebs get the vote, forget it: a moderate welfare state is utterly unavoidable.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Your Marxist historicism is false.

        There was a good reason for having a poor law the concerned able bodied men which is that it is bad for property owners and honest workers to have hungry able bodied men wandering the streets at night. Vagrancy is still ipso facto illegal in England for that reason.

        If you don’t want them you need to do something with them which could be hanging them all. But you want some mechanism that distinguishes the useful and unlucky from the useless, and you don’t want to spend much money doing it, so offering a very shitty government job as a “professional unemployed” is approximately as good. The ones who can leave do eventually, and the ones who can’t stay there in what are basically concentration camps until they die.

        To repeat: none of this is about helping vagrants it is about helping property owners and honest workers.

        When the state removed the father from control of the household it found it had created a huge class of female vagrants which should be impossible because vagrancy is bad and women are angels. So rather than dumping the theory that women are angels, they dumped the theory that vagrancy is bad, and started making single mother an actually decently paid and increasingly high status government sector job. That is the modern welfare state.

        The modern welfare state is actually not a lot more financially generous than the Poor Laws were to a single, young, able bodied man. What the socialists did for the single, young, able bodied man was let him live at home and do no work so he could both claim his dole and continue to predate on property owners and honest workers for side income.

    • Alrenous says:

      The rot set in just after 1100, as a result of reclaiming Greek texts from the library at Toledo. Immediately, demagogues appear and there’s a sharp uptick in the whole ‘peasant uprising’ thing.

      • jim says:

        Obviously in 1100 we got a whole lot of old memetic diseases revived, but we also got a lot of old greatness revived. We got the Cathedrals. We got the science of Archimedes and Aristotle.

        And, after 1660, we got science, industry, technology, and world conquest.

  14. glosoli says:

    https://blog.jim.com/party-politics/angry-mob-meme/#comment-1916329

    Jim is wrong, but steering clear of admitting it:

    https://blog.jim.com/party-politics/angry-mob-meme/#comment-1917025

    Moldbug lied. Jim fell for the lies, or something else. Trump also lies, but he has good reason, now he’s President of a highly-indebted nation with waning overseas funding, he needs low rates.

    Fascinating stuff.

    • jim says:

      What I said in that comment was obviously true, and no could possibly deny it unless motivated by left wing politics or hatred of Trump and hatred of people who wear MAGA hats, since I was recycling a standard Trump/MAGA meme:
      I said:

      The fed is tightening interest rates on Trump under circumstances where it failed to tighten interest rates on Obama. This is obviously political, and obviously a blow aimed at the mid term elections. Democrats in power, interest rates anomalously low before elections, Republicans in power, interest rates anomalously high before elections.

      This is in accord with reactionary theory and the Dark Enlightenment: that state and quasi state actors will act primarily out of political motives, economic theory be damned.

      Irrespective of whether sound economic theory indicates that interest rates should be lower or higher, sound economic theory was given a different interpretation when Obama was president, as Trump sarcastically observed.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        That’s right. The Dark Enlightenment, fake reactionary take is strangely the same as the libertarian take: the free market should ideally set interest rates because interest rates are the price of money over time and sound economies are built on the appropriate, not inappropriate, use of debt. We’re living in a debt-fuelled bubble but a healthy society would use debt in a responsible manner.

        The real reactionary take is that a healthy society has values beyond the merely economic and as such, a healthy economy that serves the interests of a healthy society should not be run on debt at all and in fact the interest rate – not of ‘overnight lending to banks by a central bank’ but rather the rate paid to savers on bank deposits, should not only be centrally planned but should be permanently fixed so that it always makes sense for a school leaver to lay something aside for retirement.
        Banks, all nationalised of course, should lend on a for profit, fully collateralised fee-based basis (not a rolling percentage basis), to pro-social businesses and naturally to the government. The idea of foreign investors buying government debt on a floating basis is basically treasonous. Treasury bonds should be abolished: if the government wants to borrow it should do so on the same basis as any other business – fully collateralised and on a fee-based for profit basis.
        The profits made by the national bank are owned by the state so it’s a win-win, no matter how rapaciously profitable the loans are.
        Funding by the national bank by the state could easily come solely from the sales tax.

        Of course a libertarian in reactionary clothing will damn this prosocial, savings based, non-usurious economic model as ‘Marxist’.

        • peppermint says:

          > The profits made by the national bank are owned by the state so it’s a win-win, no matter how rapaciously profitable the loans are.

          > Funding by the national bank by the state could easily come solely from the sales tax.

          So is it profitable or not?

          If yes, why is it govt run?

          If no, how is it any different from quasi-government unprofitable “banking” now?

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*Deleted because unfamiliar with the Dark Enlightenment position on money, finance, term transformation, and interest rates]P

            • jim says:

              Please familiarize yourself with Moldbug on money issue, banking crises, interest rates, and term transformation.

              Also my post on fractional reserve banking.

              If you are unfamiliar with our position, it is not a conversation, it is a lecture.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You’re falling back on censorship as a crutch to avoid difficult conversations.

                I’m well aware of the Moldbug literature, the Mises literature and even the Milton Friedman literature.

                All of them miss the point, the point being that having a changing price of money across time, irrespective of the fractional reserve complication Moldbug and Mises care about in their microscopically differing ways, is a fundamentally bad idea.

                The interest earned by savers needs to remain constant, basically FOREVER, while the interest paid by borrowers is an abomination that needs to be wiped from the face of the Earth.

                As Dante put it, “with usurer hath no man a house of good stone”. Boy was he right.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Sorry, Ezra Pound even lol

                  Brainfart, and it’s ‘Usura’

                  Canto XLV, Ezra Pound 1925

          • The Cominator says:

            “> The profits made by the national bank are owned by the state so it’s a win-win, no matter how rapaciously profitable the loans are.”

            LOL no… the profits of the Federal Reserve system are paid out to holders of certain types of government bonds and shareholding member banks but mostly your income taxes goes to pay those people too.

            And if people understood this the Federal Reseve banks would likely be torched by angry mobs tomorrow.

            Ron Paul wrongly focused on the Fed causing inflation, and not on it causing the government debt and income tax.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              This is either a misreading or a deliberate out-of-context mis-citation.

              I was talking about my new nationalised banking system, not the Fed.

              • jim says:

                The fed is the old nationalized banking system.

                Making it even more nationalized than it is already is going to burn.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Straw Man once again. You pretend this is about nationalisation only.

                  This is about the total abolition of usury, the bond market, fractional reserve banking, consumer debt and a changing interest rate (be it planned or free market).

                  This is a revolution in finance.

        • jim says:

          The Dark Enlightenment has a well known take on interest rates and term transformation.

          Trump has regularly expressed the same far from libertarian view on interest rates, though he has not addressed term transformation.

          The left is attacking him using memes that are, or superficially resemble free market memes.

          You are attacking his position using supposedly reactionary grounds that strangely resemble the supposedly libertarian free market arguments deployed by the left.

          The left tells libertarians that what the fed is doing to Trump is truly libertarian, tells republicans that what the fed is doing to Trump is truly republican, and you tell us that what it is doing to Trump is truly reactionary.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            See above response to Peppermint.

            The left is not proposing permanently fixed high interest for savers, the abolition of the bond market, the abolition of all forms of consumer credit, the replacement of free market business credit with national socialist ‘social credit’ on a fee-based model and the nationalisation of the entire financial industry.

            • The Cominator says:

              “The left is not proposing permanently fixed high interest for savers”

              Yes your economic plan is even more insane then theirs (well you have a more sane position on white people and less sane on economic theory).

              You want to abolish individual stock investing, abolish most consumer goods, abolish resteraunts (well except for you and your fellow Stalinist intellectuals of course), fix permanently high interest rates causing a deflationary depression, have the priesthood meddle in all businesses that still survive your insane policies.

              Your economy would look something like North Korea’s very soon.

              Social credit is perhaps a good idea though, but the details have to be worked out carefully.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                At last the Cominator speaks the truth!

                “You want to abolish individual stock investing”

                Correct: the capitalisation of a business is a matter for the customer-base not the activist investor community.

                “abolish most consumer goods”

                Pretty much yes. Think the Iranian Revolution on steroids. We do not benefit from kids playing video games for hours every day and we do not benefit from people living on their mobile devices.

                A healthy society is not centred around consumer choices.

                This is not the cartoon you would have us believe: it’s the world European Christendom enjoyed for hundreds of years – high quality, durable possessions to treasure and retain in the family for generations, combined with high quality home made clothing and food, and a society that values the spiritual and artistic life.

                “abolish resteraunts”

                People should eat at home. Wives should be loving cooks and husbands should love their wives’ cooking.
                Insofar as restaurants are needed, these should be small family businesses providing the same kind of cooking as people experience at home, perhaps at a higher standard if this idea has any meaning at all.

                “fix permanently high interest rates causing a deflationary depression”

                100% correct. Gently falling prices and each generation wealthier than the one before, at the level of ordinary people, without the need for constant bickering over slices of ‘the pie’.

                “have the priesthood meddle in all businesses that still survive your insane policies”

                If by ‘the priesthood’ you mean the state then yes and if by ‘meddle’ you mean ‘tell the difference between a whorehouse and a shirt factory’ then yes.

                “Your economy would look something like North Korea’s very soon.”

                That’s the problem: international sanctions and the impossibility of Juche.
                Goodwill would be required from nations we’d need resources from. An example might be oil or fruits like bananas, but at a push, the suet pudding society isn’t so bad, and we won’t need anywhere near as much oil in any case.

                Juche for the continent of Europe plus North America is not the same thing as Juche for half of the Korean peninsula.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Juche doesn’t lead to a good economy and never has.

                  A good healthy society has resteraunts taverns and dance halls because people need to get out and socialize.

                  It just needs to abolish feminists, single women, and have better music then what we have now.

                  Individual stock investing is the best thing in the world for the common man willing to apply himself to studying it, I was a lower middle class schmoe until recently but I invested EVERYTHING for years into AMRN stock. Now I’m retiring at the end of the month.

                  I’m not suited to corporate politics, I’m not suited to starting my own business because I can’t imagine being good dealing with customers (being an unironic sperg). Now I’m semi-rich anyway and this is just the beginning.

                • alf says:

                  > People should eat at home.

                  Such an asshole thing to say.

                  > Insofar as restaurants are needed, these should be small family businesses.

                  Evil capitalist restaurant owner: Comrade Revolutionary, I would like to hire a cook because customers don’t like my wife’s cooking.
                  CR: NO The Central Planning Bureau will not allow it. It is for your own good.

                • The Cominator says:

                  So in endorsing “White Juche” do you admit that my original assessment of you as basically something close to a Stalinist or a Strasserite is essentially correct?

                  I’m not a Jim sychophant either (hes a brilliant guy) but I’ve argued with him strongly on a few points.

                  1. I don’t think making adultery a death penalty matter even if left to private discretion is a good idea. A horsewhipping at the offended husband’s discretion for both parties, nothing more.

                  2. I have a more humane attitude to illegitimate children once born (Jim lets not repeat this argument here)… though agree with Jim that things should be changed to reduce the amount of insignificant children to an insignificant amount.

                  3. He seems to be opposed to the 1830’s reform allowing general incorporation. I think general incorporation is great and industrilization would not have occurred without it.

                • jim says:

                  3. [Jim] seems to be opposed to the 1830’s reform allowing general incorporation. I think general incorporation is great and industrilization would not have occurred without it.

                  At present, to operate a business you need a hundred approvals from a hundred authorities, and if you fail to get even one of these approvals, you are out of business. And you have to get these approvals over and over again.

                  Obviously, need to replace that with a system where you submit your whole business plan to one authority, and that authority can say yea or nay to the whole business plan. And if that authority says yea, you can then do business without further impediments, and you don’t need to mess with the bureaucracy again unless you need to change your business plan.

                  Such a system is necessarily going to look a whole lot like things did before the 1830s reform.

                  So, did the system before 1830 obstruct industrialization? Well obviously we were industrializing well before 1830, so in this sense no.

                  The first steam railway was created using the corporate form. They did not seem to have had any big problem getting their business plan approved, so the pre 1830 system does not seem to have obstructed their access to capital.

                  On the other hand James Watt’s company was a partnership, rather than employing the corporate form, so maybe had incorporation been easier, James Watt would have had easier access to capital. Or maybe it was just simply that there was an existing privately owned business with the necessary capabilities and the necessary capital, so Watt decided to go with the partnership form rather than the corporate form because the business was right there and operating.

                  The fact that James Watt was able to cut a pretty good deal indicates that access to capital was not a problem for him, so the fact that he chose the partnership form rather than the joint stock for profit corporate form is not necessarily an indication that the pre-1830 restrictions on the corporate form were an impediment to him.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “A good healthy society has resteraunts taverns and dance halls because people need to get out and socialize.”

                  This is what’s known in the trade as question-begging.
                  People need to get out and socialise. They do not need to do it by singing the birthday song at Franky&Benny’s and paying the Americans £70 for hot dog and chips so they can give it to the wogs.

                  ” I invested EVERYTHING for years into AMRN stock. Now I’m retiring at the end of the month.”

                  Bully for you. It’s nice when the good guys win inside an evil system sometimes. You’re not typical. Soros and Gates are.

                  Alf:

                  “(me)>People should eat at home.

                  (Alf):Such an asshole thing to say.”

                  People should eat at home. Wives should lovingly cook and husbands should love them for it.

                  “I would like to hire a cook”

                  Sometimes the high achievers in society need a staff to take care of those things while the family take care of more important things. There’s not the slightest thing wrong with that.
                  In fact we need a good deal more of it.

                  Servant staff yes, restaurant lifestyle no.

                  Cominator:

                  “So in endorsing “White Juche” do you admit that my original assessment of you as basically something close to a Stalinist or a Strasserite is essentially correct?”

                  Closer to an Ezra Pound type of guy, but yes I endorse white Juche in the limited senses described tonight vis-a-vis the financial system.
                  The other name for such an approach is “anti-usury”, which prevailed throughout the golden age of Christendom until a certain someone let a certain someones back in.

                  @Adultery&Illegitimacy, I tend to see that the way you tend to see healthy life habits of saving and clean frugal living: restoration first, these things follow.
                  Clearly if the divorce laws were written by the more bigoted realistic MRAs, this would be a huge step in the right direction.
                  @the slaughter of bastards: no need whatsoever. There are plenty of barren women who, in a healthy society, would be more than happy to take them in.

                  @industrialisation: the results speak for themselves. I’m with Jim lol
                  (except I’d get rid of non-general incorporation as well. Incorporation for legal purposes yes; incorporation for open capitalisation at random by the ebb and flow of sentiment and activist investors’ malice, absolutely not, never.)

                • alf says:

                  As is usual, you are not listening. I was talking about small restaurant owners wanting to hire a cook, not rich people hiring a personal cook, referring to the very blurred line between ‘small family restaurant’ and ‘restaurant’, which in your dystopic vision will no doubt be fairly decided by the Central Planning Bureau, for each individual restaurant.

                  Though it seems that by now your position has become: no restaurants at all. I am unsure which position is more insane.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Sorry, wasn’t my intention to misrepresent you.

                  Can small family restaurants hire a cook? Of course. It’s not the state’s business to tell any business how it should go about the administration of its activities. That stuff has to totally end.
                  The state’s role in someone else’s business is very tiny: allow it, and if necessary withdraw that permission.

                  I think what’s at the root of the disagreements about restaurants is that you lot think there’s no practical difference between a family business cooking shepherd’s pie for local people and a global corporation pushing fat&sugar-laced swill from a twenty thousand miles away, overcharging for the privilege and then using the profits to support left-wing causes.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Corruption in food ingredients in the US leading to fat people is due to corrupt regulators in thrall to the corn lobby.

                  American food companies generally are FORCED to use High Fructose Corn Syrup (much more fattening then normal sugar) as a sweetener by the FDA rather then real sugar (which isn’t as bad).

                  Restoration would have much less regulations and not allow rent seeking lobbies. After the Ivy League social science buildings are burned to the ground by Trump’s Imperial troops K-Street will also be burned to the ground by Trump’s imperial troops.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Absolutely.

                  But why should small family businesses not have the opportunity to serve the local communities they fully understand and are part of, instead of every village on Earth being subject to one size fits all foreign corporations run for the benefit of global cosmopolitan élites?

                  We owe them precisely nothing.

                  By the way, Hang Send, SSE and the NikkeiDow are crashing as we speak.

                  Expect an interesting day.

                  I’m afraid Britain isn’t going to make things any better. Mrs May has been humiliated once again as her partners in government have now bailed on the Irish border issue.

                  You can probably predict my solution to the Irish slash gypsy problem, and it involves neither baking nor lampshades, just a big beautiful wall and a lot of ferry tickets.

                • alf says:

                  > It’s not the state’s business to tell any business how it should go about the administration of its activities. That stuff has to totally end.

                  You say regulation has to end, yet propose tons of regulation, including:
                  – banning restaurant chains (I guess this means no one can own more than 1 restaurant?)
                  – banning unhealthy food (will you use some caloric measure? pizza is out, I guess fastfood is out too, will hipster burger restaurants still be allowed? Will they need a government seal of approval?)
                  – the remaining restaurants must provide the same kind of cooking experience people have at home (so, interior design regulation? Must have a tv?)

                  All these regulations do not seem right-wing to me in the slightest. Seems entirely socialist.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “By the way, Hang Send, SSE and the NikkeiDow are crashing as we speak.”

                  My money is 98% in AMRN the correction is not impacting me and will not impact me.

                  AMRN will be 60-100 a share by the end of the year no matter what happens to the overall market.

                • alf says:

                  > – the remaining restaurants must provide the same kind of cooking experience people have at home

                  Must occasionally serve food 2 hours late because at home I sometimes promise to cook but forget and end up serving dinner hours late ?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Alf exposes himself as a true blue libertarian:

                  “– banning restaurant chains (I guess this means no one can own more than 1 restaurant?)”

                  lolololol because McDonald’s and KFC were just little corner diners ten years ago and they got big because people loved their wholesome local flavour

                  But laying the laughter aside for a second, why SHOULD someone own more than 1 restaurant? A restaurant is a stand-in for the family home. It makes perfect sense for one restaurant to map to one family.
                  As Bastiat said, you must consider the unseen as well as the seen: for every family that owns and runs two restaurants, that’s one restaurant the market wants that another family should be running but isn’t. (Actually he would insist on ‘could’ rather than ‘should’ but then he doesn’t see any moral valence to ‘economics’ because he’s a Whig who just wants to end authority’s power over business in favour of anarchy.)

                  “– banning unhealthy food (will you use some caloric measure? pizza is out, I guess fastfood is out too, will hipster burger restaurants still be allowed? Will they need a government seal of approval?)”

                  No need to ban unhealthy food. Normal family restaurants would never make it in the first place. It’s not even cheaper. Those corn syrup foods are partly the result of long distance, homogenised recipes and ingredients.
                  A family would cook from simple whole foods and get better results. No need to either ban or regulate the recipes.
                  WOW so CR believes in a self-regulating free market after all? Kinda. Praxeologically I see no incentive to use corn syrop for family home cooking when there’s perfectly good sugar beet fields at hand.

                  “– the remaining restaurants must provide the same kind of cooking experience people have at home (so, interior design regulation? Must have a tv?)”

                  Not sure where this came from. It’s more likely the other way round: the experience of having been a wife and mother is what makes a chef a good cook.
                  WOW WAIT ALARM BELLS: most chefs would be women instead of faggots?
                  You bet!

                  “All these regulations do not seem right-wing to me in the slightest. Seems entirely socialist.”

                  Because you’re a libertarian who thinks the most right-wing thing in the world is to legalise heroin and abolish speed bumps.

                • jim says:

                  > why SHOULD someone own more than 1 restaurant?

                  Because he is better at it.

                  I see a priest coveting and envying the status of a merchant.

                  Come the restoration, priests are going to have to stick to being priests. Which will probably look like hard core libertarianism to you, because anything that undermines priestly status looks like hard core libertarianism to you.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Well I’d rather you push Amarin than First Finance lol

                  It’s a bubble stock though. Their fundamentals are horrible. I wasn’t following them so this is the first I’ve seen but their revenue and profitability are bad.

                  The GREAT thing about them is that they’re anti-debt, which is ironic considering our conversation.

                  Mind you, I’m not saying that being anti-debt is a panacea for public companies. Greggs the bakers is the same story and they’ll be gone within five years.

                  Like yourself, I am not a financial advisor, and my recommendation (to go to cash and buy as many essential and replacement goods as you can before the inflation hits, while ignoring the temptation to put much, if anything, into gold or anything into crypto or emerging markets) should not be taken as if it were financial advice.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Must occasionally serve food 2 hours late because at home I sometimes promise to cook but forget and end up serving dinner hours late ?”

                  Sounds fine, at home at least! That wouldn’t fly in a professional capacity but who cares – not everything’s about professional capacities.

                  In a healthy society where far more people worked in the production of essential goods and far fewer worked in services, the average number of hours worked per week would doubtless be much lower.

                  We wouldn’t all be so paranoid about the time if we weren’t slaving to pay off our mounting debts and ‘save up’ for the next holiday abroad.

                  (£1 per mile air levy, per person, each way)

                • The Cominator says:

                  “It’s a bubble stock though. Their fundamentals are horrible. I wasn’t following them so this is the first I’ve seen but their revenue and profitability are bad.”

                  Bwahahaha drug has no side effects. Will show stat sig in cardiac death and all cause mortality at the AHA conference November 10th… also its good for dry eyes.

                  The operative phrases will “standard of care” and “malpractice”.

                  Patient market will be 90 million in the US alone. Their problem will be supplying it. Still next year should have 10-20 million patients. 400-800 dollars…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The seen and the unseen.

                  You see the guy who hubristically makes himself a superstar because he can pull a tray out of an oven on time while bullying the pot wash, but you do not see the perfectly adequate woman who can make a traditional shepherd’s pie or jam roly-poly or roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.

                  If there are twenty and the quality varies, is that a better, more vibrant society than one in which there are twenty outlets of the identical flash restaurant where a virtuoso shows how creative and talented he is before getting bummed in the bogs?

                  I say yes. Give me Great Yarmouth sea front with twenty different versions of spotted dick and toad in the hole.
                  Some are better than others but that’s the whole joy of trying them all over time.

                  It’s a romantic vision, the opposite of the cut-throat dog-eat-dog world of global capitalism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  (last comment was @ Jim saying one genius should have two places instead of two merely adequate practitioners having a chance in the world – capitalism 101)

                  @the drug thing, I hope you’re right. You having money is better than Warren Buffet having money, because you don’t give it to the Democrats and you don’t agitate publicly for higher marginal income tax rates.

                • alf says:

                  OK so only 1 regulation:
                  – A man may own no more than 1 restaurant.

                  Fair enough. Pretty revolutionary, but fair enough.

                  > No need to ban unhealthy food.

                  Judging from the success of McDonald’s there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that people will not replicate that business model on individual level: fries with lotsa salt, burgers with lotsa fat, soda with lotsa sugar. You will have fastfood chains back before you can say ‘muh healthy ingredients’, only this time they’ll be called ‘MukDeenalds’ ‘M C Don’ ‘MackyDee’ or whatever individual dogwhistle name owners can come up with.

                  A related problem is the food source. What if the cheapest supplier for all these burgers is the exact same company that supplied McDonald’s? They don’t care if they have 1 big customer or 100.000 small ones. What will you do with them?

                  > the experience of having been a wife and mother is what makes a chef a good cook.
                  WOW WAIT ALARM BELLS: most chefs would be women instead of faggots?
                  You bet!

                  My experience is that while women make better cooks at home, men make better cooks at restaurants.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  If there are twenty and the quality varies, is that a better, more vibrant society than one in which there are twenty outlets of the identical flash restaurant where a virtuoso shows how creative and talented he is

                  You do know that Harrison Bergeron not only was a satire but was also a satire of leftism, right?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Alf makes the following empirical prediction:

                  “fries with lotsa salt, burgers with lotsa fat, soda with lotsa sugar” [are a Dennettian free-floating rationale: they’re just waiting to be discovered and re-discovered because they genuinely are a beautiful recipe for Great food]

                  Well so says you. Do you have a pet theory as to why they didn’t emerge a thousand years earlier, given that the technology to do it was there all along?

                  I expect this boils down to one of those ‘downstream’ arguments: does a certain culture produce that stuff vs Mrs Beeton, or does junk food produce a certain culture…. I don’t honestly know, and if it turns out you’re right, well it’s not the end of the world.

                  At least those family businesses would not be able to charge £30+ a head for that garbage and send the money to the wogs.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  @Steve’s Vonnegut comparison

                  I don’t know why you read what I said that way, but I’m more than willing to accept *that* you read it that way.

                  I’m not claiming that the lady who makes an adequate shepherd’s pie is the culinary equal of the queer who just makes it melt in your mouth, the sheer salty, meaty delight of his giaynius…….

                  I suppose what I’m saying is do we really need giaynius cookery? Is gourmét all it’s cracked up to be?
                  What’s wrong with plain, simple food?

                  It’s not that everyone’s equal: believe me, you’d know if it was ME what cooked it cos it’d taste like dogsmuck.

                • alf says:

                  > At least those family businesses would not be able to charge £30+ a head for that garbage and send the money to the wogs.

                  If they end up buying food from the same supplier that supplied McDonald’s, and that supplier sends money to the wogs, nothing will change. You will have to come down on the suppliers as well, e.g. farmers.

                  With farmers it will be harder than restaurant owners. A farmer may own only 1 farm, sure, but how big? Shall he have an animal limit? Say 50 cows with a minimum of 10 square metres per cow?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*fake claim of consensus deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Typical leftwing argument: Everyone agrees, therefore you should to.

                  Works on left wingers. Does not work on us.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Alf asks a very good question:

                  “If they end up buying food from the same supplier that supplied McDonald’s, and that supplier sends money to the wogs, nothing will change. You will have to come down on the suppliers as well, e.g. farmers.

                  With farmers it will be harder than restaurant owners. A farmer may own only 1 farm, sure, but how big? Shall he have an animal limit? Say 50 cows with a minimum of 10 square metres per cow?”

                  Very good question.

                  I know you were making a reductio ad absurdum but it’s worthy of an answer actually and I’ll tell you why:

                  When poor Mollie Tibbetts was sacrificed by her family, the alien’s employer turned out to be a farmer and GOP donor/activist. He benefited greatly from the cheap labour and its effects on local labour.

                  Farming is not free of globohomo incentives and influences.

                  It may well be that the factors of production need to be NATIONALISED (Jim’ll love that!!!!!!) but sold on a for profit basis in a totally free market. (Don’t protest about monopolies because libertarians don’t care about monopolies, only about state intervention, and this is a non-price-fixed free market in the factors of production that just happens to be OWNED by the state, so no possibility of shenanigans.)

                  That state of affairs would of course be lifted once the danger was over, and there may be better solutions.

                  I’m not a genius central planner. I’m not going to be part of this government I’m describing.

                  Something definitely does need to be done though to prevent donations going abroad, and it may well be that once THAT’s shut down, and IF your prediction about junk food’s true, THEN the problem would pretty much solve itself.

                  (Funny how it always comes back to restaurants. I didn’t expect you guys to be big diners out, always thought that was for low IQ plebs with big overdrafts.)

                  Anyway night!

                • jim says:

                  > I know you were making a reductio ad absurdum but it’s worthy of an answer actually and I’ll tell you why:

                  Not a reductio ad absurdum. If you introduce one control, you have to introduce another control, and eventually you have to pour gasoline over the kulak’s children and set them on fire.

                  One socialist intervention creates the need for another socialist intervention, and with each intervention everything gets more complicated, more bureaucratic, gets buried deeper in red tape, and it gets harder to get anything done. Worse, power slides from the top to lower level bureaucrats, resulting in anarcho tyranny, as illustrated by the US health care system.

                  As everything uncontrollably gets ever more complicated, you have a thousand little emperors in place of one emperor, and when you have a thousand little emperors, you get mobile banditry in place of stationary banditry.

                  As I explained in “Throne, Altar, and Freehold”, any intervention in the free market attempts to deal with an externality, therefore connects one thing to another thing, therefore you wind up connecting everything to everything else, and you necessarily wind up with full bore socialism, starvation, and mass murder.

                  Stalin avoided full on Pol Potism by relying on criminals and feudalism to operate the economy, with the central plan increasingly being a mere pretense. The Washington bureaucracy remains well short of Pol Potism because strangled, paralyzed, and immobilized in its own red tape.

                  Such systems drift into feudalism, because feudalism gets stuff done when nothing else can get stuff done. If they don’t drift into feudalism, if they push on trying to make socialism actually work, then at best Venezuela, at worst Cambodia.

                  The current state of Washington is chaotic and paralyzed. We just don’t realize it because we have forgotten how a well functioning society works.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’ll put that a slightly different way – had to mention Hang Seng now 1% down and Nikkei 1.4% down. Won’t sleep well, but hey ho.

                  Anyway yes I’ll put that a slightly different way: if you don’t think that farmer shares any of the responsibility for Mollie Tibbetts’ death, I don’t know what to say to you, but deep down I know you do think he does, because he clearly does.

                  This ‘importation of immigrants is just part of capitalism’ thing is a huge part of why Trump’s so important.

                • alf says:

                  OK so 2 regulations:
                  – no one owns more than 1 restaurant
                  – bio-industry and farms are nationalized (possibly temporary)

                  I dunno. Still pretty communist in my book.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Obviously, need to replace that with a system where you submit your whole business plan to one authority, and that authority can say yea or nay to the whole business plan. And if that authority says yea, you can then do business without further impediments, and you don’t need to mess with the bureaucracy again unless you need to change your business plan.

                  Such a system is necessarily going to look a whole lot like things did before the 1830s reform.”

                  Before the 1830s you had to go to the highest levels of government, the king, parliament or at least the governor. People ordinary people normally have no access to.

                  You do not need 1000 approvals to get incorporation now you 1000 enviromental code and health and safety approvals depending on what you want to do. The problem is overregulation not general incorporation.

                  Between the 1830s and the time of Woodrow Wilson in the US you needed neither approvals for incorporation nor approvals for what you wanted to do. This was also probably the most economically dynamic period of human history.

                  Getting rid of general incorporation is a horrible idea, only the very very rich or very well connected will be able to get corporate charters and everyone other business that does well be more so then now targeted by lawyers.

                  Not every reform in the 1800s was for the worse, general incorporation was for the better.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Obviously, need to replace that with a system where you submit your whole business plan to one authority, and that authority can say yea or nay to the whole business plan. And if that authority says yea, you can then do business without further impediments, and you don’t need to mess with the bureaucracy again unless you need to change your business plan.

                  > > “Such a system is necessarily going to look a whole lot like things did before the 1830s reform.”

                  > Before the 1830s you had to go to the highest levels of government, the king, parliament or at least the governor. People ordinary people normally have no access to.

                  If you form a corporation because you need some serious capital, you first ask a bunch of venture capitalists. And then, if things seem to be going good, they form your business into a for profit joint stock corporation. A bunch of venture capitalists are not ordinary people. They do have access to the highest levels of government. And this seems to have been roughly what happened with the first steam railroad.

                  The reason you go to the highest levels, is that you only need one approval once, and not a hundred approvals every year, so the sovereign does not need to delegate down to a hundred little sovereigns.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I will make a couple of exceptions where I DO think you should need approval at the highest level to form a company.

                  Banks and insurance companies and also their liability should not be so limited. Perhaps minor shareholders should have limited liability but directors and officers not so much.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most corporations are smaller then that (especially initially) and aren’t financed by billionaire VCs.

                • jim says:

                  Most corporations are not corporations, they are partnerships. Often they are not even partnerships, but sole traders.

                  The value of the corporate form is doing what only the joint stock publicly traded corporation can do, bringing together large amounts of other people’s capital and other people’s labor under the leadership of a single brilliant visionary. And these are plenty big initially and are financed by billionaire VCs.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*DELETED*]

                • jim says:

                  Reaction 101. We are always ruled by warriors or priests.

                  We are not ruled by the capitalist class.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted – because you are unfamiliar with the reactionary position on interest and usury.*]

                • jim says:

                  I will not be lectured by those that will not listen. The comments are for responses.

                • peppermint says:

                  This reminds me of when I was 25 and arguing with cute coeds about their solutions to problems that no one cares about.

                  The difference is that no matter how detailed you make your proposal about restaurant laws, I’m not going to pin you down for sexytimes.

                  You’d have better luck with the owner of a gay bar.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim,

                  Sorry to take so long to get back I went right to sleep after I got home (still working until the end of the month when I begin living the life of a gentleman).

                  Many businessmen even small see advantage in using the corporate form, it gives better protection against predatory lawyers for instance (and while I like to think the restoration will eliminate them mostly predatory lawyers were a problem back into the time of Shakespeare). Why should the corporate form be so restricted?

                  It does NOT cause the regulatory state as the regulatory state appeared 70-80 years after general incorporation became a thing.

                  In France the regulatory state appeared with Louis XIV and Colbert even BEFORE even crown corporations became a thing.

                  The solution to the regulatory state is to eliminate the regulatory state (at least wherever possible, I’m pro nuclear power plants but would not want them being built and maintained without regular inspections) not eliminating general incorporation.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m pro nuclear power plants but would not want them being built and maintained without regular inspections) not eliminating general incorporation.

                  Well I quite definitely do want them built and maintained without regular government inspections. I am quite sure the inspectors are dangerously corrupt and incompetent, and cause, rather than prevent, danger, having encountered this problem with toxic waste regulation.

                  And if we do something different from our current approach to dealing with toxic waste, it is going to look somewhat like eliminating general incorporation.

                  I absolutely do want to abolish regular government inspections in regard to toxic waste. I have theoretical grounds to expect this to be counterproductive, and have observed it being grossly counterproductive in actual practice.

            • jim says:

              > the nationalisation of the entire financial industry

              If you were not a leftist, you would know that the banking industry already has been nationalized.

              If you were listening to the people you are talking at, you would know that we propose only modest changes in this existing arrangement.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                If you were not a cuck, you’d realise that the banking industry serves its own interests and the state, which yes indeed controls and funds it, is in total alignment with those interests.

                “If you were listening to the people you are talking at, you would know that we propose only modest changes in this existing arrangement.”

                ROFL I’m fully aware of what you cucks are proposing, which is why I’m proposing an alternative.

                You think I’m here to check whether my understanding of YOUR philosophy is correct and up to date?
                I’m here to DESTROY your philosophy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You propose to destroy our philosophy with “solutions” that have consistently failed.

                  Until you can prove how your socialism is different and will actually work you will not destroy our philosophy.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s a socialism centred around the health and wealth of the nation,

                  not

                  the redistribution of power and resources until everyone’s made equal and government becomes unnecessary because the world runs like clockwork by an emergent property of magical goodness that comes from the wisdom of crowds.

                  (The end goal of anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are disturbingly identical, don’t you think?)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  To put it another way,

                  If you struggle to see the difference between a society forced to spend and a society forced to save, then you struggle to see the difference between spending and saving.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “It’s a socialism centred around the health and wealth of the nation,

                  not

                  the redistribution of power and resources until everyone’s made equal and government becomes unnecessary because the world runs like clockwork by an emergent property of magical goodness that comes from the wisdom of crowds.”

                  This is textbook Stalinism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Textbook Stalinism rewards saving and bans living beyond your means, while insisting all people are unequal.

                  I’m in. lol

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Textbook Stalinism rewards saving and bans living beyond your means, while insisting all people are unequal.”

                  There was occasional lip service paid to eventual future equality that nobody took seriously.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I was mocking you.

                  You equated my position with Stalinism so I mockingly defined Stalinism as my position in order to agree and amplify.

                  I expect Stalin was egalitarian through and through and would have agreed with Ben Bernanke and Polly Toynbee that consumption is wealth.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I expect Stalin was egalitarian through and through”

                  No Stalin would label too much emphasis on equality as left deviationism. He insisted that people in high positions earn more money, get more perks and have a better standard of living.

                  And high rankers who wanted to refuse privileges such as personal cars and nicer houses were deemed left deviationists and got their wish for a more egalitarian standard of living in Siberia.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  This socialism is different because this socialism will have good results – unlike those other socialisms which weren’t true communism. Why? What incentives exist?

                  Incentives? Only a cuck worries about incentives.

                  If anyone were ever to implement his program – which no one ever would because there’s no incentive for anyone to do so – you would rapidly find out that the long term planning needed for something as simple as milk production and cattle ranching is impossible without floating interest rates.

                  Not much of a concern for a ghoul though because they subsist on human flesh.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  @Stalin being a shitlord: certainly explains why the system fully stabilised by 1960 and ran smoothly until 1990. The main critique of the USSR in the 70s/80s was that it was ‘in a depression’ – in other words they weren’t splurging and bingeing, gorging and ripping their kitchens out to change the colour. Had the Brezhnev régime continued unchanged, they would not today have iPhones and a new plasma TV every three years. They wouldn’t go to Costa and Franky&Benny’s every day and they wouldn’t be in piles of debt for the privilege.

                  Good outcome.

                  They say the Soviets wanted what we have because they wanted the Levi’s Jeans and the Rock’N’Roll. All that says to me is the KGB didn’t clamp down hard enough on underground drug orgies of cunts listening to The Rolling Stones.

                  I bet they regret that rough trade now that they have Pussy Riot telling them they have to learn to love the trannies.
                  You wait, Putin, give it five years and you too could have giardia and Pokemon Go.

                  Steve Johnson adds:

                  “This socialism is different because this socialism will have good results – unlike those other socialisms which weren’t true communism. Why? What incentives exist?”

                  Socialism in the interests of equality, so that everyone can consume more

                  is radically different to

                  socialism in the interests of the nation, so that everyone’s differences are left alone, and consumption’s mitigated in the interests of long term investment.

                  If you can’t tell the difference between socialism for spending, and socialism for saving, then you can’t tell the difference between spending and saving.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  😐 says:

                  Socialism in the interests of equality, so that everyone can consume more

                  is radically different to

                  socialism in the interests of the nation, so that everyone’s differences are left alone, and consumption’s mitigated in the interests of long term investment.

                  What … are … the … incentives?

                  How are the incentives in your communist utopia different from past communist utopias? If the incentives for those running the government are the same the actions of that government will be the same.

                  I guess it’s predictable that someone who has no idea why contracts and property rights are important to incentivize pro-social behavior would also not understand that governments also act according to incentives.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*boring commie propaganda that we have heard before rather too many times deleted as a waste of space*]

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  If you want to be cynical about it, the people in charge will have a cut of that greater wealth that comes from long-term investment and the habit of saving.

                  Whoa – greater wealth? I don’t think so – after all you’ve been at pains to point out that business spread the poz because it’s profitable – the most profitable way to be. Consumers who spend everything are the best for the capitalist class who would all love to rule Somalia but they can’t buy in because the capitalist class there is too wealthy from having the best consumers.

                • peppermint says:

                  Does the banking industry pursue its interests, does the capitalist class, or is the capitalist class in a state of false consciousness in thrall to the banking industry?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Steve highlights an important question.

                  “Whoa – [ordinary people saving instead of spending produces] greater wealth? I don’t think so – after all you’ve been at pains to point out that business spread the poz because it’s profitable”

                  This is a crucial matter and every right-thinking person needs to get his head straight on this.

                  What IS wealth?

                  Is wealth when the corporations and making a lot of profit? Is wealth when consumers are living like lords?

                  If so, that’s a definition you share with globohomo, because that’s exactly what they mean by ‘wealth’.

                  There is a different definition: wealth is when ordinary people have quality possessions that they hand down the generations – the family silver, the sturdy oak table and chairs, the ornate gilded mirrors and picture frames, the delightful ornaments crafted by master potters.
                  The things people nowadays call ‘antiques’.

                  That comes not from taking your pay on payday and giving it to Franky & Benny’s or going off on another trip to Croatia to eat ice cream and drink bacardi whilst listening to Taylor Swift and The Beatles.

                  It comes from saving for a rainy day, and when the number and scale of rainy days pleasantly surprises you and sends you the clear message that you’ve done well with your time here on Earth, you give what you’ve made, in its entirety, to your first-born son, that your family grows ever more comfortable, more confident, more secure.

                  That’s true wealth.

                • jim says:

                  Higher quality workmanship requires a system of enforceable apprenticeship – which disempowers the priesthood.

                  Pretty sure you would not like that.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s precisely what’s needed, and the level of autonomy within those guild-style organisations will please you very much.

                  There simply is no way for high craftsmanship to exist in a liberal order.

                  This discussion’s gone on long enough and it’s distracting from the central themes of the actual articles, which is not a good thing.

                  For those interested, JF has an excellent discussion with Cultured Thug on his YouTube channel and they address these very issues.

                  watch?v=RKJFgtdXSsk

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Is wealth when consumers are living like lords?”

                  Yes.

                • peppermint says:

                  Ghouls say that true $religion calls for ordinary people to be materially harmed, theoretically in order to prove that it is truly $religion instead of self-motivated materialism, practically because it wipes away the advantages normal people have over ghouls, viz. humanity.

                  Christianity explicitly says ordinary people should materially benefit from avoiding sin, while monks should demonstrate loyalty through chastity, poverty, and obedience.

                  Communism promises future stolen goods to ordinary people, feminism stolen women, while licensing monks to steal now, if they are able.

                • alf says:

                  > For those interested, JF has an excellent discussion with Cultured Thug on his YouTube channel and they address these very issues.

                  The endless fame whoring and name-dropping is another signature leftist tell.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s just snobbery Alf.

                  You wouldn’t apply that principle to published writers. You just hold livestream YouTubers to a different standard.

                  Sure a whole lot of content being produced that way is utter drivel, but that’s always been true of books and academic papers too.

                  The point is that people seem to be demonstrating an ongoing wish to discuss the merits of spending vs saving, the reasons why corporations ought to be allowed to sell things that stuck up conservatives find obnoxious, and so on, and on, and those two guys do a pretty decent job getting to the heart of precisely those matters.

                  There’s little to be gained listening to a leftist vs a libertarian because there’s so little we can relate to from the leftist that it makes us automatically side with the libertarian. That means we leave unquestioned any areas where we might have deep disagreements with him.

                  The case of a sincere, serious and thoughtful third positionist in intellectually honest discussion with a sincere, serious and thoughtful classical liberal is very good for poking at the sensitive spots in the rightist philosophical body.

                  Nobody’s forcing you to tune in but what I’ve been saying for a while is that this conversation’s no longer productive on this platform. On the contrary the net product lately is distraction from the topic the host intends to occupy our thoughts. That’s not useful.

                • peppermint says:

                  How about, instead of claiming that an argument exists elsewhere, as communists do, you present an argument, as reactionaries do?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The Cominator boldly makes the case for a high consumption society:

                  ““Is wealth when consumers are living like lords?”

                  Yes.”

                  Suffice to say I disagree as a matter of taste and would predict that over the long haul, families that live the high life tend to get steadily poorer, but what’s interesting is where your position leaves you.

                  What, ultimately, is your disagreement with globohomo?
                  I know you disagree with them about sexual freedom and I expect you disagree with them about the proper role of government and regulation in general.

                  But how can you really oppose their desired goals in terms of economics?
                  Surely (DING!) anything that can be done to promote a ‘wealthy’ society is an opportunity worth taking?
                  I mean you’re not a principled libertarian who says “even though it be good, my hands are tied by the NAP”…. or are you?

                • jim says:

                  Your planned poverty is the poverty of East Germany: Ugly, hateful, degrading, and dehumanizing. East Germany turned Germans into wiggers – short time preference, criminal and lazy. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”.

                  The planned poverty of East Germany gave East Germans bad teeth, bad character, and bad human relationships, resulting in reproductive failure.

                  Your planned poverty is is the ugliness, degradation, and violence of English housing estates and the killing fields of the English National Health service.

                  The old regime did not have superior workmanship because poor. It had superior workmanship because it had enforceable apprenticeship. We plan to bring back enforceable apprenticeship.

                • alf says:

                  > That’s just snobbery Alf.
                  > You wouldn’t apply that principle to published writers. You just hold livestream YouTubers to a different standard.

                  I hold livestream youtubers to the exact same standards to which I hold published writers, and I would’ve called you a fame whore and name-dropper just the same whether you linked youtubers or published writers.

                  Also, the people you link belong to a wider alt-right-ish umbrella. They tend to be easier to listen to than the average NPC, but still not wholly this audience’s shibboleths.

                  There is some snobbery involved though. My general thought process is: if the intellectuals you link are so smart, why aren’t they posting on this blog?

                • Koanic says:

                  3SD is quite a fee.

                  Observe the queers denied entry.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Much repeated Lies about the reactionary position deleted without response.

                • jim says:

                  Our position has been made entirely clear far too many times. We want to conquer the universe, therefore capital accumulation needs to be rewarded and encouraged You covet and envy merchant status, therefore are full of clever rationales for destroying capital and destroying those that accumulate capital.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  (and for those who think I’m equivocating on E.Germany, to be totally clear I remain convinced that I’d rather live in 1981 DDR than 2017 BRD. It turns out that having a lower standard of consumption-living is less important than having a homogeneous, relatively low crime rate society. Just so it’s clear I’m not going back on that by calling the DDR ‘some communist planned economy’. Their economics MAY have been wrong, but their social environment was relatively healthy by modern standards.)

                • jim says:

                  East Germans were wiggers, to some extent still are wiggers, and anything not nailed down was apt to walk. In that sense, was an extremely high crime society.

                  There was also an extremely high level of distrust – they would rat each other out the secret police as well as stealing each other’s stuff.

                • peppermint says:

                  If they can accumulate antiques, can they also build and pass down unique houses?

        • The Cominator says:

          CR writes ” The Dark Enlightenment, fake reactionary take is strangely the same as the libertarian take: the free market should ideally set interest rates because interest rates are the price of money over time and sound economies are built on the appropriate, not inappropriate, use of debt. We’re living in a debt-fuelled bubble but a healthy society would use debt in a responsible manner.”

          The Dark Enlightenment/NRx take on banking currency and interest rates is that a free market in such things doesn’t exist, never existed (at least not for long) and cannot possibly exist for long. NRx opposes total government control of community banking but thinks government control of central banking is inevitable. NRx opposes the currency being based on debt which is the main problem with the Fed (and if normies understood it most likely would revolt).

          Trump rightly views the Fed as sabotaging him because they are acting as an arm of the permanent government and international banks. Unlike Reagan though Trump isn’t going to tolerate it.

          Trump’s position on the Fed is consistent (as are his positions on most things) with the NRx position because I think Trump is very close to being one of us and some of the people around him are us (Peter Theil and Erik Prince are known to have read the Open Letter)… your position is the straight Marxist position that ALL banking should be controlled by the state.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Cominator correctly writes:

            “Trump rightly views the Fed as sabotaging him because they are acting as an arm of the permanent government and international banks. Unlike Reagan though Trump isn’t going to tolerate it.

            Trump’s position on the Fed is consistent (as are his positions on most things) with the NRx position because I think Trump is very close to being one of us and some of the people around him are us (Peter Theil and Erik Prince are known to have read the Open Letter)… your position is the straight Marxist position that ALL banking should be controlled by the state.”

            Correct, correct and correct.

            The only thing I’d raise an eyebrow about is the idea that Trump won’t tolerate the Fed’s actions. That’s not yet clear but I genuinely hope you’re right.

            An NRx Trump forcing the Fed to bend to his will would be preferable to a Ron Paul free market in money.

            Nevertheless, what you describe, as I predicted, as the Marxist position, is in fact the correct position: if you want long-term saving and non-bubble investment then you have to have permanently nationalised banking with permanently fixed prices.

            Savers need to be able to plan for their entire life, so the rate of return on savings has to be either permanently fixed to a particular nominal rate (my guess is around 2%) or else pegged to the cost of living as measured by a basket of normal people’s finished goods – again inflation plus around 2%.

            Businesses need to be utterly free of the business cycle. Every loan made needs to be 100% collateralised on a purely ‘first charge’ basis and instead of a percentage, the bank should charge a fee, to avoid preferential treatment creating distortions in the economy.

            To ENTIRELY avoid ‘term transformation’, all savings must be time-bound on a very long-term basis, perhaps as much as 25 years, with the option of shorter term products on a fixed term cash deposit bond type of basis at a lower rate of return.

            The government debt market should be abolished in its entirely, along with all forms of consumer credit.

            We do not need to solve the problem of what kind of debt-based society works most efficiently and we do not need to solve the problem of how the interest rates are best priced.

            Society must NOT be driven by debt and interest rates must NOT change.

          • jim says:

            > The Dark Enlightenment/NRx take on banking currency and interest rates is that a free market in such things doesn’t exist, never existed (at least not for long) and cannot possibly exist for long

            Exactly so, but CR, on past performance, is not going to listen. He is here to lecture us on the left position, not hear or uderstand the reactionary position, and because he is here, he is going to tell us it the left position is the reactionary position, and if on a libertarian blog, would tell them it is the libertarian position.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              I’m fully aware of Moldbug’s ‘term transformation’ thing. Fractional reserve ends up borrowing short and lending long. Moldbug just gives it a new name.

              What I’m proposing is not even necessarily ‘reactionary’ in the 21st century sense, though it’s clearly reactionary in the sense of ‘resembling how things used to be before progress occurred’.

              What I’m proposing is the abolition of not only fractional reserve banking and indeed commercial banking of all kinds, but also usury itself, as well as the very concept of a price of interest that changes.

              The question Moldbug seeks to answer is how best to price that changing interest rate. I’m saying DON’T TRY: just fix it permanently and never have it change.

              Abolish all forms of consumer credit and outlaw usury on business loans, replacing it with a national socialist system of ‘social credit’ in which businesses (including the state) take out 100% collateralised loans on a fee-paying basis.

              The treasury bond market also should be abolished root and branch, so the contemporary concept of ‘central banking’ is utterly irrelevant, as is ‘a free market in money’ or any other system centred around a debt-driven society.

              We do not NEED a debt-driven society. We need SAVING and investment, in that order.

              • peppermint says:

                After the sodomites, adulterers, whores, black-guardians, and virtue signalers are dismissed, the last wave to be sent against civilization will be pseudo-nationalists and pseudo-reactionaries calling for reintroduction or de novo introduction of redistribution for pretended nationalist reasons, not so much for the purpose of getting their bizarre conflicting individual proposals implemented, but to spread doubt and paralyze the people so that fewer can be saved.

                • Koanic says:

                  The Biblical solution to Constant Reruns is “A rod for the fool’s back.”

              • James says:

                Although I appreciate most of NRx thought and a lot of what Moldbug taught (such as the fixed quantity of “Sols”), I don’t see how a single, permanently fixed interest rate really services society. Interest should be based on some kind of underlying thermodynamic and/or time-preference reality. For instance, if the thermodynamic return for installing wind farms is 4%, it makes sense to make national interest 4%, as returns which exceed 4% exceed simply building more wind mills. Returns which are less than 4% do not.

                On the other hand, if those returns fall (because the choicest spot for installing windmills are taken up, or there is excess power), then it is appropriate for interest to fall.

                An interest rate that is too high will inevitably result in over-saving that ultimately can’t be cashed out. An interest rate that is too low will result in deprivation and undercapacity, and ultimately inflation. Pegging a single, unchanging interest rate just doesn’t reflect that fact that time preferences or thermodynamic, real returns can and do change as resources are consumed, technology improves, and population dynamics change.

                Centrally managed money has major advantaged over free market money in that the money supply can be expanded or contracted to meet current need for money. IMO, there is a range of appropriate NRx responses to this reality. My personal favorite one is that the bank is openly owned and that the seniorage for that bank is publicly known to be property of a single individual or organization whose membership is entirely public and transparent, ideally the sovereign.

                • The Cominator says:

                  James CR’s proposals aren’t NRx they are marxism.

                • Koanic says:

                  Best solution is capitalist interest rates with jubilees to limit the madness.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Although I appreciate most of NRx thought and a lot of what Moldbug taught (such as the fixed quantity of “Sols”), I don’t see how a single, permanently fixed interest rate really services society.

                  That’s because you don’t look at things like an insane communist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Only just saw this autistic libertarian shitpost.

                  You’re missing the point of course, like all of your kind.

                  The point is for society to NOT be run on debt.

                  Yes Mises and his Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains how a society run on debt could run with a reduced (free market interest rates), greatly reduced (free market in money, period) or eradicated (100% reserve banking) risk of boom&bust.

                  That’s completely irrelevant because it assumes that a society run on debt is a good thing.

                  No, it’s a very bad thing. Government debt’s bad. Consumer debt’s bad. Student debt’s bad. Auto-loans are bad. Peer-to-peer lending is bad. Payday loans are bad.
                  Corporate debt is bad.

                  It’s all bad.

                  Saving is better than spending, but you ‘reactionaries’ are on the side of spending being better than saving, because you’re Whigs.

                  More precisely you’re 1820 Whigs, supporters of exporting the American Revolution to the whole of Europe.
                  Do away with the silly interference of Lords and just let business leaders shape society by algorithm.

                  It’s Carlyle’s ‘phantom captain’ and it needs to be completely undone.

                • jim says:

                  Repetitious commie crap unworthy of reply.

                  You robotically invoke the names of Mises etc as cheer symbols, assuming we will cheer for them automatically, while you display a complete lack of awareness of both their thought and our thought.

                  Next post that uses a cheer symbol name without awareness of the cheer symbol’s thoughts and arguments will be deleted for empty name dropping.

                  This crap is similar to Derrida name dropping “the Einsteinian constant” pretending a familiarity with physics while revealing he lacked it.

                  You pretend a familiarity with libertarian thought that you lack. You are a Marxist who is unaware of the critiques of Marxism.

                  As ex libertarians, we know what is wrong with Marxism. You don’t, but you name drop the people who made those critiques.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s just a transparent lie.

                  Mises tells us that if the prevailing interest rates are left to the operation of the free market, the price of credit will harmonise perfectly with the prevailing conditions in society.
                  If consumers are spending all they have then the banks (esp. under full reserve banking, but even under frac.res.) will have to entice them to spend more, which means higher rates across the board because what they pay savers they must recoup from borrowers.
                  These high rates deter businesses from borrowing to invest in future-oriented projects because the longer the term of the loan, the higher the total cost of the debt.

                  Conversely, if consumers already have a large body of saved spending power and are waiting to deploy it but nothing’s as yet tempting them, then the market’s screaming out for additional things that might take a while to produce. The banks don’t need to chase savers so the rates fall and businesses calculate that the cost of financing long-term projects is now low enough to be viable so they spring into action.

                  This harmony spreads out even as far as trucking and construction resources such as wood. If everything’s already being deployed for finished goods in the existing economy and everyone’s buying it all then the high interest rates prevent additional demand from being placed on these already in demand goods and services, thereby preventing unnecessary malinvestment in those areas.

                  When the central planners centrally plan the cost of debt, they disrupt this process, leading people to train to become lorry drivers, stores to open new branches and companies to experiment in higher quality/complexity of goods to tempt savings that in fact do not exist.

                  This I summarised by referring simply to Mises’ ABCT, and everyone knew what I was talking about without having to spell it out.

                  Your pretence at ignorance is just a waste of bandwidth and your lies are just proof that you’re not arguing in good faith.

                  What you’re doing is attempting to keep everyone within the bounds of the kosher sandwich: don’t like leftists? Must love capitalists; don’t like capitalists? Must love leftists.

                  The goyim know, (((Jim)))

      • glosoli says:

        >What I said in that comment was obviously true, and no could possibly deny it unless motivated by left wing politics or hatred of Trump and hatred of people who wear MAGA hats, since I was recycling a standard Trump/MAGA meme.

        The only things that gets in the way of your version of the truth on this matter is facts.

        https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/8/35536545_15021500233894_rId9.jpg

        Under Obama, post-crisis, no one wanted to take risk, hence the economy was very shaky, and money sought the security of USTs. As the chart above shows, when the Fed stopped buying USTs via QE, rates fell, not rose. By buying USTs, the Fed was raising rates under Obama, but the market priced rates lower when the Fed stopped buying. Obama was a commie, it’s not a surprise that business retrenched, demand for money was at a crawl, rates stayed low, the Fed tried to juice the economy, get rates higher, failed, as they don’t control the curve, big money does, the market does.

        Under Trump, big bid for equities, lots of credit creation, lots of demand for money, business booming, no surprise that rates begin to rise. The Fed is just following the economy, following the market.

        Sadly, the US FedGov is so heavily indebted that it cannot stand higher rates. Even today’s ‘high rates’ are c. 2-3% lower than they were in 2006. Ponder that.

        All of what you wrote Jim was false, not factual, not true, not supported by what happened under Obama, nor by what is happening now.

        You are so wedded to your Joo-created theory, you will no doubt continue to deny facts that are plain to see, easy to understand. Your sheep-like followers might pause to consider the facts, up to them.

        Did Moldbug advocate for Biblical rules on business and lending I wonder, to include banning usury and debt jubliee, and no trade deals with non-Christian nations? I doubt that he did.

        • peppermint says:

          > Even today’s ‘high rates’ are c. 2-3% lower than they were in 2006. Ponder that.

          Low and high are based on Glosoli’s standards, not the economy as it is.

          Interpretation of the Bible, ditto.

          • glosoli says:

            Just pull up a chart of the history of interest rates in the US over the past 200 years to determine ‘low’ or ‘high’.

            I’ll save you the trouble: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/12/20131220_bonds.jpg

            Currently very low (3.16%), because the market knows the shit’s about to hit the fan, but doesn’t see the looming inflationary shock.

            I meant to ask you, what caused you to shift from mocking ChristCucks to apparent faith? Glad to see it of course.

            Don’t worry about me, but thanks for the advice.

            • peppermint says:

              This community, across all its websites, had a religious debate, and events have proven the nationalists right and the wignats wrong: Ireland, Austria and Bavaria, Hungary and Poland, at least, are likely to remain Catholic, and recognize Francis as an antipope, while that TWP weirdo is not and never was Orthodox.

              Progressive and Boomer “Christians” are so are so weak now that claiming to be Christian no longer feeds them. Instead of burning down their bizarre mockeries of churches as materially insulting to our heritage, we need to focus on the next threat: CR pretending to be a Christian and claiming that the true Early Church was communist and iconoclastic meaning against nice things or whatever other unreasonable demands make him temporarily feel good about himself until he needs more.

              Proximally, Koanic’s behavior was such that if I insulted him I would look like a faggot.

              • glosoli says:

                >Proximally, Koanic’s behavior was such that if I insulted him I would look like a faggot.

                Indeed. So how did that lead you to accept Jehovah as the creator of earth and the heavens, the God who created and loved us, and to believe and have faith in the death of Jesus Christ for our sins, and His resurrection and ascent to Heaven?

                How has your world-view changed since you became a believer? You see evil more clearly for example?

                • jim says:

                  Your question presupposes that you are a Christian, rather than giving us reasons to believe you are a Christian, much as a Troofer presupposes we agree that building seven fell straight down on its own footprint, rather than actually providing any reason to believe it fell down on its own footprint. You assume the sale, you try to get us to think past the sale.

                  As CR tells us “Hail Fellow Reactionary” while preaching Marxism, you tell us “Hail Fellow Christian” while preaching demon worship.

                • glosoli says:

                  Ah, the mistake you made there was in not realising that I was asking a question of Peppermint, with zero interest in your view, which (I reckon) will further incur the wrath of my God, Jehovah, who knows my heart, knows your heart too.

                  Gosh, man, you really need to think carefully before repeating your lies though. I pray you can find it in your heart to come to worship Jehovah too, to love Him as I do, to accept He gave us this wonderful planet to live on, and His laws and commands to guide our lives, our society and our faith. You should read about Pharaoh, he was stiff-necked against Jehovah, just like you, and His tribe, and look what happened to Egypt. Never recovered. Show some humility before Jehovah, don’t mock and lie about His faithful, otherwise I fear the consequences for you.

              • glosoli says:

                @Peppermint,

                >So how did that lead you to accept Jehovah as the creator of earth and the heavens, the God who created and loved us, and to believe and have faith in the death of Jesus Christ for our sins, and His resurrection and ascent to Heaven?

                I’m genuinely curious as to the basis of your conversion from deeply anti, to apparent believer. Thanks.

        • peppermint says:

          Ps – Glosoli – if you take the Bible seriously, if you are contacted by an angelic being, it’s probably a demon, trying to get you to do something that, whether or not it’s in your personal interest, is for goals beyond your knowledge.

          Angels don’t talk to arrogant men and the Holy Spirit acts through them, not with them.

        • jim says:

          > > >What I said in that comment was obviously true, and no could possibly deny it unless motivated by left wing politics or hatred of Trump and hatred of people who wear MAGA hats, since I was recycling a standard Trump/MAGA meme.

          > The only things that gets in the way of your version of the truth on this matter is facts.

          > https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/8/35536545_15021500233894_rId9.jpg

          I notice that your graph of “facts” ends before the election of Trump, therefore is entirely irrelevant to the question in dispute.

          You are telling me that reactionary beliefs are “Joo created” and formulaic left wing talking points are supposedly Christian.

          You are not a Christian, and CR is not a reactionary.

          • glosoli says:

            >I notice that your graph of “facts” ends before the election of Trump, therefore is entirely irrelevant to the question in dispute.

            Your point encompassed the Fed’s policy during Obama’s Presidency, hence the chart covers that period, hence is entirely relevant, and you lie when stating it’s not.

            A reminder of what you said:

            >The fed is tightening interest rates on Trump under circumstances where it failed to tighten interest rates on Obama. This is obviously political, and obviously a blow aimed at the mid term elections. Democrats in power, interest rates anomalously low before elections, Republicans in power, interest rates anomalously high before elections.

            This is in accord with reactionary theory and the Dark Enlightenment: that state and quasi state actors will act primarily out of political motives, economic theory be damned.

            Irrespective of whether sound economic theory indicates that interest rates should be lower or higher, sound economic theory was given a different interpretation when Obama was president, as Trump sarcastically observed.’

            Will you even attempt to address the actual facts, the fact you are wrong, stated matters that in fact did not happen and are not happening, are in fact fictional? Or will you just attempt to slide on past? Let’s see.

            • jim says:

              > > I notice that your graph of “facts” ends before the election of Trump, therefore is entirely irrelevant to the question in dispute.

              > Your point encompassed the Fed’s policy during Obama’s Presidency, hence the chart covers that period, hence is entirely relevant, and you lie when stating it’s not.

              My claim is that the fed had one policy when Obama was president, a policy likely to help the president’s party win, and a different policy shortly before elections when Trump is president, a policy likely to prevent the president’s party from winning.

              You call the claim a lie, but like all the other leftists, present no evidence against it.

              Relevant evidence has to show the policy under Obama, and today’s policy.

              • James says:

                Not only that, but the Fed has a long history of jacking up interest rates under Republicans and drastically reducing them and keeping them low under Democrats. Under Raegan, Volcker turned it up to 11. Under Clinton, Greenspan kept it at record lows. Under Bush, Bernanke turned up the heat. Under Obama, it was “lower for longer”. Under Trump, we’re returning to interest rates unseen in my adult life (sad, really), and the Feds are obstinate that they are going to go higher.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Repetitious assertion without evidence, argument, or explanation, deleted*]

              • Mike says:

                Hey Jim, I don’t want to continue the whole “the capitalist class rules us” meme, but I do need to note one thing about capitalism that may be negative. So I am currently taking a class about the history of the relationship between religion and economics. In the class we were talking about the notion of the “social safety net” and how it came to be. I, ever the contrarian, played the devil’s advocate and asked, “Why are social safety nets around, or deemed absolutely necessary, when 100 years ago no country had them and we really weren’t that bad off?”

                My professor (and take this with a grain of salt because, well, its a professor), said that the reason we began to see social safety nets and the welfare state form is because capitalism destroyed the collective bonds and traditions that held families and society together before it. You don’t have extended family living together anymore because they have moved thousands of miles apart for jobs. Everyone just holes up in their single apartment needing every material comfort while nihistically wasting away from loneliness and a lack of real social support. Grandma and grandpa have to go to the nursing home since no kids remain at home to take care of them. And when it comes to children? In the past, your aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, and siblings all might be willing to help you through the process of raising a kid, and they would do it for free, or for not that much. Now, with the absolute destruction of those close bonds, raising a kid has become commercialized like everything else. No wonder no one can have more than two kids nowadays, the insane amount of money it costs to raise them in daycare mills would boggle the mind of someone who lived even in the 50s, let alone the 20s or earlier. I don’t see how its the Whig’s fault that families have had to breakup in order to pursue what is seen as living “the good life” nowadays. That just seems like an inevitable result of the incentives of the economic system. And to be clear, that’s not really a damning of capitalism, because the things its done for our well-being are too obvious to ignore. But, it is a critique.

                • Koanic says:

                  Bind patrilineal bloodlines to the land, like in Judges Israel. Do the Reaction program. The atomization will decrease.

                  Restore slavery, and voila, social slavery net. Jubilees for second chances.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Short answer is that it wasn’t capitalism that broke down those bonds – it was that progressive government is fanatically hostile to any bonds that aren’t between person and state.

                • Mike says:

                  >It was the progressive government this is fanatically hostile to any bonds.

                  I can understand that angle in regards to some of these problems, for example the state is a fanatical supporter of child support, divorce, daycare, and generally just making the home a living hell for children.

                  What my point is though, is that it was not the progressive state that was responsible for what made these social changes happen. It may vigorously support said changes to its dying breath now, but it didn’t cause them. The progressive state did not make it so families had to decentralize and move thousands of miles away from each other. The progressive state did not invent individualism or commodification. Capitalism did. In order to live what is considered a life of material well-being in the modern world, this social anomie, to me at least, looks like it was inevitable. Which really kills me.

                • jim says:

                  England was capitalist well before 1600, and modern type joint stock corporate capitalist from 1660 onwards.

                  But the changes that you deplore did not start until about 1820, maybe 1800 at the earliest.

                • jim says:

                  He is a professor, and he is talking Marxism.

                  Feudalism in the sense of the King paying his men with land expired around 1400 or so, hard to say exactly when. Feudalism in the sense of aristocratic power, of state and quasi statal jobs going largely to the children of people with statal and quasi statal jobs, of officers being aristocrats and conducting wars according to an aristocratic code of honor, expired after the Crimean war, after Lord Cardigan’s 1854 heroism and loyalty to his troops came to be demonized and denigrated. One could say that feudalism expired around 1400. Aristocratic power, broadly defined, has never quite gone away, but was greatly diminished after the Crimean war.

                  Capitalism has existed at least since the early iron age, probably earlier, just we don’t have written records until the early iron age: The book of Proverbs, authored by the court of King Solomon, takes capitalism, wage labor, and all that for granted, as do the parables of Jesus. Similarly Caesar was financed by a fire insurance business. Modern type capitalism, with industry, industrialization, and the joint stock corporation, started up 1660 or very shortly thereafter. Family breakdown in the west was 1820 to 1910 or so.

                • Mike says:

                  >But the changes that you deplore did not start until about 1820, maybe 1800 at the earliest.

                  Playing the devil’s advocate again here, does that not make it even more suspicious? That coincides directly with the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the change from a pastoral society where family and tradition remained unchanged for centuries to a society where everyone was forcibly atomized in the modern capitalist economy. Again, not saying Reeeeee we need Communism, but its very suspicious to me.

                  Also, obviously capitalist practices have been around forever, but they existed in a fundamentally aristocratic pre-market society. Rome, Ancient Greece, Persia, Imperial China, and Medieval Europe; none of these civilizations were capitalist societies. They just had capitalist elements.

                • jim says:

                  > Playing the devil’s advocate again here, does that not make it even more suspicious? That coincides directly with the onset of the Industrial Revolution

                  Industrial revolution was the steam engine (1775), the spinning jenny, and the flying shuttle

                  The widespread availability of travel by steam locomotive certainly contributed to the Victorian sexual revolution, making it easier for daughters to visit their demon lover out of sight of family, but the problem started long after corporate capitalism and the joint stock corporation, a fair bit after industrialization and the steam engine, and shortly before the availability of railroad travel.

                  The sexual revolution started with elite, and the daughters of the elite would not be seen dead traveling by train.

                  > obviously capitalist practices have been around forever, but they existed in a fundamentally aristocratic pre-market society.

                  Nuts.

                  That is just Marxist bullshit. Again, I refer you to the extensive discussion of the market economy, capital accumulation, and wage labor in the Book of Proverbs, issued by the court of King Solomon (and reissued and re-edited by the court under subsequent Kings).

                  King Solomon tells us that everyone has a duty to produce for the market, that one should accumulate capital and invest it wisely, and that the employer has an obligation to look after his employees, the major part of that obligation being prompt payment on layoff.

                  As for feudalism, the archetype of feudalism is the Knights Templar and William the Marshal:

                  • William the Marshal acquired a large amount of undeveloped rural land by non market, traditionally feudal, means, which is to say, at swordpoint. He subsequently proceeded to develop that land in a thoroughly twenty first century market oriented style.
                  • Similarly the Knights Templar acquired some choice urban land in the center of Jerusalem by similarly feudal crusader non market means, and promptly used it to set up a very successful bank that mediated transactions between Christian Europe and the Christian middle east.

                  Feudalism was capitalism with swords, a lot of private violence, and a lot swordpoint property transfers. Steel mattered, and honor mattered, but contracts and gold also mattered.

                • Mike says:

                  Well, I can’t argue with your point about the elites, they clearly believed in patriarchy at the time. However, I do want to say that I was not insinuating that somehow the onset of technology (trains helping women be sluts) was the reason for social decline; rather that capitalism itself, as an economic system, was the reason for it, through social atomization caused by the ever-growing need for for economic growth and material comfort.

                • Mike says:

                  >This is marxist bullshit.

                  Oy vey Jim, I am taking you up on the economics question. You would have to be retarded to seriously entertain the idea that feudal Europe or Imperial China is in any way, shape or form the same modern capitalist economy of today. How the hell do you think the idea of rigid social stratification and aristocracy in any way, shape or form fits with the idea of the free market? With ideas of competition? Of free enterprise? Don’t give me some bullshit from the Bible, tell me how a Lord in feudal France in 900 AD was somehow a capitalist, or a Kshatriya in the caste system of India. These people based their societies around ideas of honor, religion, and social class; not the pursuit of wealth and material.

                • jim says:

                  > > This is marxist bullshit.

                  > Oy vey Jim, I am taking you up on the economics question. You would have to be retarded to seriously entertain the idea that feudal Europe or Imperial China is in any way, shape or form the same modern capitalist economy of today.

                  Today’s capitalist economy differs from the iron age capitalist economy in that since the restoration the key mover has been the joint stock for profit corporation, in that technological innovation has been largely driven by Ayn Rand’s hero scientist engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor through the joint stock corporation to advance technology and make that advanced technology widely available.

                  Feudal society in England was the same economic order as capitalism before the restoration, capitalism before the for profit joint stock corporation, and capitalism in early Iron Age Israel, as is obvious if you read “The Canterbury Tales”

                  However, the society of feudal times differed to post feudal times, not in its economic order, but in that justice was private property of noblemen, in that the right to use violence was highly unequal, in that access to the King’s justice was restricted.

                  Interpreting this as a different economic order is Marxist claptrap.

                  China is an issue I don’t want to address, because I cannot read the Chinese classics, and am not familiar with them. Maybe the Marxist account of China (“Oriental Despotism”) is true, for all I know. But do I know that the Marxist account of England’s economic past is a barefaced lie, and that the economic order of King Solomon’s Israel was capitalist, and very similar to that of feudal England, and post feudal England before the restoration.

                • Mike says:

                  First off, I want to say that I wish I knew how or had the ability to edit my own comment so I could add on to the original like you are instead of me adding a billion responses. Anyway…

                  I would appreciate some insight into how exactly feudalism was so very capitalist when:
                  1. The peasantry could do nothing capitalist due to their social class. This is not me being Marxist and saying, “Oh look at the evil noblemen oppressing the peasant!”. It is just simple fact, they produced food for themselves to survive and gave the rest to their Lord as part of the manorial agreement (sometimes selling a tiny amount on the side).
                  2. The main point of the society was still honor, Christianity, chivalry, and warfare, not solely the pursuit of material wealth as it is nowadays. The point is not that there was no capitalism, the point is that the noblemen gave more of a shit about things besides it.
                  3. There is ample evidence to this point such as the famous Catholic Latin saying of the time:Homo mercator vix aut numquam Deoplacere potest, meaning “The merchant can scarcely or never be pleasing to God”. The merchant was considered a lower social class, without honor or military prowess, a vulgar pursuer of wealth that the noblemen and clergy were above, both in Europe, Imperial China, and many other ancient societies. How is that conducive to capitalism?

                  Perhaps a useful link: The Politics of Aristocratic Empires. Find it on Google Books and read the section titled “Contempt for Money and Money-Making”.

                • jim says:

                  You exaggerate the oppression of the peasants. Servile dues were similar to market rents. There was severe social inequality, and severe inequality in the right and authority to use violence, but economic inequality not so much. The classic example of a nobleman, William the Marshal, started off with nothing – except for a very swift sword and the right to get away with grabbing stuff at swordpoint with considerably less consequences than someone less noble would face.

                  Merchants were low status, but not poor, and noblemen needed money. Their contempt for money grubbing merchants was in part embarrassment at their frequent dependence upon them, and the classic exemplar of feudalism, William the Marshal, did a whole lot of money grubbing himself, as did the Knights Templar.

                  > 1. The peasantry could do nothing capitalist due to their social class

                  Commie lies.

                  Peasants produced for the market. Why do you think a single women was called a spinster?

                  > It is just simple fact, they produced food for themselves to survive and gave the rest to their Lord as part of the manorial agreement

                  Commie lies.

                  Yes, there was a lot of oppression and inequality. But the oppression and inequality was of status and violence, not wealth. Commies retroactively make all inequality economic so invent largely imaginary economic inequality, while ignoring other forms of inequality. The market operated, and peasants operated in the market.

                  There was plenty of oppression, but it did not take the form that Marxists concoct.

                  For a realistic depiction of society in the time of feudalism, read “The Canterbury Tales”. All the characters are in need of money, they all operate in the cash economy, they are all roughly economically similar, unequal in status, but not conspicuously unequal in wealth.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Much repeated Marxist claptrap deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  If you want to claim that capitalism is recent, try providing evidence that it is recent, rather than endless re-assertion of formulaic Marxist claims.

                  We have had the market, wage labor, capital accumulation, and all that since at least the early iron age, and probably a lot earlier. It just that our earliest records of wage labor and all that are early iron age.

                  We have had corporate capitalism, with the joint stock corporation and the CEO since the restoration.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The peasantry could do nothing capitalist due to their social class. This is not me being Marxist and saying, “Oh look at the evil noblemen oppressing the peasant!”. It is just simple fact, they produced food for themselves to survive and gave the rest to their Lord as part of the manorial agreement (sometimes selling a tiny amount on the side).

                  You say you’re not being Marxist but you are. All “capitalist” means is “contracts are enforced by the legal authority”.

                  This includes apprenticeship contracts. This includes feudal oaths.

                  The liberal order dissolves capitalism in the sense that it forecloses a bunch of areas of contract that it finds distasteful (or dangerous to it as alternative sources of power). Can’t contract lifetime labor for lifetime support (patron / client) and for quite a while you can’t have a marriage contract but marriage survived due to the social expectations lagging the legal changes. For example, motel clerks would take it upon themselves to provide social support of marriage by not permitting unmarried men and women check in together in living memory – as recently as 40-50 years ago.

                  Marxism doesn’t think of capitalism as just contract enforcement – Marxism thinks of capitalism as every single bit of structure in a “capitalist” society. This is useful mainly if you want to further dissolve contract enforcement because it lets you blame the problems caused by lack of contract on too much contract which means you can come up with “solutions” that make the problems worse – which means you need more solutions.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  lol you just deleted my concise comment to replace it with your own response which said the exact same thing:

                  “If you want to claim that capitalism is recent, try providing evidence that it is recent, rather than endless re-assertion of formulaic Marxist claims.”

                  More recent than the Iron Age. I suggested it was Georgian but if you want to pin it to Charles II that’s good too. Post-Early-Renaissance, let’s put it that way.

                  “We have had the market, wage labor, capital accumulation, and all that since at least the early iron age, and probably a lot earlier. It just that our earliest records of wage labor and all that are early iron age.”

                  That’s exactly what I said. You gain assent for those things – basically peaceful interaction between consenting people – and then you use that assent to wave through the likes of BetFred, Wonga and KFC.

                  The idea’s basically that the venture capitalists who fund ProPublica are the same type of beast as a guy selling potatoes at the farmers’ market and if you want to get rid of the former, the cost is losing the latter.

                  “We have had corporate capitalism, with the joint stock corporation and the CEO since the restoration.”

                  Fine, pin it at the time of Charles II. That’s much more recent than 1000BC.

                  How long have we had activist CEOs buying political sway? Only a naive person would claim that’s entirely novel: money has always ‘talked’. The difference today is that Bezos is worth approaching a TRILLION dollars, certainly far in advance of many modern countries’ entire economies.

                  Russian GDP is $1.3T. Bezos Gates Soros and Buffet are worth more than that between them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Marxist complaints about other people being rich deleted*]

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Repetitious Marxist bunkum deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You have said all that stuff before.

                  Capitalists are, for the most part, my people. They are on my side. My religion, my race, my sex. The priesthood are my enemies, HR are my enemies, HR are a bunch of holier than thou cat ladies, and are, for the most part, the enemies of me, capitalists, and capitalism.

                  Trump ‘s a capitalist, you are a professor. I know who is on my side.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “the society of feudal times differed to post feudal times, not in its economic order, but in that justice was private property of noblemen, in that the right to use violence was highly unequal, in that access to the King’s justice was restricted.

                  Interpreting this as a different economic order is Marxist claptrap.”

                  Tell that to the Whigs. They saw it as a completely economic revolution.

                  Ask the Mises Institute. Heck ask Jeff Tucker of 2012 what he thought about the illegitimate power of the Crown prior to the Industrial Revolution.
                  According to him, history flat-lined until 1820 then shot to the moon.

                  Laissez-faire was always about equality: one man shall have no more rights than another – all men were created equal and shall enjoy a level playing-field when it comes to property rights.

                  Sounds great doesn’t it – if you’re a liberal.

                  In practice it means “fuck you I DO get to sell hardcore porn and if you don’t like it, go back to your church Grandad cos I have a RIGHT in my own property”.

                • jim says:

                  > > Interpreting this as a different economic order is Marxist claptrap.”

                  > Tell that to the Whigs. They saw it as a completely economic revolution.

                  > Ask the Mises Institute. Heck ask Jeff Tucker of 2012

                  Liar.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Why are you denying this?

                  What do you hope to gain?

                  It’s perfectly obvious to any normal person that Tom Woods has said repeatedly that the Industrial Revolution catapulted the living standards of ordinary people into outer space, with life expectancy doubling, the population of Europe quadrupling and infant mortality falling by two thirds in three generations.

                  He sees this as the onset of his political philosophy: laissez-faire in capitalism becomes laissez-faire in society becomes human thriving.

                  This is a not even slightly contestable fact.

                  Now is Tom Woods right? (Or Jeff Tucker or Judge Nap or Ron Paul?)

                  No. He’s conflating technological progress and societal health, just as all liberals do.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s perfectly obvious to any normal person that Tom Woods has said repeatedly that the Industrial Revolution catapulted the living standards of ordinary people into outer space,

                  Your original claim was that he said the industrial revolution was capitalism, that feudal england and Old Testament Israel was not capitalist, that before the industrial revolution the economic system was not capitalism.

                  You lie about their words, as you lie about my words.

                  You cite a libertarian, and tell me he is a Marxist. No he is not a Marxist.

                  Obviously capitalism long predates Laissez-faire and the industrial revolution substantially predates Laissez-faire. Libertarians are not Marxists and do not doubt this.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim repeats:

                  “Capitalists are, for the most part, my people. They are on my side. My religion, my race, my sex. The priesthood are my enemies, HR are my enemies, HR are a bunch of holier than thou cat ladies, and are, for the most part, the enemies of me, capitalists, and capitalism.

                  Trump ‘s a capitalist, you are a professor. I know who is on my side.”

                  I am not, and never have been, a professor or anything remotely related to anything remotely like that.
                  I have worked for the government in the past and it had social justicey dimensions but I wasn’t the same person and even then the role was in no way educational and did not affect the general public in any way. Obviously I’m not going to give any details or anything that could reasonably be used to obtain any details.

                  I’m not about to doxx myself just because some moron thinks repeating “you are a Marxist professor” is relevant or persuasive.

                  Would you care to give a single example of a billionaire who ISN’T on the side of globohomo?

                  Of course not: you’d rather say that they’re SECRETLY on our side and only doing what they do, saying what they say, and funding what they fund because they’re afraid of Donald Trump.

                • jim says:

                  > Of course not: you’d rather say that they’re SECRETLY on our side and only doing what they do, saying what they say, and funding what they fund because they’re afraid of Donald Trump.

                  I know and have known some capitalists. The probability that a random capitalist is on my side and against globohomo is overwhelmingly higher than that a random person in the street is on my side. Capitalists are my people. You are similar to the Trotskyite telling the peasant with one cow that the peasant with two cows is his enemy, so that he can get the help of the peasant with one cow in killing the two cows, and killing the peasant who had two cows, preparatory to killing the one cow and the peasant with one cow.

                  And even if capitalists were not on my side, capitalists are not in power so it would not matter. We are always ruled by priests or warriors.

                • Mike says:

                  Of course you autistically focused on my point about peasants and did not address literally anything else I said, probably because you realized that if you did, you would have no rebuttal. Even so, I will defend my point about the peasantry at least a little.

                  The peasants were for all intents and purposes not selling for a market. They were subsistence farmers barely making enough food for themselves, let alone other people. The little surplus they did make they were supposed to give to their lord. Feudalism was instituted to give the peasants protection from war, civil strife, famine and what-not by having the Lord protect the peasant. In return, the peasant is supposed to supply him with some of his food. He is expected to do this as part of the feudal agreement, not as a cash transaction. How is any of that profit-driven? Are you blind?

                • jim says:

                  “The Canterbury Tales ” represents a cross section of feudal society. That society is a market, cash, economy.

                  You are telling us what Marixsts say about feudalism, which bears no connection to reality, and has no basis in reality.

                • Mike says:

                  Steve, thank you for your point, it helps immensely. I (obviously) was not thinking of capitalism as simply “the enforcement of contracts”. However, I do want to say that this definition of capitalism seems very vague. Couldn’t you twist this definition to say something retarded like the Soviet Union enforced contracts?

                • Mike says:

                  Well then what is your vision of feudalism? How do you see it as working? My vision is that it engendered a very timeless, traditional way of life; in which social status (the three estates) was extremely important to how society interacted with each other. This idea of status, as I showed with the merchant vs the nobleman, did not exist in some bizarre vacuum separate from economic life.

                  Please give me your general rundown, so we can compare.

                • jim says:

                  The Marxist argument from status is “capitalists did not rule, therefore not capitalism”. But capitalists have never ruled, and will never rule. We are always ruled by priests or warriors. The nineteenth century transition was not from warrior rule to capitalist rule, but from warrior rule to priestly rule.

                  The Marxist lie is that the economy was different. To argue that status was different therefore the economy was different presupposes Marxist class theory, and Marxist class theory is an obvious lie and complete nonsense.

                  Yes, status, and inequality in status was important, very important in feudal times, and yes merchants had substantially lower status.

                  which did not stop aristocrats from engaging in a whole lot of capitalistic activity, and still less did it stop merchants from engaging in a capitalism. Most people, and most economic activity in feudal times was embedded in the market economy, and though non cash transactions were common, non cash transactions were assigned a cash value and were socially and legally equivalent to cash transactions.

                  Prices were supposed to be set by tradition, rather than by the market, but any substantial and lasting discrepancy between traditional and market prices resulted in tradition being adjusted quick enough.

                • peppermint says:

                  Calling them dirt farmers who had one one room building and slept in a pile on the floor like dogs is a Marxist insult to the working class.

                  There are now a few videogames with reasonable portrayals of the life of a peasant, so GenZ knows better.

                  GenX should have known better from watching Little House on the Prairie.

                • peppermint says:

                  Dollars to donuts has now crept up to 1:1, fair enough. I resent paying more than 2$ for a cup of coffee because that’s the ceiling on normal coffee at normal places. Houses cost 30k$, or 100k$, or 300k$, more is an outrage and sign of impending crash.

                • Mike says:

                  Look Jim, I never was implying (or at least intending to imply) that capitalists ruled. Culture is downstream of power, as is money. My main point this entire time, as we have transitioned from talking about capitalism/anomie to feudalism, is that there was no all-encompassing drive for profits and material wealth in feudal society because their values were centered around the spiritual, such as when kings donated all their wealth to build a monastery to ensure that they went to heaven.

                  In comparison, modern society pursues the material as their primary end, not the spiritual or the honorable.

                  How noticing that is Marxist I dont understand

                • jim says:

                  > there was no all-encompassing drive for profits and material wealth in feudal society because their values were centered around the spiritual

                  • Sure, but feudal society still had a market economy, a capitalist economy, and aristocrats, like everyone else, needed money.
                  • And today, we don’t have an “all encompasing drive for profits and material wealth” either. Rather, we see far more energy and effort devoted to the pursuit of holiness than was typical in feudal times, as for example those murderous foundations for betterment of African children that CR is always going on about.
                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Mike

                  ” My main point this entire time, as we have transitioned from talking about capitalism/anomie to feudalism, is that there was no all-encompassing drive for profits and material wealth in feudal society because their values were centered around the spiritual, such as when kings donated all their wealth to build a monastery to ensure that they went to heaven.

                  In comparison, modern society pursues the material as their primary end, not the spiritual or the honorable.

                  How noticing that is Marxist I dont understand”

                  Get this: you’re also a Marxist if you make the opposite case, that capitalists today are just as focused on priestly activities as the feudal rulers were – that’s also ‘Marxist’ lol

                • jim says:

                  > you’re also a Marxist if you make the opposite case, that capitalists today are just as focused on priestly activities as the feudal rulers were – that’s also ‘Marxist’ lol

                  Arguing that the economic order of feudal society was something other than capitalism because the capitalist class supposedly rules today while they did not rule in feudal times is Marxism.

                  Arguing that globohomo is a plot by the capitalist class, rather than the priestly class (judges, professors, journalists, etc) because the capitalist class supposedly rules today, so the priestly class must be their secret puppets, is Marxism.

                • jim says:

                  > In comparison, modern society pursues the material as their primary end, not the spiritual or the honorable.

                  Nuts.

                  Modern society is over the top ruled by priests and the pursuit of holiness, far more than the medieval world or feudal society ever was. College is a religious observance, and we spend far more money, time, and energy on college, on the metaphorical cathedral, than the medievals did on literal cathedrals.

                  Also, their Cathedrals were beautiful, because the worshiped God, while our cathedrals are hideous, because we worship demons.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Holy cow, no idea how this came about but somehow we’re all on the same page again!

                  Richard Branson is clearly a priest first and foremost.

                • peppermint says:

                  > modern society pursues the material as their primary end, not the spiritual or the honorable

                  > take on absurd amounts of usurious debt
                  > to hear a professor say stuff you could easily read for free
                  > to become a journalist for less than median income
                  > for material ends
                  > because society is materialist, not spiritualist
                  > go to yoga for spirituality while believing that materially trannies are whatever sex they feel at the moment

                • Mike says:

                  Ok Peppermint, two can play at that game.

                  >Feudal society is just as capitalist as modern society.

                  >Be born peasant.
                  >Stay peasant.
                  >No social mobility.
                  >Feudal society is capitalist.
                  >Merchants are the lowest class of society and are seen as sinful.
                  >Feudal society is capitalist.

                • jim says:

                  > No social mobility.

                  William the Marshal is the exemplar of feudalism, the archetype of warrior aristocracy, and also an exemplar of social mobility.

                  > Merchants are the lowest class of society and are seen as sinful.

                  Nonsense.In Canterbury Tales the knight (low ranking mobility) is obviously higher status than the Merchant (wealthy capitalist) but the merchant is high status and is not seen as sinful.

                  The host appears to be something like an innkeeper, and his status is high only in the way that a tour guide’s status is high.

                • Mike says:

                  >Modern society is over the top ruled by priests and the pursuit of holiness, far more than the medieval world or feudal society ever was. College is a religious observance, and we spend far more money, time, and energy on college, on the metaphorical cathedral, than the medievals did on literal cathedrals.

                  Ok, I will admit I can’t disagree with this statement. You have put up a good ideological fight Jim, I applaud that. I can’t help but still have some nagging fears of capitalism, but you have alleviated some of them.

                  Question though, is it then a “purple pill” problem to see anything wrong with capitalism at all? I have seen many articles over my years around the Reactosphere critiquing various parts of capitalism, whether it was outsourcing jobs, globalization, social anomie (as I was in this argument) and various other arguments.

                  We also know that past right-wing movements endorsed things other than capitalism such as “Distributism” (I think it was the Catholics) and “Corporatism” (the fascists and also Catholics). Are all of these wrong as well?

                • jim says:

                  Capitalism is inherently globalist. Multinational corporations are easily persuaded or pressured to work for the enemies of one’s nation or one’s people. Free trade is apt to be successfully manipulated by the priesthood to spread their state religion to other countries as an instrument of conquest and domination.

                  Someone goes to Canaan to buy salted fish, comes back converted to the worship of Moloch by the missionaries of the Canaanite state department.

                  Our priesthood is piggybacking globo homo on top of economic globalism. Globohomo is priestly, but economic globalism is indeed capitalist, and provides an infection vector for globohomo. Economic nationalism, favoring capitalists of one’s own kind, of one’s own race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and nationality, over alien or rootless capitalists, provides some protection against memetic infection.

                  The problem, however, is that leftists have weaponized covetousness and envy, and we just have to shut this down.

                  The Trotskyite tells the peasant with one cow that the peasant with two cows is the enemy. No. The Trotskyite is his enemy, the Trotskyite is your enemy. Don’t fall for this.

                  The Trotskyite is planning to get you to help him kill the two cows, then get you to help him kill the peasant who had two cows, then he is going to kill you and take your cow. He wants you to kill the other peasant’s cows and burn the other peasants crops so that he then has you at his mercy.

                  Carlylean Restorationist is planning to kill you and take your stuff, and everything he says about capitalism needs to be read in that light. He wants to divide his enemies so that he can destroy us.

                  Leftist sow covetousness and envy the way a con man talks of Nigerian princes. They seek to divide people from their leadership so that they can knock over the apple cart to snatch up some apples.

                  That said, capitalism inherently tends to undermine the social cohesion on which it depends.

                  But the capitalist class is politically irrelevant, as are the proletariat. Anyone claiming otherwise is working a con. Anyone who says “ingroup me, so that together we outgroup the capitalists” is manipulating you.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Mike look at the board of directors of ProPublica if you care about the Charlottesville Four.
                  They’re venture capitalists, funding the doxxing operation because they want dissent to be shut down.

                  Sometimes things are just as simple as they seem. Big capital wants cheap labour because it’s cheaper (duh).
                  They also want immigration because they make far better consumers than the legacy population, that still has this nasty habit of saving for a rainy day, albeit less and less.

                  A swarming mass of muds will spend every penny it receives, and if we have to give them welfare, we’ll borrow to do it. So long as our sales figures go up, we don’t give a damn.

                  Capitalism is fucking poison man.

                • Mike says:

                  CR, I am critiquing capitalism and feudalism in my own way, not yours. I do not need your help, and frankly most of your ideas to fix the perceived problems seem rather retarded. I don’t claim to have any solutions to be honest, I am just noticing potential issues or problems and calling them out. I am not stupid enough to think I actually know how to “fix” capitalism or feudalism, if they even need fixing at all.

                • jim says:

                  Capitalism needs to be regulated and restricted for various reasons but:

                  1. Regulating and restricting capitalism is apt to blow up in the face of regulators and restricters. Doing it productively rather than counter productively is a very hard problem. Even stuff that is obviously necessary (like restricting discharges of toxic substances into the air and water) is apt to go horribly wrong.

                  2. Any time one hears someone peddling covetousness and envy, he is usually up to no good.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Hail fellow white male reactionary deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You are trying to get people whom you regard as outgroup, whom you regard as enemies, to ingroup you. Censoring you for sheer transparent evil, for the use of the most evil of left wing tactics.

                  Normally I don’t do content based censorship, I just censor for bandwidth – I let lies through once and silence repetition. But I am just disgusted by formulaic left wing emotional tactics, by the classic treacherous left wing tactic of one way ingrouping, of appealing to group cohesion in order to destroy group cohesion, so in this case I am doing content based censorship.

                  I am not going to make a habit of this, so your next evil, disgusting, vile, and loathsome appeal for ingroup status will probably go through, as your many past evil, disgusting, vile, and loathsome appeals for ingroup status have gone through.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  No you removed because you know it’s true. You don’t want more people reading up on what the Sprott Foundation’s up to, who pays for ProPublica and The Guardian, and the charitable connections of Harry’s Razors.

                  This bs about “that guy who thinks we need laws to force people to save more and live frugally is such a Marxist” never convinced anyone.

                  This is about naming the you know who, and I think we know why by now.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Any time one hears someone peddling covetousness and envy, he is usually up to no good.”

                  It won’t wash, it’s just a lie.

                  I’ve been pushing a hierarchical, élitist state in which families are incentivised to save so they can increase their wealth by passing it down the generations untouched.
                  I’ve been pushing serfdom for the poor who refuse to better themselves.

                  You cannot spin any of this as envy and certainly not covetousness.

                  This is about the authorities in a healthy society seeing a man blow his paycheck at the bookmaker’s, and instead of wittering on about “gamble responsibly” and tinkering round the edges, they just shut it down.
                  Same for the foreign holidays and same for the toxic foreign corporate restaurant chains that crowd out family businesses.

                  You’re a corporate shill, at best.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Any time one hears someone peddling covetousness and envy, he is usually up to no good.”

                  > It won’t wash, it’s just a lie.

                  History demonstrates that those peddling covetousness and envy are as reliable as those claiming to be Nigerian princes.

                  The scam is always one way ingrouping, just as the Nigerian prince scam is always transaction fees. The scammer wants the peasant with one cow to hate the peasant with two cows, so that the peasant with one cow ingroups the scammer, while the scammer continues to outgroup the peasant. Then the scammer destroys the cows of the peasant with two cows so that he can steal the cow of the peasant with one cow.

                  > a man blow his paycheck at the bookmaker’s

                  Yet you seem strangely untroubled by people going into enormous amounts of undischargeable debt for worthless degrees, strangely untroubled by women blowing their youth, their beauty, and their fertility, on extended worthless education in worthless topics.

                  Yes, I do see people blow money they cannot afford on gambling. But I don’t see people blow money they cannot afford on eating out nor on international travel, and I am pretty sure that obesity is caused by gluttony, not pizza. And proof that gluttony, rather than pizza, is the problem is that people who drink Coke Zero are usually fat.

                  Restaurant chains do not cause gluttony, and international travel does not cause people to spend money they cannot afford.

                  > I’ve been pushing a hierarchical, élitist state in which families are incentivised to save

                  Like East Germans were incentivised to save?

                  We will incentivize people to save by allowing capitalism, by allowing investors to get rich.

                  You have advocated British National health and British housing projects, both of which profoundly disincentivised saving.

                • alf says:

                  > This bs about “that guy who thinks we need laws to force people to save more and live frugally is such a Marxist” never convinced anyone.

                  Convinced me.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Well I suggest you publish a book then. This is ground-breaking original work: the Marxist theory of forced saving and class transition through inheritance combined with rabid nationalist protectionism.

                  Yeah very orthodox. Seriously, sell it, it’s highly original.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I think I know what this is, all this NRx bullshit:

                  1. You’re libertarians but you’re experiencing severe cognitive dissonance about the use of power so you make out you’ve moved on, but in fact cling to all the old nonsense

                  but worse, and actually even more likely

                  2. You’re Dinesh d’Souza. Hitler was a leftist because the essence of right-wing thought and reaction/restoration is low taxes and hands-off government lol

                • alf says:

                  > Well I suggest you publish a book then.

                  Who knows..

                  CR, I like you. You’re an honest leftist, as opposed to dishonest leftists, B mostly comes to mind. Dishonest leftists are impossible to talk to; they take pride in f*king with your mind as much as they can.

                  Honest leftists such as yourself are also not the easiest to talk to, but at least there is some consistency in your points. Points which I see as lies, of course, but that’s just a matter of perspective.

                  Once again, you will not get us. I get how we look like libertarians, but that’s only because we like capitalists. A man who has built, or helped to build, a succesful corporation is a man worthy of respect. E.g. check out the house tour of Tommy Hilfiger — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOUvZrKiRI8&frags=pl%2Cwn.

                  Not at all my style, not at all my kind of life, but I like his vibe, I like his wife’s vibe, I dig his life. As opposed to you, who hates hates hates him and everything he stands for.

                  (And yes, they eat out every day)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  lol

                  “you seem strangely untroubled by people going into enormous amounts of undischargeable debt for worthless degrees”

                  You seem strangely untroubled by Borland C++ Builder trying to take over the world and make everyone use Object Pascal through clever trickery.

                  I’m fairly sure I already said most people should become apprentices at an early age and most of the current ‘education’ system (not limited to the universities by any means) needs to just be scrapped in its entirety.

                  But then your insistence that I’m some university professor is TACTICAL isn’t it……. you’re not actually arguing anything in good faith, you’re just engaging in character assassination to distract from the fact you can’t disprove the argument: foreign corporate capitalists are doing terrible things to white countries on purpose.

                  You keep on saying you’ve never seen anyone live paycheck to paycheck while squandering the money they do have on overpriced toxic corporate chain restaurants.
                  It makes no difference because EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH is well-familiar with the phenomenon.

                  You’re just trying to pull a WVO Quine: obviously language doesn’t exist because there are native people who can’t write it down.
                  (I’m straw-manning Quine – slightly – but not you, that’s exactly what you’re doing.)

                • jim says:

                  > You keep on saying you’ve never seen anyone live paycheck to paycheck while squandering the money they do have on overpriced toxic corporate chain restaurants.
                  > It makes no difference because EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH is well-familiar with the phenomenon.

                  Pretty sure that only Cultural Marxists are well-familiar with the phenomenon, and their familiarity comes entirely from other Cultural Marxists, not from real life.

                  The people on whom this story is based are blacks blowing their welfare money on on overpriced fried chicken, not working class whites blowing their paycheck at Domino’s Pizza, because working class whites do not blow their paycheck at Domino’s. But cultural Marxists blame capitalists for black misbehavior, and also attribute that black misbehavior to the white working class.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You set your own trap Alf.

                  Some Irish goy selling clothing to SWPLs and WASPs is *not* engaging in antisocial destructive shit and not only does he have nothing to fear from a healthy society but he’d be better off because while his tax burden might go up in areas where he’s using imported materials that could be produced domestically, his overall compliance burden would plummet and doubtless he’d be far richer.

                  For God’s sake I don’t give a damn if a guy like that has a fleet of yachts and eats deep fried fucking cous cous.

                  There’s a world of difference between that WASPy SOAB and the pricks responsible for ‘Chiquitos’.

                  (Usual caveat: I haven’t done a deep dive into what he’s donating to, and I don’t want to quite frankly. Ruining Eric Sprott was bad enough QQ)

                  You’re just a dogmatic libertarian and the first HINT of anti-capitalist sentiment and you just reach for the Marxist slurs.

                  It’s tedious as fuck. You’re incapable of thinking critically about anything. You already know your positions: capitalist good, statist bad, and that’s all there is to it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The (((projection))) intensifies:

                  “The people on whom this story is based is blacks spending their welfare money on fried chicken, not working class whites spending their paycheck at Domino’s Pizza.”

                  Get out of your ivory tower and go and talk to some working class white people. You will be quite disturbed at just how financially vulnerable most of them are, and your first instinct will be to dismiss them as fools when you see how much they’re spending.

                  There’s two things at work here:

                  1. You’re a libertarian and hence an egalitarian who thinks all men were created equal so if someone’s faced with rational incentives, they’ll all behave as rationally as you (believe you) do

                  2. You can’t accept this reality because it means exploitation is real and capitalists aren’t the heroes after all. That’s intolerable because it reminds you of the false claims lefties make about how all profit (or ‘surplus value’) is in fact exploitation. This is the kosher sandwich, but you’re too stunted to perceive it.

                  (((or there may be some other explanation)))

                • jim says:

                  > > “The people on whom this story is based is blacks spending their welfare money on fried chicken, not working class whites spending their paycheck at Domino’s Pizza.”

                  > Get out of your ivory tower and go and talk to some working class white people. You will be quite disturbed at just how financially vulnerable most of them are, and your first instinct will be to dismiss them as fools when you see how much they’re spending.

                  They are often spending more than they can afford. But they are not spending more than they can afford on Domino’s pizza, still less on international travel.

                  You are describing stereotypical black misbehavior, attributing it to the white working class, and blaming it on evil capitalists.

                  Which is a formulaic Cultural Marxist meme.

                • alf says:

                  You can’t go from ‘capitalists must be controlled’ to ‘I like this capitalist’, for the first statements reveals a dislike of capitalists.

                  Well you can and you did, obviously, but it is an obvious falsehood and any capitalist will know it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You can’t go from ‘capitalists must be controlled’ to ‘I like this capitalist’, for the first statements reveals a dislike of capitalists.”

                  Oh I despise capitalists like I despise other groups, some more than others.
                  That doesn’t mean I despise businessmen who made it super-big.
                  Contradiction? No: taken as a group, capitalists are the people who fund globohomo, capture regulators, bribe politicians and push toxic shit on the public while inserting anti-white propaganda into all their communications.

                  But there’s a deeper problem with you Alf:

                  As a classical liberal, or 18th century Whig, you look for universal abstract principles by which the ship of state shall be sailed.

                  You yearn for Carlyle’s phantom captain.

                  I yearn for a real captain who’ll praise your Irish guy and stamp out scum like Richard Branson and the billionaires funding ProPublica.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It strikes me sometimes when I’m among you ‘reactionaries’, just what I’m dealing with.

                  Alf’s absolutism, his reliance on NAXALT and “Hitler was a leftist”, his flippant dismissal of any concern as to the effects of individual actors in society……. most of which is orthodox Jimism…….. means this:

                  He will actively attack anyone who tries to shut down ProPublica, the doxxing organisation responsible for The Charlottesville Four.

                  Let that sink in.

                  With that, I’ll try once more to extricate myself from this den of cucks.

                  Sometimes it feels like there’s an interesting discussion going on: we’re getting at the nuances around the edges of the border between libertarianism and sound government.

                  Then it hits me: you are all siding with the doxxers against the guys sitting in jail right now for defending themselves against violent terrorists.

                  And as you do it, you feel smug and superior.

                  And as you lie and cheat and misquote and call me a Marxist, you feel smug and superior then too.

                  It’s who you are: wankers tossing bullshit ideas around while good men are persecuted, and cheering for the perpetrators.

                  Shame on you.

                • alf says:

                  See, I don’t mind Richard Branson either. He seems a bit tryhard to me, a bit overenthusiastically in status-whoring, but overall he seems like a cool guy. Lots of positive energy.

                  Even Bill Gates I don’t hate. I think he’s sort of tragic, that his status-whoring will end up destroying his fortune, but as a founder of Microsoft I respect him.

                  I will not call either of them scum, they aren’t scum. The only one being a covetous, envious scumbag is you.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re a massive black pill Alf.

                  White people are more fucked than we thought.

                  You’re literally attacking me for my loyalty while defending Bill fucking Gates, who probably did more than Bob Geldof in supplying Europe with an unlimited number of ‘badly needed workers to raise GDP’.

                  I actually hate you.

                  Every time you accuse me of hating Bill Gates out of ENVY, I want to smash your face in.

                  Thankfully we’ll never, ever meet, and if I’m ever in a room with you and someone informs me of that fact, I’ll immediately go into “maximum self control” mode before quietly leaving.

                • jim says:

                  Lots of things wrong with Bill Gates, but blaming him for the English rapeugee problem is nuts. Bill Gates does stupid stuff like giving computers to black kids in Africa so that they whack each other on the head with his computers, killing each other, then set the computer on fire to cook and eat each other. Does not do stupid stuff like shipping black kids from Africa to England.

                • jim says:

                  Who is it that is picking up subsaharan blacks and shipping them to Europe? It is not Bill Gates. It is “NGOs” – in other words, it is the US State Department.

                • alf says:

                  Come at me bro

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I predicted that. You prove my point again and again: you couldn’t lie straight in bed.

                  Damn the lot of you traitorous cuckolds.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Lots of things wrong with Bill Gates, but blaming him for the English rapeugee problem is nuts.”

                  Brainless libertarian cuck, never seeing the societal effects of shitty behaviour.

                  Dead niggers don’t cross oceans.

            • glosoli says:

              [*Repetition in place of evidence deleted*]

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                That does seem to be the pattern.

                Some people think Donald Trump plays 4D Chess. I don’t know whether he does or not.

                I know a few people who definitely do though.

                Who knows what’s behind the little fake crashes lol

                It’s all political, and the standard ‘prepper’ line is that the government’ intervening in the markets in a huge way. No doubt there’s some truth to that. The Bank Of England certainly gave Debenham’s and Vodafone a bit of a bid after Brexit, that’s for sure.

                There is a spicier take though: the hedge funds and stock brokerages are themselves deeply political.

              • jim says:

                You already said that.

                • glosoli says:

                  [*Repetition deleted yet again. We heard you the first time*]

                • jim says:

                  Make a new argument, or supply new evidence for your old argument, and I will let it through. You told us those facts before, I replied that they are irrelevant before. Repeating them yet again will not make them more relevant, nor convince anyone who was not convinced the first time.

                • glosoli says:

                  If you don’t like the fact, just deem it ‘irrelevant’. How very leftist.

                  How do you look yourself in the eyes each day, such a sad snake-like way to conduct yourself.

                • jim says:

                  You are a demon worshipper, and you use the same methods of argument as a troofer – you utter a transparent lie, and when called on it, issue some new irrelevant claim, or half a dozen new claims, in the hope of changing the subject.

                • glosoli says:

                  Your name-calling is getting boring. It’s childish, a sign of weakness. Continue if it makes you feel good though, we both know it’ll do you no good. Every time you mock my faith, your peril grows deeper.

                  Tell me though, all things being equal, would you expect a pro-business administration to result in more demand for credit/money or less, or exactly the same. A simple question, let’s see if you can be brave enough to answer it, and open the floodgates?

                • jim says:

                  Your question presupposes that the rise in interest rates is the free market and all that. Nah. Interest rates are what the fed decides. And what the fed decides reflects a desire for Republicans to lose elections, and Democrats to win elections.

                • glosoli says:

                  >Your question presupposes that the rise in interest rates is the free market and all that. Nah. Interest rates are what the fed decides. And what the fed decides reflects a desire for Republicans to lose elections, and Democrats to win elections.

                  I’m glad that you reveal your ignorance of the entire bond market, the yield curve, and money generally.

                  Please could you explain though, if the Fed controls the yield curve, when they were buying bonds via QE, interest rates rose. When they stopped buying, interest rates fell. How does your ‘Fed control’ narrative explain that anomaly? The graph to prove this happened has already been linked above.

                  I know it’s because the free market pool of trillions of dollars of capital rushed into USTs the moment the Fed stopped buying, fearing the economy would tank (under a commie President, a reasonable assumption).

                  But I’d be keen to hear how you resolve the conflict of your belief (Fed control), with actual lived reality (free market movements)? And the Fed openly stated, it was buying USTs via QE to try to suppress rates! (Fail).

                • jim says:

                  You are like a troofer. When called on a lie, you change the subject by spewing out a whole lot of new lies.

                  The question at issue. Is fed policy determined by all this sophisticated economic stuff, or is it determined by what will help Democrats win elections?

                  To answer that question, the one question that matters is: Was fed policy the same before Obama elections as it was before Trump elections?

                  And the one answer that matters is: No.

                  The multitude of distractions that you raise, the “lived reality of free market movements” is people guessing what the fed will do in future, and what the market thinks the fed will do in future is punish republicans and reward democrats.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Progressive Party line on the fed deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  We are getting this lie from the entire Cathedral apparatus. No need to patronizingly explain it to us yet again as if we were idiots being too dim understand the official line.

                  It is not that we are too dim to believe. It is that the official line is a transparent lie.

                  When a single monopolist has an unlimited supply that costs him nothing, that monopolist gets to set the price. The fed sets interest rates. Financial markets are transmitting fed decisions and/or making bets about future fed decisions.

                  They are transmitting the fed decision “hurt the republican party” and betting that the future fed decision “we did not hurt them enough, hurt them harder” is likely.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Believing that interest rates and money supply is set by the market PARTICULARY in a country with a de jure central bank is un-reactionary. Free markets in money supply, credit, banking etc cannot exist.

                  Its also wrong. The Fed is jacking rates to hurt Trump, Glos parrots their cover story. Occasionally true market forces have some impact but they are not the decisive factor (the one exception is with countries that pursue such poor economic policy that they destroy any value to their currency, Zimbabwe and Venezuala).

                  Free markets can only exist in alt Larp currencies nobody uses like bitcoin.

                  Jerome Powell is one backstabbing POS much like Benedict Sessions.

                • glosoli says:

                  [*repetition of irrelevance deleted*]

                • peppermint says:

                  > when QE ceased, rates fell

                  God exists and directs the world, but the Federal Reserve is just a myth we use to explain why Trump is right?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “I knew he was an idiot – I never knew he was a spastic” – Gina Torres

                  I was adding nuance. If you buy the whole Keynesian bullshit that the Fed claims, that’s your stupid business.

                  I’m losing patience with you idiots quite frankly.

              • glosoli says:

                [*further repetition of irrelevance deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  We heard you the first few times.

                • glosoli says:

                  You hear nothing, poor old boomer, you just parrot what your masters tell you to parrot. Fear drives you to delete comments. I’d hate to live in fear like you.

                • jim says:

                  Our masters are telling us that interest rates are set by market forces, not by politics, and you are telling us that interest rates are set by market forces, not by politics.

                  You mindlessly and repetitiously echo scripted official talking points, like the NPC that you are, and I delete them as the mindless official robotic repetitious spam that they are.

                • glosoli says:

                  >But the capitalist class is politically irrelevant, as are the proletariat. Anyone claiming otherwise is working a con.

                  Anyone with a curious mind will enjoy a dive into this guy’s research:

                  http://nicholaswilson.com/

                  It reveals the depths of evil within HSBC, and other big corporations. More of interest to this thread, it reveals how HSBC gets its people into key positions in media and government and regulators, to give it total control over the whole show, laws, globohomo, regulation, pols, everything, the media too, deep within the BBC.

                  These huge multinational corporations run the world. And they always are heading left.

                  >You mindlessly and repetitiously echo scripted official talking points, like the NPC that you are, and I delete them as the mindless official robotic repetitious spam that they are.

                  You, Jimbug, mindlessly and repetitiously echo scripted NRX talking points, like the NPC that you are, and I disprove them as the mindless official robotic repetitious spam that they are.

                • jim says:

                  HSBC is a quasi governmental entity not capitalism, and does not seem to be doing anything particularly wicked other than applying government money laundering laws unreasonably harshly with results that are unpredictable, inconvenientm and damaging for its customers. This is a chronic problem with international financial institutions, resulting from governments trying to control international transactions, unintentionally hurting people, and then blaming financial intermediaries for the ensuing hurt.

                  And, supposing it to be as evil as you suggest, it would be irrelevant to the question of who rules. You are just making the argument “Here is one bad member of group X that did bad things, so lets take all the stuff of all members of group X”

                • peppermint says:

                  The corporations are the government’s cape, and the EU is the UK government’s cape.

                  No one expects Brexit to immediately turn the UK govt pro-English. Instead, the UK govt will have to explain why its anti-English policies are good for the English, instead of claiming to be forced by the EU.

                  The corporate bosses, liberated from government interference, must explain why their wealth-destroying plans are wealth-creating.

                  Beyond that, to be a corporate boss a man will have to sound as pro-American as he has to sound anti-American now.

                • glosoli says:

                  >HSBC is a quasi governmental entity not capitalism

                  Ah, the first time you’ve given some ground Jimbug, albeit unwittingly. No, HSBC is not quasi-governmental, and you lie when you say so. It did not get bail out funds in the credit crunch, it is its own master. The link I supplied shows that HSBC is the puppeteer banker in the UK, much like Goldman in the US. These are the people who drive the evil all over the world: usury, media propaganda, globohomo, immigration, feminism, wars, all of it. And you admit they’re as good as government, effectively they are the chief priests in your priesthood. Glad we’re getting somewhere.

                  HSBC is just one example.
                  Have you not noticed the revolving doors between financiers especially, and government?

                  Goldman has the Treasury Secretary’s position under lock and key.

                  HSBC is an ApexCapitalist, like Goldman, the Cabal, they make the rules, they enforce leftism, they pay for it, they control the pols, and the media. Read HSBC’s ties with all three.

                • jim says:

                  No financial institution is its own master, all financial institutions are quasi governmental, and the problems with HSBC are happening in its implementation of government directives, in its implementation of money laundering restrictions.

                • Eli says:

                  The convergence of financial institutions and, eventually, their incorporation into government was observed and predicted by Schumpeter, as far back as WW2. I’m surprised that people don’t see the obvious. But then… I shouldn’t be surprised, judging by how many loonies are out there.

                • glosoli says:

                  >all financial institutions are quasi governmental,

                  One minute you’re arguing ‘don’t blame the capitalists’, blame the ‘priesthood’ Now you’re claiming ALL financial institutions are part of the priesthood.

                  I like the way you’re gradually accepting I’m correct Jimbug.

                • jim says:

                  If you continue lying about what I said, I will delete subsequent lies.

                  You are using the argument from fake consensus: “Everyone agrees with me”. Similarly, supposedly everyone agrees with the troofers that there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon, that World Trace Center building seven was undamaged, not on fire, and fell straight down on its own footprint. And Carlylean Restorationist tells us that everyone, including Mises and Moldbug, agrees that we are ruled by evil capitalists, that capitalism is rule by capitalists, and therefore capitalism is very recent, rather than going back to at least the early iron age, going back to at least our earliest written records, and probably all the way back to the Neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Have you ever met an investment banker, glosoli? The kind of man who gets into investment banking is usually hyper-masculine and very career-driven. Wolf of Wall Street is an accurate representation. Do you really think someone like Jordan Belfort wants to work with affirmative actioned trannies, women and minorities?

                  I can tell you for a fact that they don’t. Trannies are innately repulsive, women screw things up and create drama and minorities mess group cohesion. Investment bankers just want to work with other high testosterone white guys and maybe the occasional asian/indian who acts white enough. The fact that there’s a trans flag outside of Goldman Sachs and that the demographics of their incoming analysts resemble that of Bangladesh is proof that they are owned by the Cathedral, not the other way around.

                  If Goldman Sachs actually had power, they wouldn’t be forced to celebrate transvestites and hire women. If Goldman Sachs was allowed to run itself, it’d be whiter than West Virginia and the only women there would be working horizontally.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Glos Jim is not agreeing with you. Reactionary position on banking is that a free market in banking does not exist and if it ever existed (say perhaps the Jacksonian era of wildcat banks) then they don’t exist for long.

                  Banks sometimes follow capitalist incentives but not when they are ordered to do otherwise and in the era of the poz they frequently are ordered to do otherwise. Big banks like HSBC are more an arm of the state then community banks.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “[CR foolishly claims that] capitalism is very recent, rather than going back to at least the early iron age”

                  Trade between humans is universal and timeless.

                  Dogmatic adherence to the concept of trade as THE guiding principle of society, setting out the priorities of the nation and the structure of its ethical and legal framework

                  is indeed recent.

  15. Robert Lindsay says:

    Hi fellow Male Sexualist. My blog was just shut down by WordPress, possibly for Male Sexualist content. Can you show me a site that has no freedom of speech or could you possibly blog about my case? Thank you!

    • jim says:

      Since WordPress is our enemy, no one should use their services. Regrettably, they have the best software, but you should run that software under your own domain name on hardware that you pay for. I will not comment on *.wordpress.com blogs. And pretty soon large scale seizures of domain names are coming, so we will have to move to a blockchain based name system. You should have expected closure, and should have a kept a backup. Maybe you can still get a backup if you did not keep one.

      If you have a backup, I can do a restore onto my hardware, but you really should have your own domain name, because with a domain name and a backup, you are resistant to pressure – until they start confiscating domain names. Get a cheap domain name from https://gandi.net

      Not a male sexualist in the same sense.

      If women have the option of serial monogamy, this leads to defect defect equilibrium, making family formation difficult, and no one gets what they want. Women defect on men, and men respond by defecting on women. She does serial monogamy, he spins plates. We need to control female sexuality, and efforts to control male sexuality are a wicked and destructive distraction from the problem. So it is more that I want strong restrictions on female sexuality, than that I want abolish any and all restrictions on male sexuality. I favor the old testament restrictions, as interpreted and applied by the court of King Solomon.

      I favor the authority of husbands, and for husbands to have authority, need to be able to deal with males that intrude on their women, as well as being able to compel their women to stick around and perform their marital duties. Male sexuality should be restricted by the authority of husbands, obviously, and by the durability of marriage. I favor the old Testament rules as interpreted and applied by the court of King Solomon, when seducing or even abducting an unbetrothed virgin was not so bad, even a very young virgin, but cutting her loose afterwards was extremely bad.

      Husbands should be able to kill adulterers, both wives and their lovers, and white knighting should be legitimate grounds for proportionate and appropriate physical violence, similar to trespass. Some kinds of trespass are appropriately dealt with by giving the offender a stern look, others appropriately dealt with by shooting the offender without a warning, and similarly for white knighting. Fathers should be able to kill suitors who persist in sniffing around when the father does not want them around (irrespective of the age of the daughter) but if they find their daughters wandering off due to interest in males, which is by far the more common problem, then for daughters older than the Westermarck effect should lose authority over their straying daughters for failure to control them, and an appropriate husband should gain authority. The state should back the authority of husbands and fathers to control female sexuality, but fathers should lose that authority to an appropriate husband if ineffectual and unsuccessful in controlling female sexuality, as so very often they are.

      Husbands, for obvious reasons, tend to have considerably more success in controlling female sexuality than fathers. Rome fell because of failure to transfer authority from fathers to husbands, with the result that male authority was ineffectual, control of female sexuality was ineffectual, with the result that the elite failed to reproduce. When Rome developed the habit of keeping power with the father, wives developed the habit of screwing gladiators, the original badboy who is low status in the male hierarchy, but high status in female eyes.

      The disaster that befell Rome is analogous to our problem with underage female sexuality. Undeveloped females have an interest in adult males far more often than adult males have an interest in undeveloped females, hence the widespread practice of clitoridectomy at andrenarche, well before menarche. This practice reflects an awareness that female sexuality is a problem, and that this problem usually sets in at a very early age.

      We are ignoring this problem and in severe denial about it, and I want to fix this problem both by giving fathers more authority, and by shotgun marriage. Giving fathers more authority is different from the male sexualist solution, but if we rely too heavily on that part of the solution, we wind up with the problem that destroyed Rome, (badboys and musicians causing elite reproductive failure) so we have to also proceed with shotgun marriage, transferring authority from fathers to husbands, sometimes at a very early age.

  16. glosoli says:

    Jim>I know and have known some capitalists. The probability that a random capitalist is on my side and against globohomo is overwhelmingly higher than that a random person in the street is on my side.

    And even if capitalists were not on my side, capitalists are not in power so it would not matter. We are always ruled by priests or warriors.’

    Q revealed that capitalists deliberately put chemicals into floor cleaning fluids which babies ingest through their hands and feet, and which later in life causes cancer. Same capitalists then make a fortune out of cancer ‘treatments’, which rarely cure, the actual cure having been ignored, shelved for decades.

    Even is one doesn’t believe Q’s assertion, one only has to look at the ingredients in any store-bought ‘food’ and do one’s own research to know that the capitalists are deliberately poisoning us.

    Why would they do such a thing? Well, partly for profit of course, they have every angle covered: food, housing, laws, family situations, propaganda, government, healthcare, leisure activities.

    To be clear, I’m not referring to your local restaurant, family-run, but to the global corporations, Monsanto, HSBC, McDonalds, Coke, Glaxo Smithkline, the list is very very long (do your own research on the Payseurs at Neon Revolt).

    Apart from profit, all of these companies have one other aim in mind: to eradicate Christianity the world over, and to destroy Western civilisation at the same time. Yes, these corporations are never Christian, never want to obey Jehovah, in fact want to own the whole world, and show to their god, the father of lies, that everyone on the planet can be turned away from Jehovah.

    It won’t happen, Jehovah will step in and stop it.

    One has to be either very very naive to believe that big business is neutral when it comes to leftist propaganda and the drift/push leftwards, or one has to be a shill, part of the plan. Of course, big business isn’t pro-right-wing, or neutral, it seeks to destroy families, to destroy mens’ sanity and prospects for forming families, as it all leads to bigger profits for them. Not rocket science to see that globohomo makes big bucks from the rise of feminism/marital breakdown. More houses needed, more lawyers, more debt, more depression more drugs, more kids to be taken into care, more cars, more (any consumer shit you care to insert here).

    I would suggest a visit to Miles W Mathis’s ‘updates’ page, for a deep dive into the cons these elite capitalists have been pushing for millenia. They’re always there, in the shadows, pulling strings, pushing politicians into wars, into debt, away from God.

    Be wary of those who deny the centre of evil in this world, they are not to be trusted at all. Those who say ‘look over here’ are also saying ‘don’t look over there’. And they’ll shout nasty names at those who see the true picture. Or, if desperate, they’ll just delete the comment, as it disrupts their narrative.

    • The Cominator says:

      Jim is right that shareholders tend to be right wing people. The market itself tells you that investors and shareholders like Trump. The job market tells you that entrepeneurs like Trump.

      Its just the state bans right wing politics within companies. You’ll get in all sorts of legal trouble… most people REALLY REALLY hate legal trouble. If businessmen are going to risk legal trouble its generally going to be dodging taxes.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        “Jim is right that shareholders tend to be right wing people.”

        The fatal flaw in your worldview is you’re wilfully blind to class in the Marxist sense.
        It’s understandable that you hate Marx. I hate Marx as well. Marxism is all about equality and universality. It’s the part of the Whig revolutionary mindset that rejects the holiness of private property. It’s a heresy centred on neglect for the commandment not to steal and not to covet.

        I hate it as much as you do.

        That doesn’t mean that “the class of people who live paycheck to paycheck and have no savings” doesn’t exist and it doesn’t mean that “the class of people worth more than a billion dollars” doesn’t exist. To deny these palpably true groupings it just childish.

        Now do these types of groups have interests in common? Sure, to a point. You’re less likely to enjoy skiing and golf if you earn minimum wage and live in cheap rented accommodation.

        Are there effects on your worldview? Sure, to a point. You’re less likely to be an outright communist if you’re a billionaire, but there are exceptions.

        Nevertheless what you’re claiming is itself a Marxian idea: that people with disposable capital they’d like to grow through investment have right-leaning political views and are broadly sympathetic to Donald Trump and what he stands for.

        I’m in basic agreement with this statement, but we need to be very clear what we’re pointing to. Groups are REAL and I don’t object to you using them. I don’t object to you talking about “shareholders are like this”, because we’re adults and we understand that groups exist.

        AM I RIGHT OR WILL THIS BE CENSORED FOR TALKING ABOUT GROUPS?

        So what *are* we pointing to, precisely?

        That image you and Jim have of ‘shareholders’ is basically men with between $10,000 and $10,000,000 to invest, who are either active businessmen themselves, or else take such a pro-active role in their own financial life that they might as well be.

        Fine, I agree those people are broadly sympathetic to Donald Trump – especially for the tax cuts but also for his rhetorical style and for a general sense of pushing back against the loony left. They may also have an open mind about protectionism and have concerns about the balance of trade deficit.

        But here’s the thing: the capital markets are barely moved at all by those people.
        Many of them trade through brokerages and hedge funds, so praxeologically they’re not involved at all: their brokers are.

        In addition to brokers, the markets are moved by the very large players: those with more than ten million dollars to ‘play with’.

        So the real question is how sympathetic are professional stockbrokers, hedge fund managers and billionaires who made the most money *by coming to terms with the system as it really is under globohomo*.

        To what extent do they support what Donald Trump’s trying to do? To what extent are they ‘our guys’? To what extent do they oppose the mass migration, the socialist programmes, the social justice agenda?

        I hate to break it to you goys, but they’re not our guys.

        Just watch the Google meeting video leaked by Breitbart. They’re neither afraid of the state, nor pretending. They mean every word.

        • jim says:

          > The fatal flaw in your worldview is you’re wilfully blind to class in the Marxist sense.

          Class in the Marxist sense does not exist.

          Rich people exist, poor people exist, but they do not act in the interests of their economic categories, they don’t identify with their economic categories.

          Their economic categories are not individuals capable of acting with a single will, they are not even tribes.

          > But here’s the thing: the capital markets are barely moved at all by those people.

          Nuts.

          You admit that capitalists are, by and large, what I say they are – people like myself who are a lot more likely to support Donald Trump than the median voter is, people who are white, heterosexual, and support making America great again.

          And then you tell us that there is a secret invisible all powerful capitalist leftist capitalist class that rules.

          No there is not.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            “You admit that capitalists are, by and large, what I say they are – people like myself who are a lot more likely to support Donald Trump than the median voter is, people who are white, heterosexual, and support making America great again.

            And then you tell us that there is a secret invisible all powerful capitalist leftist capitalist class that rules.”

            What I’m saying is that what you’re calling capitalists do not have group shared interests.
            The guy with under $10m to invest is not part of the same tribe as the guy with above $10m to invest.

            Obviously that line’s arbitrarily drawn, but you get the point: your grandfather with his $200k portfolio supports Trump. Warren Buffet does not.

            Your grandfather’s $200k will behave one of two ways:

            1. He invests everything directly, by hand, does all his own research and micro-manages his portfolio, in which case he’s $200k in a trillion dollar market so he does not move the market

            or

            2. He uses a stockbroker, pursuing one of a range of strategies. The majority of those guys are not Trump supporters so your grandfather’s $200k is not being deployed by a Trump supporter, but rather by a Ted Cruz supporter stockbroker. Not only does it not move the trillion dollar market but in fact it’s part of the ‘consensus moves’ that scenario 1 above is trying to resist and failing.

            Your grandfather supports Trump but his $200k does not move the market.

            The people who move the market do not support Trump.

            • jim says:

              > The people who move the market do not support Trump.

              The Federal Reserve does not support Trump. Private investors, the people who own stocks, do, for the most part, support Trump.

        • The Cominator says:

          I will grant CR ONE point though most likely it is not the point he intended.

          Capitalists are not pozzed but the old money families who control billions in foundation money ARE often seriously pozzed. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Fords, DuPonts etc. They are not capitalists since their hereditary wealth has long raised them above such “vulgar” pursuits.

          I would solve this by outlawing foundations…

          • jim says:

            Just change what is high status, and the foundations will turn on a dime.

            • The Cominator says:

              Moldbug would say to formalize them as part of the state church which is to say nationalize them…

              Those who supported the poz when they didn’t have to should be made to pay…

    • peppermint says:

      CR switched from calling them capitalists to calling them the banking industry. That’s good, because the defintion of a capitalist, from Marx, is a man with capital who buys goods and labor and sells value-added goods. Thus Trump was a capitalist before he became our king – the capitalist class just siezed the means of production of status – and the swindlers you describe are not capitalists.

      • glosoli says:

        >the swindlers you describe are not capitalists.

        I won’t argue about what we call them. But they do what capitalists do, seek to maximise return on their investment, but via very evil schemes, with no love for their neighbour, rather a desire to swindle from and kill their neighbour and their neighbour’s family, and their neighbour’s government and nation. The literal globohomo crew.

        To pre-deflect Jim’s usual poor defence, there are plenty of mid-tier listed companies that are not globohomo, and are forced to play by their rules, and who get swallowed up, or forced out of business if they resist, or get destroyed if they invent something really good (poor old Tesla, the original guy I mean). I refer to the Apex SwindlingSatanistCapitalists, our overlords, Jim’s and Moldbug’s puppeteers.

        • glosoli says:

          Once again, Jim prefers to ignore this subject altogether.

          Jim: ‘There are no Apex Money Men, no Roths, no Rockefellers, no Payseurs, and even if there are, they are lovely guys, who love us fellow white Christians, and just want to sell us stuff. Oh, and they may have gazillions in hidden wealth, but some myseterious ‘priests’ can boss them around’.

          Makes a lot of sense Jim. Moldbug would be proud of the narrative, look over here, some mystical priests, don’t look over there at the group expelled from dozens of nations for theft, degeneracy and pure evil.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        “CR switched from calling them capitalists to calling them the banking industry. ”

        No you made that up.

        Everyone here agrees the banks are gone, and I’m willing to concede that in that case, it has a lot to do with government action. They’re essentially part of the state now. We can argue about how willing they were to enter into that agreement but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground.

        The problems with the rest of the capitalist class are separate from the problems with the banks.

        I redirect the reader to the executive board of ProPublica, the doxxing organisation that landed the Charlottesville Four in prison.
        I redirect the reader to the executive board of The Guardian and The Huffington Post.

        From the opposite direction (capitalist organisation to left-wing funding, rather than capitalist funding to left-wing organisation), I redirect the reader to Harry’s Razors, to Richard Branson and to Eric Sprott’s Sprott Foundation.

        Capitalists are up to their necks in globohomo from top to bottom.

        If these structural links are insufficient evidence, consider the core activities of companies like BetFred, Wonga and yes the big corporate chain restaurants everyone here’s so keen to defend.

        There’s a cancer in our society, and to believe the capitalists have nothing to do with it is the worst kind of cuckery imaginable.
        You want to get rid of the media, academia and the existing forms of government but you INSIST that capitalism be left as it currently is.

        Fail mode.

    • Filthy Liar says:

      I’m pretty sure you and Peppermint are the only ones dumb enough to believe the Q shit. How’s that storm coming? Not a lot of clouds over here

  17. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    “One has to be either very very naive to believe that big business is neutral when it comes to leftist propaganda and the drift/push leftwards, or one has to be a shill, part of the plan.”

    The third way is that if you’re very very smart, you can be really retarded.

    The more big-brained a libertarian gets, the easier it is for them to excuse anything the left-wing capitalist class does.

    I don’t believe in Q and I don’t believe in conspiracies. You only have to look at modern Americans to see there’s something badly wrong with their lifestyles.

    Much of this is the fault of the government.
    Much more of this is the fault of the culture, generated and perpetuated by the Marxists in academia training all our leaders and societal shapers.

    To believe that those same Marxists that brainwash teachers, politicians, journalists and media celebrities are somehow incapable of brainwashing advertisers, economic advisers, direct investors and fund managers requires a detailed argument, and so far I’ve seen none: the capitalists are just IMMUNE, period.

    • jim says:

      > to believe that those same Marxists that brainwash teachers, politicians, journalists and media celebrities are somehow incapable of brainwashing advertisers, economic advisers, direct investor

      Teachers, journalists, and media celebrities are not being “brainwashed” Globohomo is rule by priests, they are priests, and you are a priest.

      Being holier than the next priest is the way a priest individually gets ahead in the priesthood, and giving high status to holiness, and low status to capitalists and warriors is the way the priesthood gets ahead collectively.

      Reaction 101: Movement ever leftwards is driven by the individual and collective interest of the priesthood.

      Marxism in their interests, and being more Marxist than the next guy is in their individual interest, even though ever more extreme Marxism is in no one’s collective interest.

      Marxism is not in the interests, individually or collectively, of advertisers, economic advisers, direct investors and fund managers. It is in the individual interests of teachers, journalists, and media celebrities.

      When I visited Cuba, they took writers, teachers and journalists to one side, and showed them communist writers, teachers and journalists with lots of status and power, implying that Marxism is in their collective interest, and they especially gave writers splendid treatment, implying that come the revolution, people who produce media would be as gods.

      Marxism is certainly in the collective interest of Marxists, and teachers, journalists, and media celebrities tend to be Marxist because in their individual interest. And in Cuba, I saw some mighty heavy handed efforts to reassure them it is in their collective interest – that lowering capitalist status will raise the status of writers.

      But writers, teachers, journalists, professors, and suchlike do not really care whether it is in their collective interest, since plainly Marxism and globohomo is in their individual interest, irrespective of their collective interest.

      • Mike says:

        Showerthought Jim, priests are as inescapable as a part of society as warriors are. This being true then, that priests will always be around, are priests evil because they are priests, or are priests only evil because they are not controlled? Because they always are engaging in holiness spirals even when the warriors rule, the warriors just would make them stop.

        So, and this is definitely an insane thought experiment, would it be best to just kill all the priests or abolish the priestly class rather than deal with the evil that seems inherent to them? Or is that me just being utopian?

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Since you’re thinking outside the box, what if we just returned to a standard of living in which millions of people couldn’t be priests – maybe two per village lol

          • jim says:

            I want my children to rule the stars. Therefore, need a society with a per capita wealth unimaginably high by today’s standards, so that we can afford to rule the stars.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Jim writes:

              “I want my children to rule the stars. Therefore, need a society with a per capita wealth unimaginably high by today’s standards, so that we can afford to rule the stars.”

              I don’t much care about the stars but I’m with you all the way about per capita wealth.

              The matter of contention over recent weeks has been what constitutes wealth.

              If you believe that healthy per capita wealth is when people live paycheck to paycheck in order to go on multiple foreign holidays and dine out three times a week, then I have to beg to differ.

              Healthy per capita wealth is when families get steadily richer generation by generation, with accumulated possessions, shared pools of material wealth such as jewellery, ornaments, furniture, even clothing, and when people always have enough money to cover whatever big bill comes in without harming their positive net wealth.

              Those two societies are opposite: in one, the focus is on spending; in the other, the focus is on saving.

              • jim says:

                > If you believe that healthy per capita wealth is when people live paycheck to paycheck in order to go on multiple foreign holidays

                Nobody who lives from paycheck to paycheck is going on foreign holidays. I travel the world a great deal, I meet those people, they always have substantial savings and assets.

                Lots of people, however, who have no paychecks are taking on gigantic amounts of usurious debt to get a worthless college education. Lots of people are pursuing status along the priestly path, who will never make it as priests, and who in the unlikely event that they do make it as priests will be paid mostly in status, with never enough money to repay the enormous usurious debt under which they struggle.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re such a Quinian.

                  If I was charitable I’d assume this was just your weird American bougie experience, because here in Britain the vast mass of the people is one broken boiler away from bankruptcy but they’re not shy of going shopping.

                • jim says:

                  Well, I don’t know who you meet while shopping in Britain, but I do know who I meet while travelling the world, and my fellow travelers are far indeed from living paycheck to paycheck. They budget far in advance.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s very tiring. It’s not even tireSOME, it’s tirING.
                  You flatly deny the existence of demonstrably real phenomena in order to push a libertarian agenda, then flatly deny you’re trying to push a libertarian agenda, calling me a Marxist for being concerned about the low savings rate into the bargain.

                  It’s honestly just as if you were some sort of controlled opposition.
                  I can’t think of any other reasonable explanation for this rhetorical style of denial, misrepresentation and attack dogs at the ready.

                • jim says:

                  > You flatly deny the existence of demonstrably real phenomena in order to push a libertarian agenda,

                  You are telling me that you see what Marxist ideology predicts right in front of your eyes.

                  It is not in front of my eyes. I see capitalists are, for the most part, my tribe, white male heterosexual christian Trump supporters. I see college students behaving irresponsible in pissing borrowed money away on stupid stuff. I don’t see my fellow world travelers behaving irresponsibly with money, let alone borrowed money.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I posted a long list of diverse sources to prove the point that’s obvious to any normal person in any case.

                  It never appeared, so anyone with a nagging feeling in their brain at the idea that people aren’t in fact living beyond their means and consumer debt isn’t a real thing…… should do a search themselves.

                  Terms:

                  “living paycheck to paycheck”
                  “consumer debt”
                  and “lack of savings”

                  The truth is, across the white world, more than half of us are living paycheck to paycheck, often going into overdraft or even taking out monthly payments around the assumption of overtime.
                  Many are in even worse shape than that.

                  The assumption from the mainstream media is that this is entirely explained by housing costs, but if it’s half the population then this is going to include people who live with their family.
                  The assumption from the left is that wages are too low and people are being ‘exploited’ by their employers, but if it’s half the population then this is false: it must include large numbers of people around (and above) the median wage.

                  The truth is, people today are completely soaked in the culture of consumerism and are transferring everything they can to the purveyors of quick thrills and experiences.

                  The idea that this problem can be solved WITHOUT slamming a few doors shut is laughable and absurd.

                  The filthiest part is it’s motivated by a Whig mindset: the head of the state simply doesn’t have the RIGHT to do it.

                  That way lies fail mode.

                  You libertarians should listen to the second part of Peter Schiff’s new podcast, episode 400. He talks about Pocahontas and ‘identity politics’ and nails his colours firmly to the individualist model of the world.

                  He goes on to tell us that he harbours no ill feeling for the suffering of the Jews under slavery (lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and that he’d never dream of treating in-group members any differently from out-group members.
                  Anyone wanna take a few guesses about his close associates in his various companies over the years?

                  THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, but he’s telling porkies.

            • Mike says:

              Lol sorry guys, that question was from me. I am really tired today and I just zoned out and named myself Jim in the comments lmao.

          • peppermint says:

            If we had a confessor for each village and he had to obey the bishop who had to obey the king and the pope, and the confessor had to avoid scandal, that would be acceptable.

            Currently priests are allowed to do whatever and have to obey no one on paper, except that professors technically have an oath of celibacy towards coeds, which is routinely violated by higher status professors in the studies curriculum.

            • The Cominator says:

              Celibacy by higher IQ individuals is not desirable…

              Priests right now have the problem of being part of an evil religion, priestly celibacy with a good religion tends to be negative eugenics.

              • StoneMan says:

                Celibacy by higher IQ individuals is disastrous in a time such as ours, but we probably look at eugenics and fertility in the same way that a neolithic man would look at food. It isn’t eugenic, but a healthy society could afford it, and if priestly celibacy actually contributes toward a healthy society it is potentially a collective net positive.

                • peppermint says:

                  The discipline of celibacy was imposed to prevent certain abuses of office, Paul says bishops shouldn’t be celibate and non-Roman churches impose celibacy only on monks.

                  Without a vow of obedience, however, it’s hardly an official religion.

                  The only question left is poverty. Should we enforce that discipline on our official priests?

                  Also how many priests are needed to (1) keep dementors like CR from claiming to holier than a working man with his tendies (2) keep CR from burning witches (3) take people’s confessions and give advice, which needs to be separate from the secular justice system or the government will impose CR’s ideology on its prisoners, and outside of the government chain of command, since people won’t give confessions to their superiors or without the Seal of Confession

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Where you see holiness, I see pragmatics.

                  Working people are financially vulnerable because the advertisers have won the war on their minds.
                  I’m intensely relaxed with the idea that IQ90 people might find it impossible to win a long-haul war of attrition with (((IQ115))) people and might need our help.

                  The left suggests regulating the PEOPLE, and imposing special guidelines and stipulations for the CONTENT of what the corporations are selling, while leaving the corporations entirely intact and in fact benefiting them because the cost of compliance disproportionately affects their smaller competitors, the mom&pop businesses that reactionaries OUGHT TO BE standing behind.

                  What I’m suggesting is much simpler: when society’s beset with parasites, sometimes the cleanest way to restore order is just to physically remove them.

                • jim says:

                  You are repetitiously spamming this blog Cultural Marxism 101. We have heard it all before.

                  Poor people are not poor because of advertising. They make bad decisions because stupid, and because they think short term, and this is a problem much more conspicuous with poor people living on crime and welfare, than poor working class people.

                  Most advertising is simple information for example “Fresh caught Barramundi coming in on Wednesday”. I just don’t see all this brilliantly clever insidious mind control.

                  Further, because you are a Marxist, you attribute this bad behavior to white working class people, when we see it primarily in black people living on crime and welfare.

                  For example, you accuse the white working class of spending too much on Domino’s pizza.

                  The white working class spends too much on beer at the pub and on gambling. It is the black underclass that spends too much on fried chicken at fast food joints. You project black underclass behavior onto the working class. The white working class does not spend irresponsibly at Domino’s, and the only people that spend irresponsibly on international travel are recently divorced women pissing away the family assets.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Poor people are not poor because of advertising. They make bad decisions because stupid, and because they think short term, and this is a problem much more conspicuous with poor people living on crime and welfare, than poor working class people.”

                  Nope, I know many, many working-class and lower-middle-class people who earn plenty of money and spend all of it.

                  They’re completely in thrall to the corporate chains and will turn their noses up at family restaurants.

                  I’m not an egalitarian like you, so I don’t simply tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

                  I note where the power lies in that relationship (and it’s not where the libertarians say it is) and my solution is that if you want a healthy society, those chains are going to have to go.

                  If people have the urge to spend ALL their disposable income in family restaurants, that’s their business and if they get into financial trouble, well that’s just how it is, but to ignore the power of mass global marketing supported by every single part of the ruling class is just treachery and retardation.

                  This was not the case thirty years ago: it’s new and it’s come from the dominance that consumer capitalism now enjoys over people’s minds.
                  We live in the age of brainwashing, but you think that only works in the public sector.

                  It’s sad and disloyal. You’re throwing ordinary people under the bus because they don’t live up to your claim that IQ160 is indistinguishable from IQ90 in terms of agency and self-control.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  For the non-retarded reader who isn’t completely gaslit by Bob Murphy and Tom Woods, consider the example of “The Big Bang Theory”.

                  These are high status shitlibs. They get take-out every night and dine out every day.

                  QED. Shitlibs love consumer capitalism.

                • jim says:

                  The characters on “The Big Bang” can easily afford to eat out every day.

                  They eat out every day because the story line requires that they socialize, not because the Cathedral cares whether or not people eat out every day.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Repetitious Cultural Marxism deleted yet again*]

                • jim says:

                  It is not that we don’t get it. It is that we have all heard the Cultural Marxist boilerplate script against “advertising” and “consumerism” a hundred times before, and it was entirely absurd, ridiculous and unbelievable the first time.

                  There is nothing wrong with the lifestyle of the people on “The Big Bang”, other than that they tolerate horrifying and outrageous female misconduct leading to failure to reproduce

                  They are presented as autistic, socially inept, and absurd, not as people to be looked up to and imitated. Therefore, if your poster for evil capitalist mind control is “The Big Bang”, no subtle mind control plot to brainwash people into supporting capitalism by promoting consumption of the products that socialism spectacularly and catastrophically fails to provide.

                  The Cultural Marxist boilerplate script against “advertising” and “consumerism” is that characters on American television enjoy a comfortable living standard, similar to my own, similar to that of the people around me, which even the nomenclatura did not possess under socialism. Your formulaic and repetitious script is against reality itself, not against lies presented on television, but against truths presented on television.

                  The Cultural Marxist complaint against “advertising” and “consumerism” is that capitalism gives people a comfortable lifestyle, which you know full well socialism would deny them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  To summarise, before I try once again to vanish – the plan this time is not even to LOOK what’s going on here for a full week, then I won’t get drawn back in by you talking about me all the time………. anyhow to summarise:

                  Capitalism (ie. global corporations and their stockholders):

                  1. Prefers you to spend your money
                  2. Is compatible with liberal values
                  3. Funds left-wing propaganda outlets voluntarily
                  4. Funds left-wing charities for PR purposes
                  5. Wants labour to be as cheap as possible (so over-supply is a good thing)
                  6. Likes people who don’t stick together in opposing in-groups vying for better conditions
                  7. Loves government regulation because it hurts the competition
                  8. Crowds out opportunities for family businesses to emerge
                  9. Fosters a society based on universal and ever more insanely extreme debt
                  10. Creates billionaires who don’t know what to do with their money next so they turn to ‘charitable works’ for the good of their reputation
                  11. Loves big, deficit-spending, government

                  but most importantly of all, for all the reasons above combined,

                  12. Hates white people

                  No doubt you’ll censor this then reply to the missing comment with claims of Marxism.

                  I don’t much care to be perfectly honest. You annoy me and I keep finding myself trying to beat down your bullshit with rational argument but sooner or later the penny will drop that you’re just another left-wing ideologue so there’s no point trying to argue with reason at all: you have no interest in it. You already know what you believe and you’ll say absolutely anything to ‘technically, sorta, ha gotcha’ defend those predetermined beliefs.

                • jim says:

                  Commie lies.

                  You start out from the assumption that Capitalist rule. You observe that the behavior of the Cathedral is savagely hostile to capitalism, capitalists, corporations (Sarbanes Oxley makes every capitalist running a publicly traded joint stock corporation into a criminal) and then you construct a contorted, convoluted, and fundamentally insane rationalization of why Cathedral behavior is somehow in the interests of “The Capitalist Class”.

                  When every member of the capitalist class who employs over fifty people is a criminal for violating the laws imposed and enforced by their Human Resources Department, and every capitalist who runs a publicly traded joint stock corporation is a criminal for violating Sarbanes-Oxley, nothing that they do is voluntary.

                  And the fact that we have such laws proves that “the Capitalist Class” is powerless and terrified. And if you ever got drunk with them you would know that they are powerless and terrified.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  *small clarification:

                  6) Likes people who aren’t members of a solid in-group opposing the capitalists’ own interests and vying for better pay and conditions

                  In other words the capitalists like a population that’s fragmented and in which everyone will stab everyone else in the back for a small short-term gain.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You observe that the behavior of the Cathedral is savagely hostile to capitalism”

                  I don’t deny that at all. Capitalists are low status in the Cathedral, but what people like you have never considered is that perhaps the men behind the guns *like it that way*. (((we’re just the junior silent partners in this joint venture, goyim)))

                  It’s awfully convenient that globohomo is pursuing the following policy package:

                  1. Ongoing inflow of unskilled, wealthless labour that has no common cause with legacy labour

                  2. Ever greater personal freedom to consume, combined with ever greater incentive not to think too much

                  3. A constrictive regulatory environment that makes entry very hard and expensive, leaving most people in the position of either being an employee or else taking part in the ‘gig economy’

                  4. A tax system that penalises people who own wealth, yet seems mysteriously incapable of forcing billionaires to pay anything in – Cayman Islands for Cameron, Inheritance Tax for you

                  It made no sense that someone so smart could be so stupid until the penny dropped: you’re not being stupid.
                  You’re doing it on purpose.

                  Don’t look behind the curtain, fellow white people, there’s nothing to see there. Look it’s the government, those silly SJWs!

                • jim says:

                  > > “You observe that the behavior of the Cathedral is savagely hostile to capitalism”

                  > I don’t deny that at all. Capitalists are low status in the Cathedral, but what people like you have never considered is that perhaps the men behind the guns *like it that way*. (((we’re just the junior silent partners in this joint venture, goyim)))

                  Nuts.

                  Your rationalizations are transparently insane.

                  I can personally vouch for the account of the relationships between capitalists and social justice warriors given by Vox Day I have had similar experiences.

                  Human Resources threatens capitalists with the Kavanaugh treatment if they fail to adequately support Social Justice. I have been threatened. I saw my boss threatened, though I was never myself at risk in that incident, since I had refused to have anything to do with the woman in question except in front of numerous witnesses, and had as far as possible maintained a distance of ten feet while speaking to her, knowing her to be evil, and suspecting her to carry sexually transmitted diseases.

                  The times when I have actually have “raped” or “sexually harassed” a coworker never led to any problems. From observation and personal experience, I conclude that all complaints of rape and sexual harassment are politically motivated by lust for power and fame. Women complain about rape because they become bitter and angry for lack of rape. All sex complaints are false, as near to all of them as make no difference, and most workplace sex complaints are political, efforts by social justice warriors, by the cat ladies of HR, to intimidate capitalists into going along with Social Justice.

                • Roberto says:

                  CR, your argument is 99% idealism and 1% realism. This needs to change. Suppose that:

                  1) Your worldview is totally justified;
                  2) The ruler — for whatever reason — agrees that your worldview is totally justified; and attempts to fully implement it.

                  Okay, now here’s where reality kicks in: how — if at all — are you going to prevent the rich from emigrating from the kingdom?

                  This is not a “gotcha.” You call for nationalizing business, abolishing capitalism, banning chain restaurants, private swimming pools, and air travel, and significantly scaling down technology. Thus, while the savings rate may go up, the living standard will dramatically go down, at least for rich people. So rich people are gonna emigrate in droves.

                  What do you propose should be done about it?

                • The Cominator says:

                  > I can personally vouch for the account of the relationships between capitalists and social justice warriors given by Vox Day

                  MOST capitalists tend to be Trump guys but all or nearly all of them hate SJWs and most of them would eagerly put them in gas chambers if they could.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto almost understands values higher than the financial:

                  “how — if at all — are you going to prevent the rich from emigrating from the kingdom?

                  This is not a “gotcha.” You call for nationalizing business, abolishing capitalism, banning chain restaurants, private swimming pools, and air travel, and significantly scaling down technology. Thus, while the savings rate may go up, the living standard will dramatically go down, at least for rich people. So rich people are gonna emigrate in droves.”

                  If the above things are included in your assessment of standard of living then yes standard of living will ‘go down’.
                  The standard of living of your great great grandparents was lower, by those standards, than your own, yet they owned silverware, ‘antique’ furniture and even commissioned family portraits from actual artists.

                  They certainly almost never dined out without there being some overwhelming reason for it, and they certainly weren’t fond of foreign travel for its own sake.

                  If rich capitalists withdraw their support from globohomo regions, it’s a problem. In a healthy society the priorities would be very different, and the way to achieve those priorities comes from the people as a whole, as well as small groups within the population.

                  It’s not that an amorphous mass of proles is preferable to a multi-class society: on the contrary we need precisely that – a multi-class society in which interests are harmonised along in-group lines.

                  The people who built the cathedrals could have done it without usurious cosmopolitan ‘investors’. How do I know that? Because that’s exactly what they did do.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator once more over-aggregates:

                  “MOST capitalists tend to be Trump guys but all or nearly all of them hate SJWs and most of them would eagerly put them in gas chambers if they could.”

                  That’s true of small investors, small business owners and SOME junior/middle/upper-middle staff members of corporations.

                  It’s not at all true of the billionaire activist investors who fund ProPublica and it’s not at all true of the billionaire cosmopolitans who keep the flood of Africans flowing.

                • jim says:

                  It is not the billionaire cosmopolitans who keep the flood of Africans flowing. And the funding for Pro Publica is danegeld. They would prefer them killed by Duterte’s death squads to funding them, but since we do not yet have death squads operating in the US, they fund them.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Roberto almost understands values higher than the financial

                  My “values” aren’t strictly speaking economical at all; it’s just that unlike you, I value reality itself. Your utopia/dystopia is impractical, meaning that *even if* we were in agreement that your preferred society is ideal, it would still be unfeasible.

                  >The standard of living of your great great grandparents was lower, by those standards, than your own, yet they owned silverware, ‘antique’ furniture and even commissioned family portraits from actual artists.

                  This is an epic evasion. Are you familiar with the concept of “revealed preference”? The revealed preference of affluent people today is to live the life you vehemently disapprove of – spending, dining out, vacations, etc. If you’re going to take that away from them, they’re simply going to emigrate. Even moderately well off people will leave. So the “reality check” is that you’ll be left with the underclass, the working class, and the lower middle class; everyone more affluent will be gone. That’s a recipe for being wiped out by rival kingdoms.

                  The lifestyle you disapprove of is the preference of people who *have a choice*. Meaning that the only people who will remain in your society are those who won’t have a choice. And, as has been pointed out previously, the value producers who’ll see their standard of living drop will not be loyal to the ruler; it is expected that the warrior class will attempt a coup against the excessively holy, excessively priestly king. That’s the voice of reality, CR. Do you value reality?

        • peppermint says:

          Tyvm Internet:
          * knowing random facts and obscure words is no longer respected
          * stupid justifications are a joke and a game
          * grammar national socialism is a joke
          * no one likes ‘s for is and the oxford comma is rejected for being the oxford comma
          * garbage greco-latin metered poetry is obsolete
          * arguments and evidence talk, bluster walks
          * porn and gore are everywhere and no one pretends to be shocked or titillated
          * sexual market value rediscovered
          * market value for labor and code rediscovered by open source community
          * 20c “energy beings” free shid utopianism eternally btfo
          * everyone has access to The Canterbury Tales, Paradise Lost, The Latter-Day Pamphlets, Summa Theologica, etc.
          * the writing of books is no longer respected unless someone has a lot to say
          * the reading of books is no longer respected unless they are good
          * people get to the point

        • The Cominator says:

          “re priests evil because they are priests, or are priests only evil because they are not controlled?”

          Priests are inevitable but ARE evil when not controlled. Not necessarily evil if controlled.

          I think when priests are well controlled they teach well, write well, and do scientific research well.

          Banking also ALWAYs has a priestly factor as Moldbug observed. When well controlled banking crisis that collapse the economy are rarer.

        • peppermint says:

          How relevant was 1A to beginning Ameriva’s quest of world destruction? How relevant to ending it?

          Without official priests, who will restrain puritans?

          With official priests, who will stand against the government determined to destroy civilization?

  18. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Incidentally, youtube has been under pressure recently to reduce it’s censorship due to falling ad revenue.

    >but didn’t they say they do censorship *for* getting more advertisers?

    They did say that, which is a lie they would tell to make people think it was a business decision and not an ideological decision. As more and more high profile videos or content creators would get deleted or demonetized over time for instances of counter-revolutionary lexemes, business advertisers began pulling out, feeling that they spent money on channel space for nothing, the platform proving faithless.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      The Alex Jones ban, co-ordinated across all platforms at once, proves they’re not interested in profit.

      These ‘reactionaries’ think the government forced them to do it lolz

      • jim says:

        “coordinated across all platforms” shows that the government did force them to do it.

        Had they done it at their own initiative, each capitalist business would have done it at a different time and in a different way.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        There is way too much potential power in social media platforms as they exist today for them to be (stay like) a regular business.

        If you don’t coopt it, someone else will instead.

        Concordantly, that would also mean analogizing the actions of an entity like a social media platform as typical of most service businesses in general would be a category error.

        • jim says:

          Social media is today’s Church. Cannot have a free market in religion. Inevitably the state will coopt it and inevitably the state did coopt it, and we need to make that cooption formal and official, with an archbishop and grand inquisitor.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        The Alex Jones ban, co-ordinated across all platforms at once, proves they’re not interested in profit.

        I know you’re a leftist liar and so the whole idea of truth and consistency is like a cross to a vampire but we aren’t and so we do notice.

        From the very beginning you’ve constantly been insisting that every action pushing the poz is undertaken for profit and even if the individual making the decision loses money it’s for the profit of the greater capitalist class. We have been arguing instead that nominally private firms have been trying to keep in the good graces of the state by being publicly pious members of the state religion. Now you claim to “notice” that – hey, they do things that aren’t profitable at all! Great observation – no one ever noticed that before.

        • The Cominator says:

          The NPC is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a marxist, zombie, SJW, sheep, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him an NPC and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

          • jim says:

            Why is this effective?

            Their robotic and spammy behavior is explained by the NPC description, that they are operating off a script, but why does calling out their robotic and spammy behavior have an impact?

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Because we imitate their arguments and mock them just by repeating them.

              They can’t even speak our arguments out loud and their infiltration units like CR can’t even hear our arguments after they’ve been here for months.

            • The Cominator says:

              Just wait till you get your 1st “STOP DEHUMANIZING ME YOU UGLY STUPID RACIST INBRED RUSSIAN BOTS” reeeeeeeeeeee from a leftist NPC.

            • Yetanotherpoorlythoughtouthandle says:

              Because deep down they know they are pod people and pod people can’t reproduce without infecting others. By calling them out as NPCs you prove to them you are immunized and will never be turned so they must destroy you or come to terms with their own failure

              This lowers status among the other pod people, if you can’t get people to agree with your lies you don’t believe them enough, you’re not a “true believer”.

            • Koanic says:

              > Why is this effective?

              Leftism depends on one-way ingrouping. It is therefore keenly attuned to outgrouping, which is the Leftist’s deathknell. The mass outgrouping of the Left by the Right is an extinction event. “NPCs” signals exactly that.

              • jim says:

                Makes sense:

                If someone is perceived as emotionlessly emitting a script, rather than genuinely indentifying with and supporting the target group, the target group will fail to ingroup him. Bots are outgrouped by everyone.

                Thus if someone whose handle is NPC1798743, and whose icon is utterly emotionless emits socially approved signals supporting Official Victim Group X against oppression by straight white male Christian capitalists, this is likely to result in actual members of Official Victim Group X becoming cynical about such signals, and outgrouping those who emit them.

          • eternal anglo says:

            It really is weirdly effective. NPC is the first meme to get hundreds of accounts banned from Twitter, not for saying nigger or anything but merely for the meme itself. And apparently, that’s News that’s Fit to Print now. I don’t think we’ve ever seen such a powerful Cathedral reaction from a simple meme.

            I’ve heard it suggested that NPC cut so deep because leftist ideology necessitates seeing themselves as brave, independent minds standing up to the dread, oppressive uniformity of white males. Calling them NPC explodes this self-perception, indeed forces them to explode it themselves, as they find that they are incapable of giving anything but a scripted response to the accusation.

            • Yetanotherpoorlythoughtouthandle says:

              It absolutely fries the amygdala. Boom zap!

              Just wait until they try to throw NPC right back at us. Then we can reply with, “Now you’re just projecting.”

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Steve misunderstands, or pretends to misunderstand:

          “From the very beginning you’ve constantly been insisting that every action pushing the poz is undertaken for profit and even if the individual making the decision loses money it’s for the profit of the greater capitalist class.”

          Nope, not every action. You libertarians think in universal general principles. Normal people don’t.

          Some things are clearly profitable:

          1) Having a consumer base that spends every penny, without saving any, is better for the people who are selling them the stuff they buy (note that Jim will deny this with an appeal to the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole – the irony’s palpable)

          2) Cheap labour is cheaper than a shrinking pool of ever more demanding labour. Economy grows with static population, wages rise. Not cool.

          3) People on welfare are being paid by all taxpayers, but people who sell to people on welfare are only paying their individual share of the tax that pays them. It’s a win.

          Other things are not profitable:

          1) Bill Gates giving billions to Africa – not profitable but he’s burning to do it

          2) Left-wing newspapers pushing deeply unpopular left-wing propaganda are losing money left right and centre but they know it’s in their long-term interest. Left-wing newspapers are funded by Wall Street, as I’ve proven many times. Go check for yourself if you’re too retarded to see when someone’s telling the truth.

          3) Supermarket adverts, Christmas 2017, pushing race mixing: black man white woman. Is this to appeal to that demographic? How many stable couples exist like that? As Richard Spencer and Millennial Woes put it to Sargon of Akkad: mixed race MARRIAGES?

          So no, not everything the left-capitalists do is profitable, but in the end the big things that are (low IQ, high time preference consumers spending everything they can, combined with a ready supply of willing cheap labour) outweight the cost of the religious stuff.

          But even if the balance was a net loss, it’d be worth it. Kings build cathedrals, merchants build the Cathedral.

          Now tell me how this analysis is Marxist ROFLMMFAOAYFCs

          • peppermint says:

            thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s tendies

          • jim says:

            Your argument is circular, incoherent and self contradictory.

            Poz is simply contrary to the interests of capitalists, individually or collectively. As a troofer presents contradictory explanations of how the towers fell, you present contradictory explanations for the supposed behavior of the supposed ruling capitalist class.

            Further, you are being repetitious.

            > 1) Having a consumer base that spends every penny, without saving any, is better for the people who are selling them the stuff they buy (note that Jim will deny this with an appeal to the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole – the irony’s palpable)

            You attribute to the capitalist class as a whole collective action to create a society that discriminates against savers and investors.

            1. Capitalists are incapable of ruling, incapable of taking this kind of action.

            2 If they were capable of taking this kind of action, it is contrary to their interests, because capitalists are savers and investors.

            3. This is Marxism, not reaction, and it is stupid because Marxist class theory is stupid. “The capitalist class” is not a cohesive entity and is incapable of acting as a single being in pursuit of the collective interests of the capitalist class as a whole. We are always ruled by priests or warriors.

            4. You are presenting an explanation of why capitalists would want the state to take their money away from them and give it to a pregnant black woman with seven kids by seven fathers – the idiocy of your theory is apparent.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Retarded autistic libertarian traitor, you’re denying that a business owner prefers more sales to fewer sales.

              Calling it ‘Marxist’ isn’t an argument. You need to demonstrate why any business owner would rather one of his customers saved their money for the future than spent it in one of his stores.

              You can’t, because it’s apodictically true a priori.

              • Nikolai says:

                “You need to demonstrate why any business owner would rather one of his customers saved their money for the future than spent it in one of his stores.”

                Many business owners sell things that are expensive and require consumers to save up to buy their goods. Houses, cars and jewelry being obvious examples.

                Not to mention there are multiple businesses that are built on helping consumers save/invest money. Banks want you to open a savings account, brokerages want you to invest with them etc.

              • peppermint says:

                Businessmen resent taxes and giving objects of value to ghouls with no value to exchange but what the government gives them.

                At some level you know this.

                • peppermint says:

                  Papa Johns #1488 proprietor pays T taxes from which S goes to social spending, from which he gains R revenue and P profit.

                  Is P>S?

                  Papa Johns #1488 proprietor probably makes fun of the proprietors of stores for which P>S.

                  Normal people avoid those stores, because they probably cook in Chinese cadmium pots and sell Chinese meat.

              • StoneMan says:

                >why any business owner would rather of his customers saved their money for the future than spent it in one of his stores

                If there’s a pack of niggers coming out of the jungle to burn and loot I would rather my customers bought guns next door than books from my shop.

                If war is coming I’d rather my customers saved up for guns and ammo than splurged on my new cars. But then again, I’m not a merchant.

              • jim says:

                A businessman individually prefers more sales that someone else is paying him for.

                He does not collectively prefer more sales that he collectively has to pay for.

  19. peppermint says:

    The NPC, lacking hope, shuts down to avoid guilt for sin in a state of invincible ignorance.

    The ghoul consciously chooses to be a parasite, and, committing the unforgivable sin of rejecting hope, is in a state of living death.

    The NPC repeats Marxist talking points like the ghoul, but it never occurs to the NPC to covet his neighbor’s tendies. The most you can get from an NPC is to denounce the hypocrisy of champagne socialists calling for other people’s money to go to the poor and the money laundering and conspicuous consumption of thousand dollar a plate fundraisers.

    There’s no point to calling a ghoul sanctimonious or hypocritical or accusing it of scrupulousity. Instead, we must simply tell it, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s tendies, thus revealing it to be fundamentally different from the NPCs it wants to hide amongst.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      GFY you schizophrenic cuck

      • peppermint says:

        The other standard response to being called an NPC without an inner monologue is “that’s your dialog tree response to me acting like an NPC with no inner monologue”.

        That this ghoul instantly picked a standard response demonstrates… what exactly?

      • Steve Johnson says:

        It’s amazing – it really does drive the NPCs nuts.

    • peppermint says:

      joymop, fun sponge, dementor. Jesus gently chided sinners to do better, dementors think Jesus approved of the slut with five and no husbands because if a dementor disapproved he would berate her.

      • Koanic says:

        Good point. They don’t understand the grace of forbearing from piling on, when circumstances render doing so totally unnecessary. Probably they’re so sheltered they can’t empathize with a protracted near death experience.

        • Koanic says:

          Hm, just realized you were talking about the woman at the well, not the pericope adulterae, whose husband count was unknown. But Jesus didn’t chide the woman at the well. He BTFO’d her attempt at flirtation by pointing out that not only was she taken, but very well and thoroughly taken. She, chastened, switched gears to the religious and respectful.

          • peppermint says:

            The dementor interpretation is, because Jesus didn’t smite her with fire and magnets, or even call her a slut, what she did must not be very serious, and also to read license into “go and sin no more”.

            While licensing “fun” sins, dementors suck the fun out of everything with their sanctimony, as if to atone simultaneously with sinning.

            Marijuana good, drinking okay, pepperoni pizza bad.

  20. Roberto says:

    So CR, in the event of post-cataclysm sovereignty-fragmentation wherein you get to have your own state, which specific measures will you (or the King acting out your Prog-ram broadly, or down-to-the-letter for that matter) take to prevent talent-drain and brain-drain from striking at — and shortly thereafter striking down — the CR-topia; i.e. how will you prevent the following scenario from unfolding:

    1) Adolf Carlyle, a Nu-Male’s Nu-Male, seamlessly fusing dogmatic nostalgo-monarchism (inspired by 31 browser tabs of fin-de-siecle 19th century paintings) and American-style white identity politics a la Mike Enoch, rides the tiger all the way to absolute power;

    2) The rich, the whites, the males — and distinctly, rich white males — all flee for their lives as far as their ugh-privilege can take them; pool cleaners, chefs, waiters, factory owners, factory workers, electricians, restaurateurs, garage mechanics, printer technicians, none shall be spared! the whole lot of ’em are sent packing away from the prospective 1,000-Year Dictatorship of the Non-Player-Characteriat;

    3) CR-topia’s grandiose goose doth get “royally” cooked by the first Christmas; the Fashy-Goy Kingdom’s a Weihnachtsgans!

    ???

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      0) I don’t care about talent-drain or brain-drain. Britain survived for a millennium without giving a damn about those things. We produced houses, works of art, fine furnishings, metalwork, ample food, clothing and textiles and lots of fish and meat.
      With 21st century technology, this would look very different of course, but none of it hinges on everyone being a genius.

      1) You have a valid point. I’m re-reading “The Latter Day Pamphlets” again now and I agree that I have been too fond of systems and habits that have long passed from this world. I blame Moldbug. Mike Enoch’s view of democracy is better, and I expect Carlyle would agree. We need to accept the fact of the world as it actually IS, rather than how we might want it to be. The NRx “build parallel systems” idea is fine with an unlimited time horizon, but in the world we actually inhabit, our people will be gone within a few decades if we don’t find a way to save them.

      2) This is just noise. You aggregate rich white men and foreign prog billionaires as if there’s nothing between them. It’s just logical positivism and I have no time for it. People who are misbehaving need to be stopped, irrespective of social class. That means coming down like a ton of bricks on idlers, petty thieves and drug dealers. It also means shutting down a lot of the businesses that are harming our people. You’ll never swallow that pill because, in spite of everything, you’re a libertarian who thinks everyone was created equal and property rights are protected by infinitely powerful universal natural laws.

      3) Weihnacht kommt schon

      • Steve Johnson says:

        I don’t care about talent-drain or brain-drain. Britain survived for a millennium without giving a damn about those things.

        You’re entirely, completely wrong about this.

        Britain was a giant eugenic breeding program in the middle ages. The wealthy and the nobility entirely replaced the lower classes genetically. A nobleman would have many sons, the younger ones would go into middle class professions and excel and when a plague or famine hit his superior ability would keep him and his family fed and alive. Repeat over hundreds of years.

        Similar processes happened all over Europe – this is what made white people what they are today. Your proposal is this was a bad thing and that we should not only stop doing it but increase the burn at both ends – both increasing the burdens on the most capable and providing a better reproductive environment for the least capable. It’s insane.

        The leftist orthodoxy at least has the “sense” to deny that mental traits are inherited because about two seconds of thought would realize that their proposal is actually for massive dysgenic breeding program.

      • Roberto says:

        >You’ll never swallow that pill because, in spite of everything, you’re a libertarian who thinks everyone was created equal and property rights are protected by infinitely powerful universal natural laws.

        This is just a lie, an outright inversion of the truth. It is exactly because people are inherently unequal that “disparate impact” (which, to be sure, I consider to be a *positive* thing) is a real phenomenon. Put another way: some people being inferior while others being superior, I, as an absolute anti-egalitarian, assert that the well-being of the superior is of great social importance – whereas I simply couldn’t care less about the well-being of the inferior (that’s actually an understatement); the egalitarianism is *yours*, as you assert that, supposedly in order protect the nigger-like bums, the rich need to have their businesses closed.

        Having Dunning-Krugger, you constantly fail to grasp what people in this community are telling you, which is exactly why you think that you’ve out-smarted all of us; whether you are a duplicitous Marxist professor or a honest-to-God “recovering libertarian,” it’s clear that you have never actually internalized genuine anti-egalitarianism, nor have you gotten rid of the typically-Progressive and typically-womanish *harm-based morality*. And you project your own inner egalitarianism onto your interlocutors, assuming that everyone here believes in “abstract rights” (probably no one here does). As long as you refuse to listen, you’ll keep being called NPC.

        This community is anti-egalitarian, and is conspicuously oblivious to harm-based morality. (The kind of morality you’ve always held) Perhaps you need to lurk moar to grasp that.

    • The Cominator says:

      “1,000-Year Dictatorship of the Non-Player-Characteriat;”

      ROFL the 1000 year NPC Reich.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        In “Populous”, the ruler controls society, including defence policy, by raising and lowering the level of the land in particular places.
        The population itself is NPC.

        That’s a lot like the real world. The King can’t (or doesn’t want to) run businesses but he’s happy to get rid of bad things with localised earthquakes if necessary for the survival of his subjects.

        • The Cominator says:

          In Populous if I recall you are the local god of that particular civilization…

          Not exactly an accurate sim of actual ruling.

          To get something close to dealing with all those complexities you have to play super duper complicated Paradox games like Victoria…

      • Roberto says:

        Here’s a singularly pertinent concept:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein

Leave a Reply