Draining the Swamp

Trump made three big promises. To bring the jobs back, to build the wall, and to drain the swamp.

Bringing the jobs back was effective almost immediately. He reversed a bunch of Obama presidential orders that had shutdown coal fields, oil wells, and pipelines, or prevented new ones from opening, and they immediately opened and started hiring at the stroke of his pen. Overnight, or rather over three months, America ceased to be a major energy importer and became a major energy exporter. It was a radical and abrupt turnaround. Bringing back the factories took a little longer than reopening the mines, because they can move a factory to China, but they cannot move a mine to China, but the factories have come back and are continuing to return. Instead of the great centralization, we now have the great decentralization, with white males moving back into flyover country.

Building the wall took longer, but now its going up, and a mighty impressive wall it is.

It is depressingly late, and a good deal later than I expected and predicted, but it is very much the wall he promised at election rallies.

Very shortly after Trump was elected, he took action against legal immigration by a multitude of presidential orders. I heard great screams of pain from employers importing H1Bs, and much whining from dot Indian chicks that I talked to the airport. Lately the Dems have acknowledged what is happening and joined in the whining, though it goes against their narrative “weak, weak, weak, weaker, weaker, weaker”.

And now, finally, draining the swamp:

The biggest and most important swamp draining operation was not investigating Democratic Party corruption, but rescuing warriors under attack by the most holy priesthood of Obama appointees in the military, who were seeking to break up the bands of brothers that so frightened them. The cucks in top military brass were and are after Eddie Gallagher because he was a right wing Christian. The prosecution kept changing its mind about what war crimes he had committed. When one war crime did not work, they would come up with another. When war crimes did not work, their reaction was the same as when Mueller found that the Russians were probably the only foreign power that did not interfere in the 2016 US election. They wanted to get him on something, anything, everything. The pursuit of Gallagher was priests getting antsi because they smelled a warrior priest, a paladin, of an enemy religion. If one thing did not work, they would try another thing. I don’t care whether Gallagher was guilty of war crimes, and as the case dragged on, it became increasingly obvious that the prosecution cared even less than I do.

Trump cannot drain the Democratic party swamp unless he has a military that will back him against a color revolution. The Democrats are planning to react to arrest of Democrats with the arrest of Republicans. In the Eric Ciaramella testimony, the Democrats were feeling out how much backing they have in the Department of Defense for color revolution, and the answer was, quite a lot. Impeachment can only work if they first arrest the president, his family, assorted members of his administration, and then threaten to arrest, or actually arrest, enough Republicans in the Senate – color revolution. The soldiers will only obey orders to enforce the constitution against color revolution if they think Trump has their back, and is able to have their back.

But now, finally, at long last, at long long last, the much promised, much delayed, swamp draining operation against the Democrats:

WASHINGTON, DC 20510
November 15, 2019

The Honorable Ken A. Blanco
Director
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Department of Treasury
Dear Director Blanco:

The Senate Finance Committee and Homeland Security and Govemmental Affairs Committee are conducting an investigation into potentially improper actions by the Obama administration with respect to Burisma Holdings (Btuisma) and Ukraine. As discussed in our November 6, 2019, letter to the State Department, while then-Vice President Biden was in office, his son, Hunter, worked for Burisma and “would be paid as much as $50,000 per month.” At the time, Burisma and its owner were under investigation by Ukraine and U.K. authorities. According to a report, in 2016, then-Vice President Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian prosecutor that was investigating Burisma was fired, which he eventually was. In addition, Burisma’s consulting firm, Blue Star Strategies, used Hunter Biden’s board membership to gain access to Obama administration officials at the State Department and potentially influence matters before government of?cials on behalf of Burisma. The Committees have jurisdiction over the taxpayer-funded operations of the State Department and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

To assist the Committees in the examination of these matters, we are requesting a copy of all Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and related documents that have been filed regarding the following individuals or entities:
. Hunter Biden;
. Devon Archer;
. Christopher Heinz;
. Karen Tramontano;
. Sally Painter;
. Burisma Holdings;
. Rosemont Seneca Partners;
. Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC;
. Rosemont Capital;
. Bohai Harvest RST; and
. Blue Star Strategies.

Please provide these documents no later than December 5, 2019. Thank you for your prompt attention.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman Committee on Finance

Ron Johnson
Chairman Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In two weeks, Horowitz releases the report on illegal spying on the Trump campaign.

OK, swamp not being drained yet. And the barbed wire entanglements along the border in the 2018 election were not a wall either. But they were an indication of the will and capability to build a wall. Firing the Secretary of the Navy was an indication of the will and capability to resist color revolution, and ordering production of documents is a indication of intent to do something with those documents.

231 Responses to “Draining the Swamp”

  1. Paul says:

    The problem with the military isn’t the competent section of it. The men who serve in the special forces, graduates of sniper school, and other elite units are probably 100% pro-trump. There may be a couple of officers in these units who are retarded but I would say that those vindman types would probably be weeded out.

    The thing that would concern me is the rest of the military. 8 years of retardation can do a lot of damage to an organisation.

    • >The men who serve in the special forces, graduates of sniper school, and other elite units are probably 100% pro-trump.

      I remember Tom Kratman saying on VD’s blog something along the lines of everybody in the military is a trumpist up to a certain rank, IDK maybe lt-col, and above that a raging liberal. Probably because their education too got converged.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        I think you are mixing up cause and effect.

        Everyone in the military over the rank of Lt. Col. is a raging liberal because that is the rank at which the promotion process becomes political and is designed to exclude those who are not raging liberals.

        • Not Tom says:

          My direct knowledge of the military is very limited, but I am reliably informed that a major part of the issue is commissioned vs. non-commissioned officers. Virtually all of the NCOs, who have to actually serve and get promoted up the ranks, are at least moderately right-wing. By contrast, the COs arrive straight out of university.

          The low ranks are filled with NCOs. Those are the warriors. The higher ranks are filled almost exclusively with CO priests.

          Priests with no combat experience “leading” warriors into battle.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Using Steve Johnson’s article as a primer, I posit that if the path to advancement for military officers was fully de-Politicized (no congressional oversight of promotions) and it was purely internal to the military, in a Trump Overnight (2-6 months) you’d see at least a 50% reduction in lefty seeming career officers.

          • The Cominator says:

            No because if fully internal to the military (because Obama converged the flag officers corps completely, Flynn was one of the last non-Cathedral hacks) you would have leftist promoting each other based on leftism and firing and not promoting rightists.

            Need to purge it first and then do that.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Rime posting. You don’t understand the military, just like you don’t understand women, just like you don’t understand family, just like you don’t understand guns. You fail from ignorance painted as insolence.

              You are the thin layer of stupid that forms due to reality.

              • The Cominator says:

                Not my fault Shaman got hysterical calm down Podesta and his fellow leftist queers are up to… Something and not a qtard.

                If you took congress out of the military youd still have the existing Obama flag officers promoting fellow progressives. Where am i wrong?

                • jim says:

                  The military is naturally rightist, and keeping it leftist is mighty hard.

                  What is left and what is right?

                  Leftism is synthetic tribe trapped in a holiness spiral, thus inherently priestly. Rightism is everyone whose apple cart the priests are knocking over. Priests in power piss off warriors.

                  Priests and warriors don’t get on too well. See a leftist wearing a military uniform, chances he has never been near the sound of gunfire. Every leftist in uniform is guilty of stolen valor. Every time a warrior sees some holy bureaucrat wearing a uniform, it ticks him off.

                • The Cominator says:

                  And in a WARTIME military this would correct itself naturally…

                  Would not correct itself at all in peacetime absent Trump personally intervening to set things right.

                • The Cominator says:

                  BTW looks like he is intent to set things right.

                  https://nypost.com/2019/11/25/trump-defends-decision-to-fire-navy-secretary-over-eddie-gallagher-case/

                  President Donald Trump on Monday defended his decision to sack Navy Secretary Richard Spencer for his handling of SEAL Eddie Gallagher’s disciplinary review, saying he will always have the backs of those who serve — except for deserters like Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

                • info says:

                  @jim

                  What would you classify the YPG/YPJ are they the exception?

                • Pooch says:

                  “The military is naturally rightist, and keeping it leftist is mighty hard.”

                  You mean the white military. The black and spic warriors are firmly left.

                • jim says:

                  There are very few black or spic warriors. They are affirmative action hires in logistics, and giving logistics workers military uniforms is stolen valor, a priestly effort to lower the status of warriors.

                  Those blacks that are actual warriors are, like “black” software engineers, never very black.

                • Poochman says:

                  That’s not what I see with my eyes. I live near a major military base and the gym I go to is frequented by fucking huge black soldiers. I know a few of them and can confirm they have been in combat, are very black, and they all hate Trump. They are the strongest and largest people in the gym by a large margin. There’s also quite a few hispanics there as well but they aren’t as big or strong as the blacks. Whites are a minority at this particular gym.

                • army says:

                  @Poochman

                  Nuts.

                  I’m active duty US Army, assigned to a combat brigade. At our last brigade change of command ceremony, the entire brigade was required to attend. Each battalion was designated its own piece of the parade field.

                  The visual difference was stark: the combat arms battalions were 90+% white. The support battalions were ~60-70% non-white.

                  And from personal experience, leaving aside individual exceptions, the only consistently competent non-whites in the military are the Koreans. Haven’t run into any Japanese though.

                  @Jim Poochman’s comment was so absurd that I figured he must be a paid black-pill shill. Have you seen enough different types of shills to categorize them?

                • jim says:

                  > @Jim Poochman’s comment was so absurd that I figured he must be a paid black-pill shill. Have you seen enough different types of shills to categorize them?

                  All of Poochman’s comments have been black pill or blue pill with a touch of purple pill, but they do not appear to be scripted, and the purple pill content does not look like someone who comments with Human Resources looking over his shoulder – he is writing his own material, not filling in the blanks in someone else’s script.

                  All of his comments appear to be posted from an alternate reality radically different from what is in front of our noses, but this is absolutely normal. In the workplace, everyone seems to be living in an alternate reality where women in the workplace are supposedly behaving in away radically different from their actual, and painfully conspicuous, behavior.

                  My guess is that he genuinely saw one big black in the gym lying about combat experience, and since he is required to believe that whites are weak, re-imagined this, much as bad behavior by women in the workplace gets re-imagined.

                • Bob says:

                  >near a major military base

                  >Whites are a minority at this particular gym

                  I always appreciate hearing personal experience, but unless there’s more details you can share, I suspect this doesn’t share the whole picture. I’d be interested in seeing the combat units and counting the faces, rather than listening to blacks talk about how awesome they are.

                • Only whites and certain east asians can fight wars. Every other race of people practices exactly the same style of warfare that tribal humans have practiced for (after the recent discovery in Germany) 12 million years.

                  Tribal human warfare is a game of chicken. You fight a skirmish or an ambush, somewhat halfheartedly, fighting while risking life and limb as little as possible, until one side gets scared and retreats, after which the victorious side chases the loser down and stabs him from behind.

                  Only whites and east asians have military discipline, the ability to hold ranks, follow orders, and fight without retreating. The Aztecs, in certain areas, were on par with or more advanced than Spain, but Cortez routinely spanked armies twenty times his own size because the Aztecs practiced tribal warfare with armies of ten thousand, while Cortez told his couple hundred men “no retreat, hold the line”, and they listened.

                  Less politically correct reports from before WWII, when they were thinking about black soldiers, paint a stark statistical picture of absolute incompetence among black troops. No reason to suspect that has changed. We also have statistics on the racial makeup of the military, and sure enough combat arms is overwhelmingly white. Some mulattoes can do it, many white hispanics, but you’ll never see coal black bantu or squat aztec monkey man on the front lines.

                • jim says:

                  Back in the day, when armies cared about unit cohesion, they used to have black regiments. And you can tell that every single black regiment was useless and hopeless, from the fact that the poster boy regiments were useless and hopeless.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > huge black (combat) soldiers

                  Long ago I asked a US special forces veteran why the elite combat units are overwhelmingly white. He gave a brief sociological explanation that could not possibly account for the extent of the imbalance, and then the following.

                  Selection into special units includes a de facto IQ requirement. Say around 112 minimum. This disproportionately eliminates blacks. However, at the margins, this is waived a bit to allow IQ 108-112 guys (he did not say if blacks specifically are targeted) who are also huge physically, because in the field it is useful to also have men who can carry extra large loads of equipment. So there are still proportionately few blacks but those one sees will be extra large.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also insofar as the Navy Seals go I know you have to be an incredibly good swimmer this also tends to eliminate blacks who may be superior athletically in most things but not when it comes to swimming.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Gotta call this one out. Blacks have been substantially represented in 2 highly effective combat forces: the SADF and the Rhodesian Light Infantry. In both cases, they were under the command of an all white officer corps. In both cases, they were up against fanatical blacks seeking to destroy the apple cart. In both cases, these blacks could see what was at stake with their own eyes. Blacks comprised over 50% of the front line soldiers in both military forces.

                  Further, there were large numbers of blacks serving in WWI. As has been stated, much of that institutional experience was negative for the US, which is why in WWII they were cooks and drivers for the most part. The colonial blacks serving the French and English are a different story. In WWI they served as front line elements, along with Tamils, Sikhs, Gurkha, Kikuyu, and a whole mishmash of lesser peoples drawn into colonial service.

                  These three examples suggest a few conclusions. Blacks can be excellent combat operators when trained, motivated, and commanded properly. Blacks can be compelled to serve as rank and file line soldiers. In both, it requires submission to something outside their own personal motivations and cultural moors.

                  It is not accurate to say they are incapable of being combat effective; it is more accurate to say that there is no way in hell the American military is turning out high quality black soldiers.

                  *Just to head this off at the pass, there are two very good reasons why pictures of coloreds and blacks fighting in the Bush Wars are so rare: initially it was a morale thing for white, and over time it was a security thing for the black soldiers. Check out War Dog by AJ Venter and A Handful of Hard Men by Hans Wessels.

                • jim says:

                  > Blacks have been substantially represented in 2 highly effective combat forces: the SADF and the Rhodesian Light Infantry.

                  This merely shows us that blacks under white leadership are substantially more effective than blacks under black leadership, which was also recently demonstrated in the war between Botswana and Zimbabwe.

                  If the had been fighting soldiers under white leadership, would have not been “highly effective”

                  The function of blacks under white leadership is to be sandbags for their white leadership. In practice, in the Bush wars, the Rhodesians tended to rely on white troops officered by white officers, which suggests that the sandbags were not terribly useful. If black troops under white officers had actually been useful, Rhodesians would have made more use of them.

                  > Further, there were large numbers of blacks serving in WWI.

                  Who generally fought, to the extent that any of them fought at all, in segregated regiments – black regiments with white leadership, as for example the colonial forces. You can tell from the poster boys that all of these black regiments performed appallingly badly.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Jim,

                  You write:

                  See a leftist wearing a military uniform, chances he has never been near the sound of gunfire. Every leftist in uniform is guilty of stolen valor.

                  I think this needs clarification. These guys seem pretty leftist, and I was under the impression, possibly misguided, that the commies fought pretty hard in Spain. Am I missing something? I can’t quite believe that, if it comes to civil war, there will be only fainting soyboys on the other side.

                • jim says:

                  The commies fought hard, and the Kurdish militias, left and right, fight hard. But the Kurdish left is red pilled and politically incorrect. It is the blue pill that saps the progressive will and ability to fight.

                  Priests in power are naturally hostile to warriors, but progressive doctrine on women exacerbates this severely, and emasculates them individually. Stalin was a warrior priest, and warrior priests did fine under communism, but they do not do well under progressivism. Cromwell was a warrior priest, and did fine under early puritanism, but he would not have made it to the top under later puritanism, which may explain their massive fail after Cromwell died.

                  Because of the innate conflict between priests and warriors, the holiness spiral is apt to head off in directions that undermine the capacity to fight of those suffering a holiness spiral. Not always, but often enough.

                • Allah says:

                  But the Kurdish left is red pilled and politically incorrect.

                  Precisely, but there is more. There are a lot of leftists disguising themselves as right wingers, Kurds are the opposite. There really is no such thing as the Kurdish left. They are right wing but claim to be on the left, and probably genuinely believe themselves to be on the left. The fact that they’re killing and dying for their own ethnostate, have an average birthrate of 4-5, strong independent womyn fighters moonlighting as harem concubines, etc. does not register. The higher ranking Kurds(who tend to be Armenian on the maternal side) talk about these openly within themselves, but for the outside world and especially for the West, they claim to fight for some schismatic socialist ideology for all peoples everywhere. I think your movement could learn a thing or two from these guys.

                  As for Western volunteers in northern Syria, most of them are kept away from the frontlines and heavily promoted as they are a massive PR win. The ones who actually fight tend to be ex military and not necessarily there for the commie utopia. I’m guessing most of their casualties are not from fighting ISIS but from TAF airstrikes.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Old style militaristic Bolshevism was masculine in nature, they were in the manner of masculine bandits going to murder the “capitalists pigs” and take their stuff.

                  The Bolsheviks were insane psychopaths but they were manly insane psychopaths who in their revolutionary days robbed banks, busted head and got into real combat.

                  Progressivism is feminine in all respects.

                • Bob says:

                  >Blacks can be excellent combat operators when trained, motivated, and commanded properly.

                  Counterpoints: 4000 Zulu couldn’t defeat 150 British with single shot rifles. 3000 blacks with some Europeans, all with machine guns this time, couldn’t kill a single of the 160 Irishmen at Jadotsville.

                  I’m sure blacks can be warriors, but I’m not convinced blacks can fight European wars.

                • jim says:

                  One black can defeat one white.

                  Two whites can defeat two blacks.

                  Ten whites can defeat one hundred blacks.

                • info says:

                  @jim

                  The YPG has a female combat arm of about 5000 women fighters.

                  Is female combatants right-wing or left-wing?

                • jim says:

                  I suspect that their primary function is to impress the Harvard, not impress their enemies.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Is female combatants right-wing or left-wing?

                  Female combatants is a 20th century thing in armies short on, uh, manpower, plus a few national armies that are pozzed (USA) or conscript women (Israel). It doesn’t push the women themselves left- or right-ward, after their service they go home and return to doing whatever women in that time and place usually do. All those partisans from WW2 became regular housewives after the war. Some of the super duper, hundreds-of-kills female Russian snipers became sniper trainers and worked for the army as their long term job, but had regular family lives subordinate to their husbands and doing the cooking and cleaning.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Female combatants is generally a left wing thing I think the Bolsheviks were the 1st to employ it.

                  They DID find that women could make decent snipers (women are meticulous and ruthless) but were not otherwise good in combat (can’t cooperate and not strong enough, and in mixed units the men would excessively concern themselves with the women to the expense of their mission, the unit as a whole and other men).

                • info says:

                  @Omar is just a Trump card now

                  What is interesting is that in Ancient Israel women never bore arms no matter how desperate the situation.

                  So Gunpowder changed the game?

                • jim says:

                  Nope, political correctness changed the game.

                • info says:

                  @jim

                  They found bones of schythian women with blows from an axe. And they were also buried with weapons.

                  And I believe such armed women may have inspired the Amazons.

                  However it appears that with the Westward migration of the Xiongnu(called Huns in Europe) this kind of thing disappeared.

                • jim says:

                  The Amazons really existed, and were a matriarchal people, but it seems that when their organized military encountered the Greek organized military at sea, only the top brass were women. Sounds suspiciously like the US Navy. The legend of warrior women is an improvement on real history, the real history being a society in which women had a great deal of power, and were actually in the military in high ranking roles – but where we can observe what happens in such militaries, as for example the US navy …

                  Women in the military existed then as they existed now, but when we observe what happens to societies with women in the military … they vanish from history due to military defeat and failure to reproduce.

                  All these comments arguing that blacks can fight and women can fight are providing evidence that women and blacks participated in militaries resembling those of white males – but they all have one thing in common. When those militaries encountered white male militaries, they lost, and if you go back to earlier times, you find that they lost and peoples with women in the military vanished from history.

                • On black soldiers: under white officers, Colonial powers used them and while I don’t have any reliable info on their effectiveness because they mostly fought other blacks e.g. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_campaign_(World_War_I) but they saw enough action. Think Senegali infantry or Askaris. If you think about it, if their problem is the tribal style warfare, white officers can just drill and drill and drill them until they stop that shit and hold the line. That sounds plausible enough to me. Drilling does work when you do it enough.

                  Another thing is that the British colonial administration designated some peoples as warrior races, to recruit mostly from them and they did not use broad categories like blacks or Indians, but had it more fine-tuned. For example, in and around India, the Rajput, Sikh, Gurkha were warrior races. In Africa, I don’t know. The Masai look like one to me.

                  I generally like my racism fine-tuned 🙂 For example some dude was hunting tigers in India around 1925 and wrote a book about it. Talked about meeting Rajputs , who really looked like real men, proud, strong, and they told him “North India breeds men, South India breeds monkeys.” Just talking about “subcons” does not really cut it too finely IMHO.

                • BTW same dude was also hunting cheetah in British East Africa a year or two earlier. Interesting that he did not say one negative word about the blacks. However he seemed to take it entirely for granted that blacks who served as NCO’s in the King’s African Rifles for years speak like 8 manged word of English, so he needed a white dude to translate to Swahili, and that he picked up enough Swahili in a matter of weeks to go out alone with them. That was just a matter of fact thing entirely normal and expected. And that he feels very sorry for them because they had their own trad lives, for which they were very well adapted to, when they were reading animal tracks to hunt them, which they did superbly, and then the white man came along and seduced them into a life where they have to read books at school and they are not well suited for that at all. Seriously not a word that would sound insulting or demeaning and yet it is just obvious what it all meant. But they back then just took these differences entirely for granted. They weren’t shitlords in 1924 or so. They didn’t have to be.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Female combatants is generally a left wing thing

                  Communist nations (the avowed post-1917 kind, not the AIACC stealth type) do have some factors leading them to use women in combat at an earlier point than the same idea would occur in non-commie countries. But I think it’s manpower shortages that ultimately drive it, plus industrialization. Had the military roles of USSR and Germany been reversed, and less of a push for Aryan fertility, there might have been more Nazi woman snipers.

                  1. Very widespread paramilitary scouting, for both sexes. Troupes are usually mixed sex, under names like “Young Pioneers” and often involving weapons training in addition to all the hiking and Marxist sing-along.

                  2. A push to industrialize plus the usual central planning issues means they were already had a need to push women into factories. Schools and nurseries were supplied by the state to create female labor availability. Once you have this mobile labor pool it’s not that hard to redirect some of it to warfare.

                  3. Commie nations chronically relying on armies as artificial employment.

                • BC says:

                  >Had the military roles of USSR and Germany been reversed, and less of a push for Aryan fertility, there might have been more Nazi woman snipers.

                  Female fighters in the USSR were just feminist propaganda ops. If they’d been effective they would have continued using them after the war, which they didn’t. A 14 year old boy makes a better fighter than the best women fighter.

                • ten says:

                  A fine proud warrior is not necessarily a soldier who will hold rank and follow orders. The soldiers who act with unit cohesion defeats individual warriors at any numbers.

                  This is not a binary – just means in group combat, unit cohesion beats solo performance, and pointing out north indians and africans can breed mighy warriors does not mean they can fight cohesively.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        This was posted here before:

        https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-blog-about-military-matters/60879683-the-u-s-military-s-marathon-30-year-single-elimination-suck-up-tournament-or-how-america-selects-its-generals

        Start with that as background then extend that to the changes Obama made and what we know of progressive behavior.

        Process for converging an institution:

        Step 1: first wave infiltrators go in and work to get promoted by the organization’s current rules
        Step 2: once they’re in positions of influence, promote fellow progressives
        Step 3: once critical mass is reached *change the promotion criteria* to promote based on adherence to progressivism and state this in the language of it being in the best interests of the institution.

        Obama jump started step 3 by firing enough non-infiltrators. Now part of the tournament becomes “demonstrate sufficient progressive loyalty”.

    • The higher ranks of the military are priests who can do pushups. You need increasingly advanced degrees from seminary school to be promoted to the highest officer ranks.

      Duh, the guys in helmets with rifles all support Trump. When Trump gives an order, however, that order has to go through several ranks of priests before it gets to a guy in a helmet opening fire.

      Trump is attempting to circumvent the generals and colonels and get the direct personal loyalty of the guys with helmets and rifles who support him. If he succeeds, the coup succeeds.

      Priest control of the military is not something that will fix itself in wartime. The military will just lose. Trump is building a Praetorian Guard from spec ops guys, and if he has a Praetorian Guard, he has the Empire.

      • jim says:

        > Trump is building a Praetorian Guard from spec ops guys, and if he has a Praetorian Guard, he has the Empire.

        This.

        It was General Monck’s praetorians that enabled the restoration. To this day, they are close knit family of old British ancestry, and guard the houses of parliament.

        Parliament voted for fresh elections with Monck’s praetorians breathing down their necks, and the freshly elected parliament voted for the restoration with Monck’s praetorians breathing down their necks.

        If color revolution unfolds, expect the Democrats to start attempting to arrest Republicans under color of law. At which point the question becomes does the cop on the beat obey? Well, if the Republican is guarded by trained killers directly loyal to Trump, probably not.

        The Democrats have the top people in the military, but the military is, like most human institutions, a thin crust of order over a surging sea of anarchy.

        If four star General Almighty orders a grunt “arrest this man”, the grunt is going to look at the sergeant, and the sergeant at the lieutenant, and the lieutenant at the captain.

        And if the sergeant says “Grab General Almighty and throw him in the brig”, the grunt will, without a moments hesitation or a second thought, grab General Almighty and throw him in the brig.

        That the top brass in the DoD is full of treasonous Obama plants manifested as the top brass in the DoD waging war on the grunt, the sergeant, and the lieutenant, because of innate priest versus warrior hostility and conflict. Trump proceeds to intervene in this conflict on the side of the warriors.

      • info says:

        Guys shouldnt even be allowed to be an officer until he has proved himseld as an NCO then he can attend officer school if he proves to have strategic talent.

        • C4ssidy says:

          When you compared an aristocrat child with aristocrat’s genes, you have someone remarkably different in nature and character to the working class child. One reads a lot of books, speaks gently, has the capacity to understand the abstract “why” and to innovate and to critically evaluate new ideas. The other will grow to like pubs, nightclubs, loud music, and can be drilled to fight, but will never understand the abstract concepts and must never be trusted to innovate

          They benefit from different training schemes from the get go. Forcing them to all become NCOs first would also probably result in your officer corps becoming full of mugs, because at that point the two castes are going to become more difficult to distinguish from eachother

          • info says:

            “They benefit from different training schemes from the get go. Forcing them to all become NCOs first would also probably result in your officer corps becoming full of mugs, because at that point the two castes are going to become more difficult to distinguish from each other”

            I have already said that those who demonstrate strategic talent that is those with capacity for abstract thinking get to become officers.

            I see the benefit of better solidarity and cohesion in the ranks. And avoiding the situation of “perfumed princes” that are pozzed and priestly.

            And lacking the initiation into manhood that such an experience would ensue.

            Being blooded so to speak. And gaining more of their respect then “perfumed princes”

            The aristocracy also gets to have personal experience in dealing with such men and learning subsequently lead them whilst holding their loyalty. To be able to read and to be able to lead such men.

            For similar reasons Generals who fight in battle with their Men like Genghis Khan. Who whilst an aristocrat is blooded like his brothers along with other essential factors had their absolute loyalty.

            He was a man’s man that isn’t isolated from his brothers in arms by the aristocratic bubble.

            • jim says:

              Let me tell you the real story of the charge of light brigade.

              Due to the usual screw ups and fog of war, Lord Cardigan received a very stupid order to attack some enemy guns He protested the order vehemently, but then obeyed it, Leading his men from the front in his very conspicuous officer uniform – in fact a long way in front. Since he had a superior horse, he got far in front of his men. He arrived at the enemy, personally took one whack at the leading enemy officer, then signaled the retreat before most of his men had arrived, obeying his orders to the letter pro forma with the least possible danger to his men, and the greatest possible danger to himself.

              Which so enraged the priestly classes of media and university that they then started telling us about perfumed princes, and have been demonizing Lord Cardigan ever since.

              An unmanly aristocracy is seldom a problem, except the central government makes a vigorous effort to unman it, as King Louis XVI and King Louis XIV did. Had a perfumed prince problem under King Louis XVI.

              • info says:

                Not coincidentally the stereotype of the fag aristocrat came from this period.

                • jim says:

                  You are of course correct. The notoriously emasculated aristocracy of King Louis XIV and King Louis XVI received and deserved ridicule – which sawed off the branch on which the King was sitting.

                  However the entirely manly aristocracy of England got the same story put about them after the Crimean war, including the remarkably manly Lord Cardigan.

                • info says:

                  “However the entirely manly aristocracy of England got the same story put about them after the Crimean war, including the remarkably manly Lord Cardigan.”

                  And the English Elites managed to retain their manliness?

                • jim says:

                  For about eighty years.

                • info says:

                  @jim

                  What changed?

                • jim says:

                  Hard to say. It was before my time.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well I would say the British aristocracy really lost their reputation with the First World War.

                  Despite the post Crimean war scapegoating of Cardigan and abolition of the purchase system (which seemed to actually work well despite all the negative propaganda about Cardigan) the World War I British army was dominated by the aristocracy and the gentry and especially by Haig and Haig’s buddies… and for some reason the whole generation of aristocrats at this point was just unusually stupid and incompetent.

                  I cannot imagine Wellington if he knew about machine guns EVER ordering his men to walk in tight ranks towards machine guns but Haig did exactly that, Wellington as much as he despised his men in a certain sense would have also been horrified at the idea of trying to win a war by attrition. But Haig thought it was a good idea and because Haig’s generations of aristocrats so massively fucked up the conduct of world war I and decimated a whole generation the reputation and position of the British upper class never recovered.

                  Now its not as if they only got the lower class killed because the aristocrats and gentry also predominated among junior officers (who were more likely to get killed then anyone since they were supposed to quite literally lead their men during attacks) but the fact remains they never got their position back after WWI.

                • BC says:

                  I can’t speak to the British during WW1, but I’ve read enough about the French that it’s pretty clear the French Socialist goverment was feeding their largely Roman Catholic army into a meat grinder intentionally. They appointed only socialists generals to lead the troops(the one exception was Petain) who would sack any officers they caught not enforcing their charge into the machine gun tactics.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Haig’s diary suggest that he was just incredibly stupid.

                  He thought even after the war that the horse would be as important as ever in the future of warfare.

                  He thought that the way to take machine guns was by “determination” (not by infiltration or the indirect approach).

                  I know very little about the French command I did not know that socialists predominated (sounds like the Obama flag officers corps). I didn’t think they did anything quite as stupid as the Somme or Passchendale.

                • BC says:

                  The Socialist French goverment feared the army more than the Germans and the socialist generals they did appoint where either incompetent or intentionally murdering their troops.

                  This is also why the French army collapsed in WW2. The officer core was mostly socialists who fled at the first sign of battle, where as it was only socialist at the Generals level in WW1

                  I would bet that the UK goverment selected their officers for their stupidity during WW1. Probably viewed it as a great opportunity to get rid of those pesky aristocrats who led from the front.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I would bet that the UK goverment selected their officers for their stupidity during WW1.”

                  Not quite sure how it happened that the British had so many stupid generals during WWI, Lloyd George was a socialist (but of your generally less evil union populist kind) and he very much rightly hated and despised Haig, but of course being a weaselly politician was too gutless to fire Haig.

                  The better allied generals tended to come from Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada so there might be something to the British generals being selected for stupidity but I’m not quite sure how it happened.

              • info says:

                I believe its King Louis XIV the Sun King who undertook the effort. And this perfumed prince problem manifested itself by Louis XVI who was beheaded not long after ascending the throne.

  2. RedBible says:

    Not really related to the topic at hand, but I figure that it would be better to post it where some comments/discussion will happen.

    There’s an interesting observation I’ve made in relation to Jim’s ‘statement’ that “9 year old” girls are looking for Mr. Alpha, and to “be forced” to “carry his seed”.
    There are some families I’m friends with that have some “9 year old” girls, and sometimes I play around with them (tossing them, holding them upside, general teasing), since it is amusing to me. The interesting behavior (other than the “9 year old” girls becoming eager for more attention after having played) is what I’m going to call “fake feinting”.
    “Fake feinting” is where the “9 year old” girl relaxes all the major muscles of her body (legs, arms, fingers, neck, etc.) and commonly closes her eyes. The “9 year old” girl only will do it when she is near me (since I haven’t seen “9 year old” girls do it to other men so far), and only if she will fall onto/into me, or I already have a hold on her somewhere. Commonly the girl will keep up the relaxed state for several seconds, but could be longer. Also, sometimes the girl will end up on the floor, but that doesn’t seem to change how long she will stay “relaxed” for.

    Since I’ve seen girls of a variety of personalities and family backgrounds do this, I’m putting it into the AWALT box (as most things with woman/girl end up.)
    So far the only idea I’ve come up with from an evolutionary psychology point of view is that the “9 year old” girl is saying “do with me as you will” with her body (and too be fair, it is much easier to move around a body that is offering 0 resistance.)

    Anyone else got some thought/comments on this? (since this is still feeling sort of confusing to me.)

    • Bob says:

      >Anyone else got some thought/comments on this?

      Two girls in college who were very interested in me would do this to me. Does that mean those 9 year olds are acting on instinctual urges to be dominated by an alpha? Probably. Dominated sexually? The two college girls, for sure, but the 9 yo olds? I’m not so sure. If they were 13 yo or in puberty, then yes. Take my thoughts with a grain of salt, cause I’m new to the redpill.

      I think it’s probably a spectrum like the variance from 6 yo girls’ instinct to care for baby dolls all the way to childless 36 yo women’s yearning when they see an infant. The 6 yo is instinctively practicing behaviors she’s incapable of using at that age, which is probably what the 9 yo’s do with you. The 6 yo is playing at what she’ll try to do later. The 9 yo’s are (inmho) playing with you too, but in a short time won’t be playing at it. Or they’ve begun puberty early and aren’t playing.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        As far as I can tell, all girls from an early age engage in behaviors of the “trust fall” type, such as having you catch them when they fall backwards, walking around blindfolded with you leading them by the hand, or fainting and requiring pick-up. They ask adults, almost always male adults, to do this with them as soon as they are verbally and physically developed enough for the games to make sense, around 4-6 in the girls I know since birth.

        Girls young enough to have no concept of sex or masturbation will sit on your lap (which is to say, almost always a male lap) and try to get you to play with them in ways that are patently sexual. Their bodies and sexual systems don’t “wake up” overnight at the onset of puberty, everything is there and maturing slowly from day one, and much later there is a phase transition.

        In the child development / evopsych literature the term “carrying conflict” refers to the zero sum game between parents and children, where children constantly try to prolong the age through which they will be held and carried around by their parents, while the parents get tired out by the carrying and try to wean the child into walking on its own. This game runs for much longer between little girls and their fathers. Maybe it’s just that the fathers are stronger than the mothers, and boys need less affection; but it’s also possible that the state of being physically dependent on Daddy is appealing to the girls, and also creates opportunities for practice in the feminine fitness-test version of the conflict. Personality-wise girls are already their adult selves very early on.

        Pretty much all that children do around each other is a rehearsal for adult courtship and sex. This is completely obvious and in-your-face under direct observation, but draws extremely negative reactions from the children’s parents when it is pointed out. The inability to notice or even conceive of evolutionary proto-sexuality in children who have no conscious understanding of sex is part of our cultural stupefaction (what Jim calls crimestop filtering).

        • RedBible says:

          Thanks to both of you (Bob, and Omar is just a Trump card now) for Confirming that other see the behavior I’m seeing. It is sometimes gets rough when all of my knowledge of women comes from 1. random people I’ve never met on the internet 2. observation and 3. trial and error. Couple that with a few bad tries at talking about how “relationships between the sexes actually work” (and the inevitable fact that none of them could admit to seeing it) and it can make one feel crazy at times. So thanks.

          >Pretty much all that children do around each other is a rehearsal for adult courtship and sex.

          It’s pretty crazy how obvious the idea that “the prime directive of biology is to survive and reproduce” is clearly understood when talking about animals, unless those animals are humans, then suddenly that idea is inverted to the point that I’ve seen some people declare that they aren’t sure how humans would survive if you just plopped some children in the middle of nowhere, since “sex isn’t intuitive.”

        • The Cominator says:

          “Personality-wise girls are already their adult selves very early on.”

          Agree on all points EXCEPT for this one. I’ve seen female personalities change dramatically within short periods of time (95% of the time for the worse). Women do not generally have a stable sense of self or their own personality outside what the female herd requires (and this is the big problem with American women as the herd is absolutely evil and insane) or whatever their alpha male wants them to be.

          • RedBible says:

            Women are herd animals first, and individuals second. What the tribe wills (Either her alpha or the “totally just my friends and not evil at all women”) that will come first, and her personality is just some icing on the cake.

            The big way that women get ruined in America is how bloated their egos get. Once deflated, not really an issue (other than the fact that most women at the point where their ego has become annoyingly massive probably aren’t worth the salvage effort/time.)

      • Yes, I suspect an alternative hypothesis on the LQ of “pre-sexual behavior”; sexual dynamics that are encoded in us before puberty to help the “puberty update” run properly.

        When I was 9, I couldn’t get a hard-on and didn’t know what to do with my cock, but I did like to bully and tease girls my age. When I was 13, it had been beaten into me that bullying and teasing girls was an unimaginable crime. If it had not been, and I continued to do it, the exact same dynamic would have played out except it would have ended with my cock inside the girl I was bullying. (In a sense, learning game was about re-identifying with my 9yo self, unearthing the attitude of “girls are gross but they give good sport”)

        I talk about sex very frankly with girls I’m sleeping with, and I discovered that girls usually start masturbating around the age of five, with three being the earliest and eight being the latest. I don’t think “feels good when touched” necessarily translates into “wants to be railed out by a seven foot barbarian” though the latter definitely comes into play by puberty. Little girls do have an obsession with adult alpha males, and they do touch themselves, but it’s not possible to determine when those two circuits connect.

        Most cultures are reluctant to marry off 9yo girls because a 9yo girl has an indeterminate SMV. Lots of cute kids grow up to be ugly adults, and plenty of ugly or awkward-looking little girls grow up to be quite hot. A father can get the highest-status husband for his daughter at the peak of her attractiveness, which is never before she hits puberty; the vast, vast majority of men are not attracted to little girls and are unwilling to invest in an asset of indeterminate value that won’t pay dividends, children, for another few years.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          I talk about sex very frankly with girls I’m sleeping with, and I discovered that girls usually start masturbating around the age of five, with three being the earliest and eight being the latest. I don’t think “feels good when touched” necessarily translates into “wants to be railed out by a seven foot barbarian” though the latter definitely comes into play by puberty. Little girls do have an obsession with adult alpha males, and they do touch themselves, but it’s not possible to determine when those two circuits connect.

          In a way those circuits never really connect – when they do experiments asking men and women to watch interactions and evaluate whether a woman was acting as if she was interested women consistently don’t see / understand the clues that women are flirting whereas men do. The authors of these studies pitch this as men being clueless but it’s much more likely that it’s women being clueless about their own nature – they flirt, things happen, somehow they wind up inseminated with it never really entering into their conscious mind that that was her goal.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Most cultures are reluctant to marry off 9yo girls because a 9yo girl has an indeterminate SMV. Lots of cute kids grow up to be ugly adults, and plenty of ugly or awkward-looking little girls grow up to be quite hot. A father can get the highest-status husband for his daughter at the peak of her attractiveness, which is never before she hits puberty; the vast, vast majority of men are not attracted to little girls and are unwilling to invest in an asset of indeterminate value that won’t pay dividends, children, for another few years.

          Two interesting bits here:

          1) Emma Watson entirely owes her fame to this – she’s a mediocre looking woman who’s a sort of sex symbol only because at 10 she looked like she was going to mature into a very attractive woman (she didn’t).

          2) I’ve read similar explanations for women’s sexual attraction to peak age men. For short term mating when she’s only interested in genetic quality the man’s age shouldn’t matter too much so the hypothesis is that she looks for men close to peak age because she can compare them more readily.

          • Dave says:

            Aside from her short-haircut phase, or the times she’s spouted feminist dogma when not in the presence of attractive men, how is Emma Watson a “mediocre looking woman”? She could crush any beauty contest in my rural white county, even if the minimum age were 16!

            • Not Tom says:

              Ridiculous. She’s better than mediocre, but basically a 7 made up to look like a plausible 8. She looks boyish, no tits and no ass.

              And she really hasn’t aged all that well, though you wouldn’t have known that from her teenage appearance. Remember that glamor mag cover photo of her wearing that bizarre revealing outfit? Total turnoff right there.

              Comparing her to teenage white country girls who aren’t fat is just silly. Even hick towns produce the occasional 8 or 9.

            • Dave says:

              Mine isn’t the typical rural white county with those corn-fed Carrie Underwood types. Smart boys and pretty girls have been emigrating for most of a century and it shows; the genes left behind are utter shit.

        • jim says:

          > Little girls do have an obsession with adult alpha males, and they do touch themselves, but it’s not possible to determine when those two circuits connect.

          Those two circuits typically connect at age nine. Before then, touching themselves, and bothering alpha males until they get punished, is pre-sexual play, as playing with dolls is pre maternal play. But I, because I always perform alpha in front of adult women, get bothered to the point where it is a serious problem and major harassment. When there is a little girl around, my wife from time to time cries out “Don’t bruise her” because I frequently have to engage in forceful measures to stop the pre sexual, and not so pre, harassment.

          At age nine or so, they start wanting the alpha male to punish them on the genitals. Which of course, would be unlikely to reduce the harassment.

        • >When I was 9, I couldn’t get a hard-on and didn’t know what to do with my cock, but I did like to bully and tease girls my age. When I was 13, it had been beaten into me that bullying and teasing girls was an unimaginable crime. If it had not been, and I continued to do it, the exact same dynamic would have played out except it would have ended with my cock inside the girl I was bullying.

          I don’t know if it is all about “beating into”. There was little feminism where I grew up, but I felt an incredible loss of confidence both in general but especially about girls around puberty. I think the reason is different. I think the reason is that girls are peak value because peak fertility at puberty, while for boys it is the other way around.

          Being a 13 year old feels like you are being right at the bottom of a male hierarchy while the girls are apparently quite confidently conscious of their high value. Status in the modern world such as money or power tends to correlate positively with age, which is rather obvious, a career is supposed to get somewhere. But it seems also be the case in the ancestral environment, not only because alpha gorillas tend to be silverbacks, but also because a 30 year old man easily beats the shit out of a 17 year old one and a 13 year old is not even a question. “Old man strength” is real, start working out at 17, struggle with 30kg bench press, get it up to 50kg, stop for a year, start again, repeat, anyway, after years of not lifting return at 36 and so be surprised how easily you are starting with 60kg and in weeks you are pushing 100kg. Just because testosterone production and erection strength tends to decline from 35 things like strength not. Or confidence – especially past 40, I could do everything wrongly, I can not lift for a year, eat shit, dress like a chump and still I have so much confidence that my 20 year old self would have killed for. I have no idea where it comes from. My old self was “self-conscious” about how others may judge me. My current self not only does not care, in fact I judge other people. Absolutely no idea where it came from. Seems like just coming with age.

          What does one do matters, genetics matter, but I think somehow our bodies work so that being alpha is incredibly hard at 13 or 18 and often comes just quite naturally 35 to… maybe 50? 55?

          So Nature has played this cruel joke on us that male and female value work entirely oppositely in time, female value maxes out at puberty and is in constant decline while male value is minimal at puberty and is constant in incline until old age beats it.

          This is actually an interesting argument for controlling women for their own good on its own. Even if we would imagine women having the same exact brains and drives as men, it would still mean that they are at their highest value at a young age where people are just in general not very good at making decisions. While being a male teenager is terrible because not only girls but also all older men make you feel like you are the bottom of the hierarchy and essentially worthless, but it is a good thing that by the time a man peaks in sexual value, about 40, he has grown wise enough to use it responsibly.

          BTW my experience may differ, I might be a later peaker than others, because I also had puberty quite late because my boringly normal stress-free upbringing meant a Slow Life History Strategy. Maybe 40 is not one most feel the best, but 30-35.

          • That is true. As soon as a boy hits puberty, he’s suddenly a member of the male hierarchy, and at the very bottom relative to older men and girls his age.

            Before we had our feminizing educational system though, boys grew up faster and were men much earlier. When fathers are allowed to be fathers, and boys are allowed to bully each other and sort out the male hierarchy, they become men much faster. Today, we try to turn boys into girls, not totally successfully, but partially, and we have lots of young men who act like women.

            • Ideally, feminizing education should be entirely abolished, but if that is blocked, the British tradition of pushing sports is a perhaps acceptable compromise. My favorite example is Tolkien writing to his son that he played rugby in college, and he was weak but balanced it with “fierceness” so he “won his colours” (Was put on the college team? Likely.) I mean, Tolkien, the textbook room temperature scholar, the nerdy conlangist, as a fierce rugby tackler! And thus Chesterton’s complaint, that Eton focuses on sports and cleanliness and not on learning, well, that is because you don’t have to push smart nerdy boys like young Tolkien to study, they want to study on their own. But you have to push them to get serious in sports, and that is very good for them.

              AFAIK this British thing to push scholarly kids into sports didn’t really take root in the US because there is this hypercompetitive attitude to specialize and get excellent in one thing, either learning or sports, instead of being okay in both. It also did not take root in Continental Europe because we are a bunch of cucks. But it is a very good thing. It turns “Athenian” education into something a bit more “Spartan”.

              • The Cominator says:

                No public education beyond basic literacy with the exception of military academies.

                Also to the extent we are involved in sports we should endeavour to discourage ball sports in favor of things that resemble war games, paintball airsoft etc. This will better instill manly mentality in unathletic priestly types while getting consistently humiliated in sportsball games will not.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                AFAIK this British thing to push scholarly kids into sports didn’t really take root in the US because there is this hypercompetitive attitude to specialize and get excellent in one thing, either learning or sports, instead of being okay in both.

                That’s not it. The US used to have an athletic Ivy League tradition very similar to that of English tradition but it got nailed on both ends by Goodheart’s law (a test ceases to be a good measure when it becomes a target).

                Athletics + sufficient scholarship was supposed to select for leadership and overall genetic quality but it stopped doing so when you had a group that was genetically selected for intelligence (so all of a sudden the intelligence as *overall* genetic quality signal failed). Later you had the athletics end of it fail as well for the same reason – you had a group with different baseline genetic selection. Now you make a sports team for a college with members of a low IQ human species who the original intent might still work on – they’re likely above the baseline IQ *for their species*. Meanwhile the selection for intelligence + well roundedness (i.e., overall genetic quality) turns into selection for holiness + sufficient intelligence because the competition for athletic students is a totally separate endeavor.

                • info says:

                  I think all males should have weak physicality and weak intellect selected against at the same time. In this way maladaptive IQ genetics that correlate with weak physicality and maladaptive low IQ correlating with high physicality get selected against.

                  This will ensure that Hi IQ and robust physicality converge in an optimal well rounded man.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Correlation between physical fitness and mental fitness is fairly well documented. It appears to be selected for already, probably because physical coordination (especially for bipeds) and motor skills require large brains.

                  And I know someone will want to jump in with “but muh black sportsball players”, but those guys are often chosen because they’re huge and/or have high endurance, not because they’re exceptionally talented, and the ones that are exceptionally talented also tend to be smarter.

                  So it looks like nature has already designed the solution you seek. All we have to do is not fuck with it. Progressivism might select for frailty, but it’s also morbid. They might be able to delay the inevitable, but they’ll never escape Gnon. Women don’t want to have babies with weaklings, and while they will indeed have babies with strong and aggressive morons, those morons will never win wars against strong and aggressive smart guys. That’s the civilizational cycle in a nutshell.

                • jim says:

                  > Women don’t want to have babies with weaklings, and while they will indeed have babies with strong and aggressive morons, those morons will never win wars against strong and aggressive smart guys. That’s the civilizational cycle in a nutshell.

                  The good strong men have to coordinate. Gnon is not going to do it for them. And they have to demonstrate strength to women by suppressing stupid aggressive men, and putting women under control.

                  The reason that women don’t marry CEOs is that actually existent CEOs are unable to control, or even acknowledge seeing, bad female behavior in the workplace. The reason that women fuck thugs, is that our judicial and police systems are reluctant to control criminals, and prefer to harass middle class taxpayers.

                • alf says:

                  The good strong men have to coordinate. Gnon is not going to do it for them. And they have to demonstrate strength to women by suppressing stupid aggressive men, and putting women under control.

                  The restoration in a nutshell.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The good strong men have to coordinate.

                  That was my point at the end. Strong but stupid men can’t win against strong and smart men (i.e. who can cooperate).

                  And eventually they will coordinate, as they always do; it’s just a question of how bad things need to get before they’ll do so. A strong religion helps to preemptively address the problems and pause or slow the endless cycle, which is of course what we want. But even if we fail, we will simply get a Stalin; one way or another, Gnon wins.

          • jim says:

            > I felt an incredible loss of confidence both in general but especially about girls around puberty. I think the reason is different. I think the reason is that girls are peak value because peak fertility at puberty, while for boys it is the other way around.

            My plan is to replace priestly education with apprenticeship, turn off the supply of feral pussy, (which will frustrate apprentices, but not result in daily proof that they are low status in the eyes of women) and make it easy to find an obedient virgin wife as soon as apprenticeship, and therefore ability to support a wife and kids, is in the bag.

            Dads are a lot more appreciative of beta provider game than daughters, and history demonstrates that if a girl is restrained from cruising for alpha, she will fall hard for the first guy presented to her as reasonably high status by her dad.

            • RedBible says:

              I can remember some periods in my life that I was literally not seeing any females for days at a time. During those times, didn’t really bother me that I wasn’t “gett’n any pussy” since it didn’t have much opportunity to cross my mind. Well that is until you run into an environment where there are some females, and damn will they look a lot better than they would otherwise. That’s the points that frustration peaks out. But overall, still much less frustration that the times where I saw girls everyday, and wasn’t “gett’n any pussy”.

              • Mr.P says:

                You are a superlative, exemplary man.

                Kudos.

                Superlative self-awareness, exemplary self-mastery.

                I hope that you are still young, because if still young, you have arrived and have great joys to come.

              • jim says:

                I was surprised to find that men like this existed. When not exposed to fertile age females, I burn. When exposed to fertile age females but cannot nail any of them, still burn. Either way, I then do whatever it takes.

              • >I can remember some periods in my life that I was literally not seeing any females for days at a time.

                That’s one of the reason we used to have sex-segregated education. Put horny young teens together as coeds and of course they will ignore learning and focus on each other. To the extent that the “coed” became today a porn term, meaning the hot young girl one used to daydream about all day at school instead of paying attention to the lectures.

                There are other good reasons – they should learn different things, in different ways, they have different kinds of discipline problems (aggression vs. talking all the bloody time) and so on. But basically the root thing is that you put a hot piece of ass anywhere near a young man/boy and he is not going to concentrate on anything else.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I would think we would highly highly discourage educating women beyond basic literacy. No good comes of it.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The “research” (believe it or don’t, but this gets studied a lot and the data is of decent quality) appears to be converging on single-sex schools primarily improving performance on the low end. Smart boys do fine in either coed or SS.

                  Same for smart girls, notwithstanding the fact that we are destroying society by trying to funnel fertile-age women into sterile careers and/or temple prostitution.

                  Of course, another way of interpreting this could be that nerdy boys with low sex drive do fine in coed settings, and alphas and warrior types do much worse; but so far as I can tell, those deemed low-achievement always achieve less than the high-achievers no matter what arrangement is used. We can complain about the operationalization, say that the entire neo-Prussian system selects for obedient NPC priests and the way we measure “achievement” is ridiculous, but it’s still the best data that we have.

                  It’s more interesting to me to look at the workplace, where I see what Jim talks about. Women, including married women, constantly acting out in the hope of attracting attention from an alpha. Even the very smart ones generally subtract value unless there is an alpha who can keep them in line and is willing to do so despite endless temptation to defect, and even then, they still add considerably less value than a male of equivalent intelligence.

                  Unlike public schooling, which is a rigged system and inferior to mandatory apprenticeship, the average corporate workplace is an accurate representation of real-world adult group dynamics, and regardless of the precise reasons, introducing women has been an absolute disaster. Every corporation needs to develop a healthy skepticism for women that is the polar opposite of the current grrlpower narrative – similar to the superstitions seamen had in previous centuries that even one woman on the ship was bad luck.

                • info says:

                  Id say let the determined exceptions prove themselves and do good work. Whilst ensuing what you say applies to the rest.

    • jim says:

      At age six girls are playing at the behavior of seducing alphas, as they play with dolls at the behavior of taking care of babies. At age nine or so, the play gets real.

      • RedBible says:

        I get that the long term solution is that fathers should marry off daughters that are engaging in “bad behavior”, but my question would be what would you recommend or suggest a father do with modern laws the way they are, as well as what would you suggest or recommend a man being harassed by “9 year old” girls do in current year?

        • jim says:

          There is a problem with nine year old girls in that they rather like being spanked and their father is unlikely to like them being spanked. I have no good solution to that problem. Younger girls you can spank when they repeatedly fail to listen to “No”, or “stop”.

          • Just delegate it to the wife. Women are good at policing women when there is a man higher up the chain. Classic example the old girls boarding school with all female teachers but male director.

  3. Frederick Algernon says:

    Impeachment Inquiry is running out of steam. MSM is openly questioning The Narrative, even if only subliminally. Republicans are realising that they have a lot of latitude in attacking their enemies. The economy is on fire. The wall is going up. The expulsion of the top Navy civilian leader could be the beginning of the Purge. Everything appears to be coming up Millhouse.

    So the question is, how will the Deep State respond? I think that, given the internal ideological civil war in the DNC as well as cultural stagnation due to the End Of History paradigm, the DS has been short sighted and limp wristed. It would be equally shortsighted to assume this will continue. 2020 will be an incredibly dangerous year in many categories. It would appear that the Deep State Department is setting the Western Hemisphere ablaze. Expect violence in Europe to increase as well.

    What can we expect to see both domestically and internationally? Don’t be afraid to make predictions; good ideological framework should be able to make general predictions.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      Today I saw the anti-Trump book by Anonymous. Highly, highly recommended.

      It is the most incredible unintentional MSM promotion of Trump I have ever seen. 150 pages of what purports to be documentation of Trump’s incompetence but in fact reads (e.g., to anyone following this blog) like a religious testimonial to the incomparable greatness of the Holy American Emperor. Line after line is a glorious reminder of why Trump won the election.

      – Trump, says Anonymous, is monomaniacally obsessed with trade war against China but doesn’t care at all about human rights violations or Hong Kong.

      – Trump, says Anonymous, flippantly disregarded the wisdom of advisors on Russian interference and attacks on US democracy, dismissing it all as “complete bullshit”. Michael Flynn, whom Anon dismisses as an “intelligence community dropout”, reinforced this by stating that Trump was right, it was all “total bullshit”.

      – Trump, says Anonymous, is an anti-intellectual who does not read books. Instead he tweets and campaign-rallies to crush the left. Unlike Bush II and Obama who were “voracious readers”.

      It just gets better and better. Pro-tip endorphin source if you are in a US bookstore.

      • calov says:

        Bush II a voracious reader. Of what?

        • Thales says:

          “The Pet Goat”

        • The Cominator says:

          I don’t buy that Trump is some kind of stupid barely literate type either. Trump acts a lot dumber then he is because it works (because America has gotten stupider as its gotten less white and more inclined to dysgenic breeding because of feminism) and he is a man of action more then thought (not a priestly type). But said he actually read some of our past trade deals and that is how he knew how bad they were for us and given that whatever he did on trade seemed to work I think Trump was probably telling the truth.

          Anyway who can read through a few thousand pages of trade legalese and understand it… must be far more well read then he lets on.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Trump seems primarily visually, not verbally, oriented. As are a disproportion of engineers, quantitative scientists, men, and athletes.
            He watches television with an eagle eye and coins memorable visual metaphors: Alfred E Neuman (Buttigieg), pencil-neck Schiff. When he talks he keeps it simple and tends to race ahead of himself in preference to finishing sentences. That’s a sign his thought processes are faster than his verbalization. You can see in live combative back-and-forth that few others in public life have faster or better instincts.

            I suspect that like most antiverbal hyperactive male nerds, Trump prefers to read condensed nonfiction with functional content, such as contracts or (in other professions) manuals or code. He has said in interviews that in business he spent a lot of time reading contracts.

            The media-political-academic priestly caste selects for the opposite, verbal predominance and anal bulldozing, hence the superabundance of lawyers as well as the delusional conviction that Trump is stupid. It’s not genuine conviction, it’s an attempt to convince themselves by repetition of something they are desperate to believe. Trump is the most multitalented President in a long, long time and his humiliation of the mandarins gets under their skin like nothing else in our lifetime.

            • Thales says:

              Bingo.

            • The Cominator says:

              Per Scott Adams im quite his verbal intelligence is also higher then he lets on.

              • Reziac says:

                I’d put Trump’s IQ at about 160, and I do pretty well at pegging this.

                Have also been amused to note that he thinks just like I do (same sorts of logic leaps and side trips) which often baffles people who think more linearly.

            • Reziac says:

              A few years back someone on Trump’s staff said that the way you keep track of Trump is to follow the trail of books and newspapers that he’s read and left behind. Apparently he’s a voracious reader of everything in reach, but I’d guess also does a lot of skimming for actual content.

          • ten says:

            Very possible to be highly intelligent and capable of reading difficult text but not enjoying ”literature”. Literacy of this type, as well as blog commenting, are clearly priestly interests while eye-lasering trade deals and some other forms of literature, like autistic military and technological data hamstering, is not very priestly.

            I deeply believe trump is very intelligent and it seems probable he is not much for reading ”literature”.

        • The issue is not only how most books today are pozzed to hell, there is also the part that the rest of them is usually very shallow. I take a good look at my local bookstore and I conclude being a voracious reader should not carry more prestige today than being an avid videogamer.

          Even the books aimed at a rightist audience are shallow. I mean, all the zillion books about WW2 German tanks in my corner of Europe, I imagine they are meant for a rightist audience, and okay they are interesting enough to buy one book about them, but when I see too many of these books all the time I imagine there must be a Wehraboo audience just wanking to them all the time.

  4. R7 Rocket says:

    President Trump has stripped the medals from the prosecutors who were prosecuting the Navy Seal Gallagher.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/trump-navy-seal-war-crimes.html

    • Not Tom says:

      “but the approach President Trump has chosen to take seems calculated to inflame rather than calm the issue.”

      Indeed.

      How does it feel to be on the receiving end, Mr. Feaver?

    • alf says:

      In a court-martial this month, he was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of the captive and was also acquitted of accusations that he had fired at unarmed civilians who posed no threat, including an old man and a schoolgirl.

      Nice one. ‘he’s been found not guilty, but trust us, he was guilty.’

  5. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    > This guy’s just trying to demoralise people.

    Fine, we get it, there’s no wall, no protectionism, no deportations but people still talk like there are. We get it, very clever Shlomo.

    • jim says:

      What is that thing in the photograph in the post to which you are replying?

      It strangely resembles a wall, a wall that was getting longer when the photograph was taken, and is getting longer every day.

      As for protectionism, Trump never promised protectionism, and his voters never expected protectionism. They expected he would make trade deals that were more favorable to the US, and less favorable to all those nations paying off Obama and Biden. But because China is dragging its feet on trade deal, Trump has engaged in protectionism – raising tariffs substantially on Chinese goods, which is resulting in factories coming home – quite a lot of factories coming home, resulting in the great decentralization, as working class whites head back into flyover country to work in those factories.

      When the Chinese make the deal that Trump promised his voters, Trump will, as promised, dismantle that protectionism. At every rally he tells his voters about the tariffs, tells them that the tariffs are a temporary measure pending a trade deal, and that after to 2020 elections, the Chinese, seeing him still in power, will be more highly motivated to make the much promised, much delayed, deal.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        > (wall) is getting longer every day

        Just in time for CR. Trump schlomo-in-law has been appointed wallbuilder in chief. Goal 400 miles by November. Progress to be checked biweekly.

        https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2019/11/26/washington-post-jared-kushner-manages-border-wall-construction/

        Why the nepotized Hebe, you might ask?

        “the process moving exceptionally slowly throughout 2017 and 2018 as then-DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen repeatedly failed to secure funding for the project.”

        “The task matches Kushner’s experience as a New York builder and his familiarity with the lawsuits needed to clear away obstacles to construction.”

        • The Cominator says:

          This wallbuilder in chief bit may well be fake news but I don’t think Kushner is all that bad and I think he is used as a whipping boy by wignat blackpillers because hes a jew and because he did not get on well with Bannon.

          Kushner has done IMHO as chief middle East negotiator. After he was named to the position almost all the bad people in Saudi Arabia got arrested.

          The thing is that Bannon well earned being fired for unauthorized contacts with CNN, and not just once casually but blabbing for hours.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Kushner seems to succeed at tasks in inverse proportion to his qualifications for them. The wall is the one job he is, on paper, most suited for, and also the one in which he will face the hardest resistance. I hope he will surprise us and get it done.

            • The Cominator says:

              Grrrr I meant done WELL as chief Middle East negotiator.

              I’m not sure what Kushner can do exactly in the face of constant lawfare but at least he’ll have constant access to the God-Emperor.

          • jim says:

            Bannon was fired for talking to the enemy. Kushner did a great job in Saudi Arabia – see all the MSM screaming about oppression.

            A couple of “refugees” from Saudi Arabia showed up in Australia. They were, and I am not making this up, gay CNN reporters of Saudi Nationality. Gay. CNN.

            The Australian border patrol, which operates Judge Dredd style, arrested them, and the mainstream media was screaming pitifully.

            Two gay CNN reporters imprisoned, and I think Kushner deserves much of the credit.

            • my jewish government is better than your jewish government says:

              The Australian Gestapo which you love so much doesn’t seem to be terribly effective at preventing the mass replacement of the Australian race. Why is that?

              • jim says:

                The Australian Border Patrol has been very effective.

                Illegal immigration is down to zero. No more smugglers, no more boats. None. Visa overstayers get rounded up the first time they hit a traffic stop or show up at a hospital.

                Legal immigration is not their job, and there is still far too much legal immigration, but I love what they did with those two CNN reporters.

                The border patrol’s job is illegal immigration, and they are one hundred percent effective at their job, now that the lawyers and judges have been forced to get out of the way – doubtless those two gay CNN reporters thought that they were legal immigration, but they got a big surprise.

        • Trump is giving Kushner a job he does not want to do, a job that if he does, will alienate him forever from the Left.

          “The guy who betrayed Trump and saved America” would go down as a hero. A constant temptation for Ivanka and Kush. Trump is forcing Kushner to ingroup with Trumpism, because building the wall will make him a nazi to the Left.

          If Kushner does not get the wall done, Trump has an excuse to fire him. Trump fires everyone who does not perform. If Kushner builds the wall, Trump wins. If Kushner fails, Trump rids himself of a snake. It’s very smart of him. He is playing politics the way a King plays politics with truculent and potentially rebellious aristocrats. It’s very encouraging.

        • Reziac says:

          Perhaps more important, it gets SIL out of DC.

          SIL may be compromised, see
          https://www.docdroid.net/file/download/DtiLYBH/bender-affidavit.pdf

          (An enlightening read if even half of it is true.)

            • furor kek tonicus says:

              son-in-law.

              • The Cominator says:

                Ivanka with her lingering fashionable Manhattan liberal feminist beliefs (I don’t know how much they still linger in the face of the fact that she must understand at this point that the left wants to murder her entire family) is far more a weak point then her husband Kushner, Kushner did a great job with draining the swamp in Saudi Arabia and actually bringing some sense of tranquility to the Middle East and Trump’s seeming great confidence in him seems well justified. He’s also according to Scott Adams has been Trump’s general right hand man throughout the Presidency. Hes been effective, loyal, by all accounts hardworking and spills no secrets and seeks no glory.

                People did not like Kushner because he apparently was extremely skeptical of Bannon, but it turned out that as much as hurts for us that Kushner was right Bannon was passing information to the enemy.

                Trump’s two inner circle jews Kushner and Miller have probably been his most effective and loyal servants.

                • Allah says:

                  Now that you mention it, why is Ivanka rarely mentioned when discussing Trump’s politics? What’s with his leniency on her feminism? Is he one of those dads who think their daughters are angelic princesses?

                • jim says:

                  It is a notorious failure mode for dads. And mums are pretty bad at this also. It is always grandma that realizes what granddaughter is doing and puts a stop to it.

                  Just as women are reality blind to their own shit testing and their own sexual preferences, parents are reality blind to daughter’s female misconduct.

                • Not Tom says:

                  why is Ivanka rarely mentioned when discussing Trump’s politics?

                  If you mean why is she rarely mentioned here, it’s probably because:

                  (a) Ivanka is boring. Typical Manhattan shitlib with typical Manhattan shitlib ideas.

                  (b) Women are boring. Their mating behavior is interesting, of course, but in terms of politics they contribute nothing.

                  (c) Her “hold” on Trump is probably far less than people believe. Her behavior informs him how the typical shitlib thinks on an issue, but if you look at e.g. Syria, where the retard right thought she had complete control over him, it turned out that he made exactly the right moves at exactly the right times.

                  She is a convenient scapegoat, and he probably does give her a lot more leash than she deserves, but I estimate her real-world impact on the President to be .00001% of the impact of the Cathedral in general.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes I think Trump uses her to gauge how shitlibs and women think on things but its clear he doesn’t listen to her on policy and even her husband doesn’t listen to her on policy.

                  Mothers tend to realize if the daughter is being bad but often kind of get a vicarious thrill out of the daughter being bad so enable it. Ivana Trump her mother is not really in the picture now however.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  The failure mod seems to be more of a feature of the modern times than something actually organic.

                  My great-grandmother told my grandmother when she complained about my grandfather after a month of marriage because she wanted to go back home to suck it up and go back to her own home with her own husband and be grateful he was a good man.

                  Of course, my grandmother married under Franco, people were actual humans back then in Spain, instead of inhumans becoming ever more inhuman because being a human is too much of a thoughtcrime according to the tenets of progressivism, and thus ever more insane.

                  Back then a son going to his father to complain about one of his teachers hitting him because he did X got a full blown beating from the father for doing X.

    • The Cominator says:

      Hail fellow reactionaries, anyone who doesn’t vote for radical Democrats who are promising to “abolish whiteness” is a jew and isn’t white. All REAL white people hate Drumpf and want to abolish whiteness, amirite.

      • my jewish government is better than your jewish government says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          If there are glaring inconsistencies in the 9/11 story tell us what they are, rather than assuming them to be well known.

          And if your reply contains any references to steel melting or building seven falling straight down on its own footprint like a controlled demolition, and so forth, let us see some evidence that steel melted or that building seven fell straight down on its own footprint like a controlled demolition.

          I have not heard from troofers in a while, and had assumed that they had all gone away when Mueller retired. Previous attempts to engage troofers in an actual conversation were entirely unsuccessful, they just stuck rigidly to script. But since, to my surprise, one has shown up post Mueller, let us see if he can deviate from script.

          • my jewish government is better than your jewish government says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Don’t tell me stuff is undeniable when I deny it and present overwhelming and compelling evidence for the denial. Debate the evidence, don’t tell us that the science is settled.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Shlomo so triggered……… this newcomer isn’t me btw ‘folks’ 😀

                it’s justmore and more people are noticing, and ‘Jim’ is unable to continue to pretend to be a fellow whatever…….. he’s not a fellow, he’s a felon, by virtue of his ancestry, his birth, and most of all his behaviour

                Deep down he knows it, which is why he first censors, then responds

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  Further announcements that you are winning the debate will be silently deleted. I allow this one through, so that everyone can see that you are out of contact with reality, and that silent deletion spares them from repetitious insanity.

                • ten says:

                  Yes, soon the anti jimian sentiment on jims blog will be all but general, and you will lead the antisemitic insurrection. Soon. The anon troops are assembling in the dark, you are sure of it, your list of allies grows thicker by the day! Soon.

                  Soon we will rise! No more false white pilling, only the truth- the claws at the edge of the darkness of ignorance can not be avoided, must be embraced – they alone can save us from the jews. Come brothers, with me now, now, with me!

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Shlomo so triggered……… this newcomer isn’t me btw ‘folks’ 😀”

                  They’re paying someone else minimum wage to post here?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Communist Revolutionary
                  Then why can’t you pass a RedPill on women test?

              • FrankNorman says:

                Jim, what’s the deal about the Troofers? Obviously some honest people have been taken in by the arguments, and some people push conspiracy theories because it makes them feel clever – but behind that there’s another group with an agenda, right?

                Any ideas as to who would be writing the script, and what their goals are?
                Kind of late in the day for them to still be trying to prove that the War on Terror was declared over a false flag – especially since the Right are now opposed to the Neo-Con agenda anyway.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most of the important people in DC were/are on the Saudi payroll and Saudi at the time of 9/11 was controlled by Jihadi sympathizers. The government did not do 9/11 directly but at the highest levels of the FBI request to arrest the would be hijackers based on very clear evidence was turned down.

                  Following the 9/11 attack the government could not allow its on incompetence OR Saudi Arabia to take the sole blame they had to muddy the waters hence shillbots spouting a lot of crap about dancing Israelis, controlled demolition, masses of jews calling in sick etc. were the result.

                • jim says:

                  > Any ideas as to who would be writing the script,

                  Mueller and the FBI.

                  > and what their goals are?

                  Pressure came down from above to ignore Muslim terrorism even if it got in their faces, and find white male Christian terrorism regardless of whether it existed or not.

                  Predictably this blew up in their faces, and it has been blowing up in their faces repeatedly, as for example the Fort Hood massacre. And every time it blows up in their faces, their shills issue a smoke screen to hide what happened and who is to blame.

                  You can tell that they are FBI shills whenever the subject of the FBI or Mueller comes up. Troofers are in chain of command which until recently had Mueller at the top. For Troofers, trying to talk to them about the FBI, or even the Mueller investigation into Trump, reveals who they work for, just trying to talk to them about women reveals that they are shills working for somebody.

                  Just as they are mysteriously unable to hear what you say about the red pill, they are mysteriously unable to hear what you say about the Mueller investigation into Trump.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Mueller and the FBI. The swamp.

                  The exact same assholes who allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen – not deliberately, of course, but through incompetence and a single-minded obsession with finding white perpetrators over duskier ones – are the ones who “investigated” Trump for two years and continue to harass him over Ukraine.

                  Mueller probably isn’t personally writing the troofer materials or training the shills, but it’s better for everyone if you think of all those individuals as faceless bureaucrats. They don’t deserve names or identities, and could easily be replaced even if you (or rather, a sitting President) managed to find out who they were and remove them from their positions.

                  Troofers are Zerg, they’ll just keep coming until you eliminate the breeding ground.

                • jim says:

                  > Mueller probably isn’t personally writing the troofer materials or training the shills

                  Not pissing off Mueller used to be number one on their list of priorities, though presumably it no longer is.

  6. Mike S says:

    The whole Gallagher thing is actually pretty common in the military. It happened to a guy in my maintenance unit in the Air Force. I had gotten out after my four years were up and later that year came back to town to visit friends for Thanksgiving. One of the guys was conspicuously missing. So I asked about it.

    Turns out, he got a false rape accusation from the barracks whore who wanted to save face when her actual boyfriend found out. Totally bogus charges, the evidence from the text messaging exonerated him during the court martial. However, the fucking SJW “officers” just had to get him for something, so they convicted him of sexual battery for trying to go in for sloppy seconds the day after that princess didn’t want.

    So he got demoted, branded a sex offender and denied reenlistment. And he was the best technician in the unit after me.

    Made me ashamed of ever being a part of the Air Force.

  7. Karl says:

    Trump gave the secretary of the navy the opportunity to resign. For the secretary’s pension and benefits there is a huge difference between resigning and being fired.

    Why didn’t Trump do more damage to his enemy? Couldn’t he fire the secretary before he gave him an opportunity to resign? (Legally he could have done so). Is he still looking for a deal? Trying to postpone the time when the gloves come off?

    It sure was (another) warning that opposing him is not a smart carreer move. It would have been a more severe warning if the secretary had really been fired for cause and lost his pension. Would Trump’s enemies done the same to one of his allies? I think not. I think that they would have done as much damage on the personal level as possible including taking the pension away.

    • TBeholder says:

      Why didn’t Trump do more damage to his enemy? Couldn’t he fire the secretary before he gave him an opportunity to resign? (Legally he could have done so). Is he still looking for a deal? Trying to postpone the time when the gloves come off?

      Allowing retreat. «Do not press a desperate foe too hard.»

  8. TBeholder says:

    Military can (probably) prevent the coup, indeed. But that’s only deterrence from one particular attack.
    Draining the swamp would be a bold offensive operation. The problem is, power structures of USA being almost entirely rooted in the swamp, who would do it?
    Between Smollett getting away and Epstein not living to testify, the workforce whose job is to drain the swamp seems to belong in the swamp. Which only makes sense — if it wasn’t, the swamp would be much smaller and quieter.
    Then there’s also that alligator in the room: https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/killary/

  9. Mike says:

    Nobody is fooled by a few sections of fence that can be cut through by Mexican tradesmen on instructions from the US media.

    No Israeli style Concrete fortress on the border for the Goy. Four more years is just four more years towards a permanent disposession of European america. This is the looting phase of civilisation, act accordingly.

    • The Cominator says:

      When the wignat strikes at you he cries in pain.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @Mike
      Are you ready for a RedPill on women question?

    • jim says:

      Nuts

      Looks like a mighty fortress wall to me.

    • Not Tom says:

      Have you actually ever looked at photos of Israel’s wall (literally a 10 second web search)? Or just assume that what you’re saying makes sense because your fed shill buddies told you?

      Look at one of the Israel photos side by side with the photo Jim posted. They are almost identical.

  10. […] looks at Trump’s efforts to drain the swamp, and resisting a Democratic colour […]

  11. Mike says:

    AFAIK the pally-wallys have to dig tunnels into Israel.

    Google Israel wall images.

    Then Google Trump wall images

    You might find this:

    https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/201901/nn_jso_shutdown_border_wall_190110_1920x1080.760;428;7;70;5.jpg

    • jim says:

      They have had zero success in recent years at tunnel digging, because the Israeli wall, like Trump’s wall, has ground sensors to detect the ground noise of tunnel digging. You dig a tunnel, you have to break rock, or at least break stuff that is pretty hard. Breaking rock creates a lot of sound in the rock that it is connected to, so is extremely loud to a noise sensor that is connected to rock, rather than to the air. If you are digging through dirt, this muffles the sound a fair bit, but it still loud enough. One sensor cannot tell a rock cracking in one place from a rock cracking in another place, but you have multiple sensors located some distance apart, they can exactly locate where a particular rock in the ground cracked. It takes three sensors hearing the sound of a break to exactly locate the exact position where that particular rock was broken.

      Even if someone is digging in soft dirt, as soon as he uses a pickax, the sound is quite audible for a very long way if you have your ear on the ground. You hear the sound of whatever is being broken by the pickax breaking.

      To be precise, two sensors will identify the location of the snap to one of two possible positions, and a third sensor will locate it to one position.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        >two sensors will identify … one of two possible positions, and a third sensor will locate it to one position.

        Euclidean security!

        The signal processing for waves in an (indeterminately) inhomogeneous medium is more complicated, but I’m guessing (1) an extra sensor for precise depth information and another for improved accuracy gets them the resolution they need, and (2) they have a lot more than the theoretical minimum, and distributed them intelligently.

  12. Mister Grumpus says:

    Zooming out some:

    What are the chances, y’all think, that Don decided to run for President in the first place because somebody, just somebody, was going to have to drain the swamp in order for people and families, like his, to avoid an ever-approaching Romanov treatment that he could smell coming around the corner?

    How much of this is Don storming the cockpit while he still can? Maybe he knew it was the “flight 93 election” before anyone else did, and at a far more intimate and personal level.

    (And/or, was it Israel feeling the same pressure — like “shit we’re going to have to bail out of here aren’t we?” — and having no other friends/allies/“assets” who were up to it?)

    • The Cominator says:

      Trump could have fled to Asia or Russia (or somewhere within the Russian sphere) if things looked to go bad soon. Trump’s running is heroic but I think his only selfish motive was wanting to go down in history as the man who saved America…

      And he can’t do that unless he destroys the Cathedral in his 2nd term.

    • BC says:

      I don’t think so. I think Trump ran because he wanted to fix out messed up economy and trade situation. He wanted to work with the left in this regard. But the reaction to him winning has forced him on the current path, something he never intended.

    • jim says:

      He initially focused on the economy, but he had his eye on the military from the beginning, so knew that the storm was coming.

      In the recent hearings the dems were fishing for support among the top brass for color revolution. The green light.

  13. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    Holiday cheer from Twitter anti-Christmas activist Julia Ioffe:

    Trump is Waging War on American Diplomats
    https://www.gq.com/story/trump-is-waging-war-on-american-diplomats

    “Previously unpublished data from the AFSA shows that the foreign service is losing people at an alarming clip. In the first two years of Trump’s presidency, nearly half of the State Department’s Career Ministers retired or were pushed out. Another 20 percent of its Minister Counselors, one rank level down, also left.

    … December [2018], this ex–foreign service officer created a Facebook group aimed at connecting fellow FSOs looking to transition out of the service and into the private sector. In less than a year, this former FSO told me, the group has accumulated over 1,000 members. In the two months since the impeachment inquiry began and Trump started smearing career FSOs like Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Jennifer Williams, more foreign service officers have begun looking for an exit. Another 100 FSOs have requested to join the Facebook group since the impeachment proceedings began, the source told me, asking other group members to help them dust off their résumés or meet them for informational interviews.”

    Impeachments have consequences. Denizens of State see the Great Gutting coming and are eyeing the exits.

  14. Pooch says:

    Came across some Nixon quotes, and he seemed like a true reactionary. Never realized it before. Looked like he was up against the same forces then as Trump is now.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Nixon saw the Cathedral for what it was going back to the 1950s.

      Ryan Landry is consistently excellent in his writings about Nixon and Watergate. Short version – the Watergate break-in was conducted almost entirely by a team of CIA officers who had infiltrated the presidency and Nixon’s reelection campaign organization. They clumsily break into the Democratic office and almost certainly report themselves to the press (directly or through a cutout). Nixon saw the Cathedral and either couldn’t stop it or didn’t anticipate how it would spin its own actions to condemn him. Controlling the press is a powerful thing when there’s no alternative communication channel to allow coordination. How could you organize large scale cooperation back then without it? Mailing lists and newsletters?

      https://theamericansun.com/2019/11/10/impeachment-unified-theory-of-watergate/

    • The Cominator says:

      Nixon was too socialist though… Heath insurance became a thing under him.

      • Mike says:

        Nixon called the State Department, “A bunch of striped-pants faggots at Foggy Bottom.” From that alone he gets my vote.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          Nixon solid on the GQ by today’s standard but not by that of his day. From the quotes his stance was about the same as Bolsonaro’s official position today: don’t oppress homosexuals, but no public displays of gay.

          • Pooch says:

            He might have eventually figured out the right way to handle them. He was wondering what the Russians were doing.

            “One of my favorites:

            “You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin’ the nuns; that’s been goin’ on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That’s what’s happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France. Let’s look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root ’em out. They don’t let ’em around at all. I don’t know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They’re trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.”

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Here’s Nixon analyzing how All in the Family was being used to normalize homosexuality.

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

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              Nice.

              Nixon was, like Trump, a sharp observer with a good memory and quick intuitive grasp of things. Notice how much of the All In The Family dialogue he can recall in detail after seeing it.

              A bit of deliberately lost (memoryholed) cultural knowledge comes up when Nixon says “we kept having to go back and clean out the fags” from the Boy Scouts to keep it clean for children. Eternal vigilance is the price of sanity.

        • Pooch says:

          Another great one…

          “Screw State! State’s always on the side of the blacks. The hell with them!”

      • Pooch says:

        What is the official reactionary stance on health care by the way?

        • jim says:

          Copy what works. Doctors will run the practices, rather than vast army of bureaucrats.

          Singapore:

          Private healthcare for most people, public healthcare for the unlucky, the deserving poor, and those with nothing much wrong with them. But if a drug addicted aids infected stone broke gay shows up at a private medical facility with multiple stab wounds, the doctor can set the dogs on him if he does not go away.

          Except that we will be tougher on the undeserving poor than Singapore.

          The American insurance system is quasi state organization that sticks its fingers in no end of matters where it has no competence.

    • chedolf says:

      Came across some Nixon quotes, and he seemed like a true reactionary.

      He gave us affirmative action in federal contracting. Thank you, based Nixon.

  15. BC says:

    Trump is looking awfully weak to people on the outside right now. The Ukraine just deep sixed their investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma and the behavior at the NATO summit indicates that they expect Trump to be gone soon.

    • jim says:

      A lot of people believe he is falling.

      We shall see.

      Trump said “What they don’t know …”

      Trump is short of loyalists, but has unity of command. His enemies lack unity of command. When the proverbial hits the fan, unity of command makes a big difference. His enemies are counting heads in the defense department brass, and they have the numbers, while Trump does not, but all he actually needs is forty praetorians.

    • Not Tom says:

      I would say that the behavior at the NATO summit indicates that these socialistic freeloaders are pissed about being held accountable for reneging on their commitments, and using all of the other background noise as an excuse.

      We can, of course, argue over whether NATO is actually a good idea at all, but that’s neither here nor there, and these foreign dignitaries would be screaming even louder if they thought there was actually any threat of losing their NATO support. Like France under Maricon is going to field a serious standing army.

      • BC says:

        It’s the open disrespect at the NATO summit. The rest of the world believes everything the US media says, so when they say Trump is failing they believe it. Trump needs to start arresting people soon. That Hillary donor was a good start, but it’s going to need to be someone high profile.

        • Not Tom says:

          I’m not really buying it. Trashing America in general and Trump in particular is business as usual for Euro politicians. This isn’t a new phenomenon.

          Obviously I would like to see arrests as well, but making arrests and being unable to make them stick would actually make him look very weak. If he can’t win a decisive victory, there’s no point in charging into battle.

          • BC says:

            >I’m not really buying it. Trashing America in general and Trump in particular is business as usual for Euro politicians. This isn’t a new phenomenon.

            Trump seemed to take it as a sign of disrespect.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Trump is not a man to tolerate disrespect. The White House Correspondents Dinner fiasco might have been the flashpoint that pushed him into running. Euro politicians offering public disrespect to the man who is working his best to consolidate his influence over the Empire’s legions is a very foolish play.

              • BC says:

                Like I said, they did it because they’re expecting him to be removed.

                • jim says:

                  A great many people have bet against Trump, and a great many people have lost.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Removed? Ha! Impeached, maybe, and I’m not even willing to bet on that. Trump enjoys Lincoln levels of approval with Republicans; every Republican senator, and many blue-dog Democrats, know they’d be committing political suicide, and quite possibly actual suicide, with a vote to remove, even if they succeeded. And most of them want him at this point because he is raising obscene, historically-unprecedented amounts of money for the party.

                  If they think he is going to be removed, they are even dumber than they appear. The only chance for removal is resignation, and Trump is not going to resign, not going to cede the color revolution script.

                • jim says:

                  > Removed? Ha! Impeached, maybe

                  There is no way they can impeach Trump until they are in the position to arrest, or threaten to arrest large numbers of Senate Republicans, and they are not in the position to arrest large numbers of Senate Republicans until they first arrest Trump, his family, and leading members of his administration.

                  Color revolution has to come before impeachment. At the hearings they were counting up the top military brass, to see who is on board with color revolution. They do in fact have the numbers in the top brass, if the hearings are a reliable indicator, but I suspect Trump has the numbers in the praetorians.

                  When push comes to shove, the top brass is going to start wondering about the praetorians.

                  In Chile, the junior officers informed Pinochet the coup was about to roll only a few hours before it rolled, and asked him to sign on. He declined, whereupon they advised him that failure to sign on would “undermine the discipline and unity of the armed forces”, which I interpret as “sign or die”. He signed and then disappeared until the dust settled.

                  A similar event is likely to follow color revolution. Trump will order the military to secure himself, his administration, and the Senate republicans against arrest under color of law. The top brass will decline, wherupon the junior officers will advise them that failure to follow the orders of the commander in chief would “undermine the discipline and unity of the armed forces”. They will issue Trump’s orders, then disappear until the dust settles.

                  The impeachment in the senate will then proceed with praetorians personally loyal to Trump guarding the senate and maintaining order during the proceedings.

                • BC says:

                  >There is no way they can impeach Trump until they are in the position to arrest, or threaten to arrest large numbers of Republicans, and they are not in the position to arrest large numbers of Republicans until they first arrest Trump, his family, and leading members of his administration.

                  Hmm, they show every indication of passing impeachment almost immediately and I’m not seeing signs of a color revolution is getting close to the final stage. Not a lot of protests and even the media is having a hard time pushing the BS on it. Am I missing something? Or are they going to pull the trigger without a good presentation?

                • jim says:

                  > Hmm, they show every indication of passing impeachment almost immediately

                  The shit hits the fan after they pass impeachment to the Senate, when impeachment proceedings start in the senate, and Trump starts calling witnesses.

                  Right now they have not yet passed impeachment to the Senate, because they are still recounting heads in the top brass, and the top brass wants to first count heads in the praetorians.

                  I foresee a substantial unforeseen delay in passing impeachment to the Senate.

                  If we see a substantial unforeseen delay, this will indicate panic in the top brass.

                  If impeachment hangs around in the House for over a week or two, this will indicate that there was a massive outbreak of second thoughts in the top brass after the impeachment committee passed the impeachment to the House.

                • BC says:

                  Makes sense.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Trump starts calling witnesses.

                  McConnell and Schumer and a collection of never-Trumpers in the Senate are in control of which witnesses can be called, which topics can be explored, and for how long.

                  The formal aspects of impeachment, in both chambers, are down a delicate chess game involving things like the timing of the upcoming SCOTUS decisions on the subpoenas to Mulvaney et al, i.e. whether the “impeachment inquiry” in Schiff’s committee constitutes a genuine impeachment investigation with (super)judicial powers.

                  In my opinion the key factor, should it look like Senate Republicans (nearly all Uniparty) will try to remove Trump, is whether MAGA folk in the home states make a convincing show of force. That would also embolden the praetorians.

                • BC says:

                  In my opinion the key factor, should it look like Senate Republicans (nearly all Uniparty) will try to remove Trump, is whether MAGA folk in the home states make a convincing show of force. That would also embolden the praetorians.

                  That’s not in the cards. They well know that the they’d all lose their jobs if they remove Trump. Trump voters would vote against them in mass.

                  About the most damaging thing they could do to Trump would be to try and drag him through the mud in the senate so he loses the election but that’s pretty likely to trigger the same response from Trump voters. They’re starting to worry about what the Dems plan to do to them.

                  I don’t have any idea how it plays out but as much as they hate Trump attempting to cut off their supply of corrupt income, I think the alternative for them is worse.

                • jim says:

                  > Trump voters would vote against them in mass.

                  Elections are mattering less and less, and whoever wins, will shortly cease to matter at all. If the 2020 election proceeds with Trump in prison, a Democratic party landslide, as the uniparty drops its Republican facade. If the 2020 election proceeds with Biden and Pelosi in prison, a Trump landslide. The uniparty will not be immediately purged (took King Charles the Second twelve years to purge the puritans) but it will instantly lose a lot of power, because no longer in a position to reward acolytes and punish opponents.

                • The Cominator says:

                  McConnell was somewhat leary of Trump but I never got the impression during the election he was any kind of fanatical Nevertrumper (Paul Ryan absolutely was and he gets the helicopter)… he does have shady business dealings with the Chinese. I don’t trust most of the Senators but McConnell is probably actually among the more trustworthy ones since I don’t think he per se hates Trump and is only semi cuckservative.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > That’s not in the cards. They well know that the they’d all lose their jobs if they remove Trump.

                  That isn’t how they think. Most of them are 3 or 5 years away from an election, in which time MAGA can be crushed or co-opted, like the Tea Party. Each of the traitors can be paid a fortune, more than they would “earn” in the normal course of things, from the pool of funds McConnell uses (and has raised extra for just this event) to control his stable of Uniparty voters. It’s a very small prize to pay to remove Trump; just killing the China deal or USMCA makes it easily worth it to the Chamber of Commerce, Wall St and K Street.

                  If a Senator makes more from one vote in 2019 than in his entire next term of graft, what does he care about re-election?

                • jim says:

                  Money does not matter. Power and status matters, and money is rapidly becoming less and less effective in buying power and status. If money could buy power and status, Bezos would get laid.

                • BC says:

                  That isn’t how they think. Most of them are 3 or 5 years away from an election, in which time MAGA can be crushed or co-opted, like the Tea Party.

                  We already have a history example of this with Nixon and the party lost all power in both houses of congress for a long time because of it. The GOP senate knows this.

                  Each of the traitors can be paid a fortune, more than they would “earn” in the normal course of things, from the pool of funds McConnell uses (and has raised extra for just this event) to control his stable of Uniparty voters.

                  You’re thinking in terms money instead of in terms of power and status. Power and status is what matters, money is just a byproduct of that. And if they backstab Trump they’ll lose all that.

                  Finally it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Uniparty is done. The Democrats are no longer going to tolerate a fake party like the GOP and will instead rule as a one party state once back in official power.

                • Not Tom says:

                  There is no doubt that Pelosi and her backers wanted to drag this out as long as possible, to discredit Trump through closed-door testimony and coordinated leaks. But he has forced their hand, by turning the Democrats’ activist base against them. That’s the part I think you’re missing, Jim; party does not want to impeach, that is not the rational thing to do, but rationality has flown out the window and nearly escaped orbit. The crazy leftists are in so much of a blind rage that the Cathedral cannot calm them down long enough to strategize.

                  As far as the other comments go: McConnell is not a Never Trumper, and career politician though he is, he is not going to pass up the golden opportunity to tie up two Democrat presidential candidates all through the campaign season and break wide open the rift between activists and party leaders. This is their chance to actually win, McConnell knows it, and I don’t think even backstabbing Mitt Romney will be stupid enough to cross the aisle.

                  The blackpilling is getting stupid. Why do people always start to moan just when things are getting good?

                • jim says:

                  > But he has forced their hand, by turning the Democrats’ activist base against them. That’s the part I think you’re missing, Jim; party does not want to impeach, that is not the rational thing to do, but rationality has flown out the window and nearly escaped orbit.

                  If color revolution is not on the cards, then not the rational thing to do. That a lot of important people are in fact expecting Trump to be removed, despite unprecedented Republican unity, indicates that those people believe that color revolution is on the cards.

                  Plus, reading between the lines of the testimony, looks like they were fishing to find their support levels among the top military brass, which only makes sense if at least some of them think color revolution is on the cards.

                  Impeachment can only succeed if Trump and his family is first imprisoned, to be executed sometime after the 2020 elections. Yet a lot of important and well connected people are obviously expecting it to succeed.

                • alf says:

                  The crazy leftists are in so much of a blind rage that the Cathedral cannot calm them down long enough to strategize.

                  I am getting a similar impression, which is really really good. If one sides strategizes, the other doesn’t, the strategizing side is in a dominant position.

                  Still, ain’t over till it’s over.

                • jim says:

                  > I am getting a similar impression, which is really really good. If one sides strategizes, the other doesn’t, the strategizing side is in a dominant position.

                  Trump and his few loyalists have unity of command. The enemy has vastly more resources and loyalists, but does not have unity of command. When violence is on the table, the side with unity of command is going to win. Trump needs them to use violence first, which, lacking unity of command, they are likely to do.

                  Trump needs an excuse to have praetorians loyal to himself provide Senate security. Once he has that excuse, it is a smooth ride from there on.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Impeachment can succeed with a simple partisan vote in the house. Removal will not succeed. And impeachment without removal will be good for Trump.

                  But I think they will vote to impeach anyway, because the Democratic base is a runaway freight train. Pelosi has tried three times to walk it back and failed each time. The fishing for color revolution support is indeed very real, but it looks like more of a desperate attempt to make lemonade than the originally-intended outcome.

                  All they really wanted was to have secret meetings and leak damaging sound bites to friendly media. That’s their formula, that’s what really works for them. That avenue is now closed.

                • jim says:

                  > All they really wanted was to have secret meetings and leak damaging sound bites to friendly media. That’s their formula, that’s what really works for them.

                  That makes sense, and it was certainly true of some of them. But some people are acting as if they think this is going to work. And the only way it can work is through color revolution.

                  That does not necessarily mean that they are going to try it – they are recounting heads, and it seems that the recounts are coming up considerably shorter than the initial counts. But some of them were certainly thinking about trying it, and expecting that it would be tried.

                • Mr.P says:

                  The Last Refuge is less than sanguine about McConnell.

                  https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/05/the-senate-and-impeachment-dynamic/#more-177899

                  The Last Refuge did fantastic document-intense forensics to expose Russiagate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  This article about McConnell and China is wrong because congress actually meddled with in the trade war with their human rights crap (that Trump very specifically told them he did not want) in a way likely to PROLONG the trade war (I’m not saying that McConnell doesn’t have interest in trade with China he absolutely does through his wife and father in law).

                  The Senate Republicans will not remove Trump, and Trump will respond with hostility to attempts to try to blackmail him based on implied threats to remove him by GOP senators because he knows they are bullshit.

            • Not Tom says:

              Trump seemed to take it as a sign of disrespect.

              As well he should, and I expect they will pay for it in time.

              But I don’t think it’s because he looks weak, it’s because they are effeminate soyfags and bitter childless spinsters who cannot stop themselves from shit-testing or even realize they are doing it.

              And we might as well think of Maricon as a woman, he sure don’t act like a man.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          > open disrespect at the NATO summit

          what happened there?

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Well if I, for one, had a nickel for every time I was black-pilled because I believed Don had suddenly woke up stupid for no good reason and was about to get run over…

  16. Calvin says:

    Jim, what do you make of Mao and his cronies? They spent years leading a guerilla war that eventually snowballed into a full-scale open fight, and then once in power plunged China into its own hellish leftist singularity.

    • jim says:

      The guerrilla war aspect gets exaggerated. Guerrilla war failed, as usual. The long march was a march to behind Soviet lines.

      They had Soviet backing because extremely holy, and once in power, got holier.

      The soviet left singularity was internal, starting with the Czars losing mememtic sovereignty to British intellectuals. Instead of the Czar being the found of all honors, mortal and divine, the Czar was competing with everyone else for status in the eyes of foreigners. Which results in Alexander the liberator “freeing” the serfs into collective land ownership. Which of course did not work, with the result that the left continually doubled down on it.

      China, however, it was not their native elite that succumbed to a holiness spiral, but an armed Russian infection. Their holiness spiral was external.

      • The Cominator says:

        Most communist sort of believe in the idealistic nonsense (I think) at least early on about communism being an egalitarian utopia which is just a few murders away.

        Mao was unusual in that (Mao was almost a pure psychopath) he always knew it was nonsense and was initially anti-communist, and embraced it when he found that communism was really about robbing, raping, killing etc.

        • jim says:

          This claim surprises me. Please provide evidence.

          I have not really studied Mao the way I studied Stalin and Pol Pot, but Pol Pot was the holiest of them all. He believed. He believed he was going to immanentize the eschaton, and believed he was successfully immanentizing the eschaton.

          Everyone who met him recognized him as a gentle saint, though some of them forsaw that his saintliness was going to manifest in famine, mass murder, and torture, including the murder of everyone personally connected to him.

          • The Cominator says:

            I believe I read it in the book Mao the Unknown Story which I no longer have.

            Also I remember reading that the Soviets (though they weren’t quite true believers then themselves) noticed that Mao seemed actually very unfamiliar with what the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital actually said.

            • jim says:

              I don’t think that Mao the Unknown Story casts doubt on the proposition that Mao was a true believer, unless one supposes that true believers are less likely, rather than more likely, to kill and destroy.

              • The Cominator says:

                I get the picture that Mao was always genuinely cynical about the egalitarian aspects and joined up after he found out that communism was about robbing and killing and he was pretty clear minded as to communism’s true nature, I’ve never been a communist but I imagine the majority delude themselves into believing that the egalitarian utopia will emerge right after they burn this Kulak’s children. Mao was not so deluded about the utopian aspects.

                I think Mao truly believed in Mao.

                • BC says:

                  I read a book written by Mao’s doctor where Mao appeared to be a true believer in the great leap forward where peasants melted down their pots and pans in back yard furnaces. Later when it was clearly failing he went to visit a Japanese steal plant in Manchuria. Never changed is position despite having seen how steel was really made. That’s a mark of a true believer.

                  Nor did Mao east up on collectivized farming when it was clear that it was failing and millions were dying. One of the first things that happened after Mao lost power was sharecropping with local farmers instead of collectivization.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Mao truly believed he drive reality by force of will (more so then Hitler and Stalin put together)… this was something different then communism as for instance the Soviet’s advised him that ordering peasants to make steel in backyard furnances was ludicrous.

                  Mao always wanted to be lefter then thou to avoid EVER being purged by someone claiming superior holiness. He had Lin Biao killed for that reason because Lin Biao was always lefter then thou with everyone too.

                • jim says:

                  > this was something different then communism as for instance the Soviet’s advised him that ordering peasants to make steel in backyard furnances was ludicrous.

                  Nah, this was true communism. Any progressive will tell you that what Stalin was doing was not true communism.

                  If the labor theory of value is true, then backyard furnaces are not ludicrous, for the labor of peasants is sufficient to create equivalent value. If backyard furnaces are ludicrous, then the labor theory of value is ludicrous.

                  Stalin backed off from the holiness spiral, and caught massive flack, and continues to catch massive flack and indignant outrage to this day, for so doing.

                  When Stalin told Mao it was ludicrous, he was telling Mao that communism was ludicrous.

                  Anyone who says he is against Stalinism, supports a purer and higher communism. I am not against Stalinism. Stalin was Russia’s Cromwell. He saved Russia from going full on Mao and full on Pol Pot.

                  If Stalin had made Beria into General Monck, giving Beria his own praetorians as Cromwell gave General Monck his own praetorians, then Russia would have been restored to normality following his death, as England was restored to normality when Cromwell died, and Russia would today be a great power.

                  I am against Communism. What was wrong with Stalin is that he was still a communist, and what was wrong with Cromwell is that he was still a Puritan. Cromwell was a hero because he saved England. Stalin failed to save Russia, because he failed to give Beria what Beria needed.

                  Mao ordered the peasants to make steel in backyard furnaces because he wanted true communism more than he wanted steel. If he had been a cynic, would have done what Stalin did: Hired experts from western steel making companies, and given them charge of a bunch of peasants to operate existing steel making furnaces, and build new ones. (Stalin found that the people who had formerly made steel in Russia were all dead or in exile, and that without them the proles could not make steel, so had to import foreign managers to re-open the steel making furnaces.)

                  When Stalin told Mao that backyard furnaces were ludicrous, he was telling Mao that labor is not value – he was committing fundamental heresy against Marxism. The implication of that is that the proles do not create value – their labor is an input to the people who do create value, that in capitalism, value is created by capitalists.

                  In the older, and still existing, form of capitalism, wealthy members of the merchant class create value for the market using inputs from the market, other people’s labor, and their own capital.

                  In corporate capitalism, introduced by King Charles the Second immediately after the restoration, value is also created by entrepreneurs, members of the merchant class who create value for the market using inputs from the market, other people’s labor, and other people’s capital.

                  Wind farms are not built to turn wind into power, but to turn wind into holiness, with the unsurprising result that in practice, very little useful power is produced. And Mao’s backyard furnaces were not built to turn the labor of peasants into steel, but the labor of peasants into holiness.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Mao truly believed he drive reality by force of will

                  That is what all communists and progressives believe.

                • Dave says:

                  God is never wrong. Whatever He says becomes true through the force of His will. E.g. “Let there be light”, and there was light.

                  When Obama famously said “you can keep your doctor”, he was not a liar but a man who thought he was God.

                • Calvin says:

                  Stalin was dead in 1953, the Great Leap Forward didn’t start until 1958. Stalin didn’t tell Mao anything about his backyard steel insanity, it was Khrushchev and co.

  17. Reader says:

    Democrats openly coming out against impeachment. Swing district D reps are silent. Does Pelosi have enough safe seat Ds to get to a majority? Not having a vote and keeping a majority is better than a useless vote that losesher the majority.

    • Not Tom says:

      Yes, if they have a vote and fail to pass the vote then their party schisms and gets steamrolled in 2020.

      But if they don’t have the vote, then the far-left wing will chimp out and they’ll get destroyed from within.

      A lot of moderates are probably looking for a way out of this mess. Can Trump capitalize on that? We’ll see…

Leave a Reply