The coalition of the evil and unhinged

People form political coalitions within a larger society in order to knock over apple carts to grab some apples. That is what politics is. That is why people use “political” as a negative word. Because it is a negative thing.

The left is not the largest coalition. The left is whatever coalition is largest.

Whatever happens to be the supposed coalition issues at any given time is unclear, arbitrary, and frequently changing. The left has no essence, no defining character, other than that is against whoever is managing the apple cart, and against whatever is keeping the apple cart upright.

But right now, it is a coalition of single women against males, husbands, marriage, and children, nonwhites and Jews against whites, and the underclass, Human Resources employees, accountants, and government employees against capitalists and against private sector employees who produce physical things, sexual deviants against straights, and non Christians against Christians.

Democrats tend to think that the only reason someone would which oppose this coalition is if he is a straight white male Christian capitalist.

(And I am a straight white male who is socially Christian in the sense of irregularly attending Church and ingrouping Christians, viewing them as adoptive kin, and arguably at least as capitalist as any kulak. Half the time Carlylean Restorationist and Glosoli tell us that they are only against invisible trillionaires, and the other half of the time, they are going to kill the peasant who raised a pig to eat, because he is supposedly forcing blacks on welfare to eat too much fried chicken fast food, so I am at least as capitalist in my economic role as those that Carlylean Restorationist blames for bad lower class behavior, and I am also socially capitalist regardless of what definition they use in any one comment and regardless of my economic role.  When Human Resources went after management, I got drunk with management.)

All large tribes are necessarily synthetic, all a synthetic tribes are necessarily religious, are necessarily religions, broadly defined, and the people who are managing the unity, solidarity, and social coalition of the synthetic tribe are necessarily performing a priestly role, are clerics and priests, broadly defined. And so, in any synthetic tribe, you tend to get priests on top, and the path to get to the top of the priesthood is apt to be superior holiness.

So, it is not just our society that is coming down with a holiness spiral. It is the left coalition that is coming down with a holiness spiral and the left dominating our society.

The left, like my excessively frequent commentators Carlylean Restorationist and Glosoli, tells us that we white males should hate capitalists and capitalism (which happens to be overwhelmingly straight, white and male).  Supposedly all these rape and sexual harassment charges are coming from Evil White Male Trillionaires, not from the cat ladies of Human Resources. Perhaps on some other blog, they pose as white women and tell white women to hate white males, and that therefore white women should ingroup blacks on welfare, and on a Muslim blog, tell Muslims to hate Christians, and that therefore Muslims should ingroup feminists, support abortion, and emancipate their daughters.

But, as the left coalition goes ever more extreme under the pressure of the holiness spiral, it is increasingly against all whites, all males, all Christians, and all heterosexuals. So in the coming election, all whites, all males, all married women, all Christians, and all straights should vote Republican.

We are seeing Republicans go after the votes of black males and the wives of black males, rationally appealing to the rational self interest of intelligent black men, and the wives of black men, that the Democratic anti male agenda is dangerous to men, and telling them it is especially dangerous to black men, that black males are under even worse threat of getting the Kavanaugh treatment than white males.

Trump’s maleness appeals to black males. Hence Kanye West praising Trump’s male energy. The president is the father of the nation, and it is has been a long time since the nation has had a masculine father figure. Lots of black males are, like Kanye West, missing that male father figure.

In the 2016 Republican Presidential primaries, we saw Trump, and only Trump, campaign against the holiness spiral.

In the 2018 mid term elections, we are seeing a whole lot of mainstream republicans, led by Trump and inspired by Trump, campaign against the holiness spiral.

But the holiness spiral is not the Democratic party, and cannot simply be voted out of power. Observe that the holy are still in power, despite having been voted out already.

Tony Abbott in Australia took measures unthinkably drastic by American standards, and yet the holy remained in power. Duterte and Viktor Orbán, however, are getting places. Duterte used right wing death squads. Viktor Orbán applied less drastic measures, but he has been in power a long time and only now is getting some traction.

Charles the First said “No Bishop, No King”, meaning if no Bishop, then no King. For the merely elected leadership to be effective against the holiness spiral, they to intervene in the priesthood to stop holiness competition, which is what Viktor Orbán has been doing. He made superior holiness a poor career move.

There are huge number of state and quasi state jobs that are supposedly immune from “political” control, people who are on the government or quasi government payroll, who are chosen by their fellow social justice warriors on the basis of superior holiness, which means that they are immune from merely elected politicians, but their appointments are in practice very political indeed.

What Viktor Orbán did is radically amend the constitution to put these under direct “political” control – put the priesthood directly under the authority of the merely elected government, and he then proceeded to make superior holiness a bad career move within the priesthood.

A similar change in the US, to do in the US what Viktor Orbán did in Hungary, would be to confiscate the college endowments, give the president the power to hire and fire any civil servant, including college presidents and judges, and make the president effectively the final court of appeal over the supreme court. And then elections could halt the holiness spiral.  As long as we have a vast pile of quasi governmental institutions that are outside the power of the merely elected government, in particular Human Resources, we are going to continue having a holiness spiral regardless of people voting against it.  Accounting is also falling to Social Justice Warriors, having been remade by Sarbanes-Oxley into a quasi governmental institution, and as a result the accounts of publicly traded joint stock corporations are fast becoming as unreliable as peer reviewed research, in much the same way, and for much the same reasons, as peer reviewed research has become irreproducible.

In the coming mid term elections, we will likely get a merely elected government that is hostile to that holiness spiral, though unable to do much about it.  No Bishops, therefore no King.  Once again I repeat my prescription:  Archbishop, Inquisition, and Grand Inquisitor.

To implement that in America, likely will need a King.

454 Responses to “The coalition of the evil and unhinged”

  1. […] The coalition of the evil and unhinged […]

  2. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    “in the coming election, all whites, all males, all married women, all Christians, and all straights should vote Republican.”

    Irrespective of the non-essential policies of your local Republican candidate – whether he’s insufficiently free market, excessively hawkish on foreign policy (sorry Walter Block) or prone to cuckoldry of the very highest order – it is utterly ESSENTIAL that all Americans get out there on Election Day and give their support to the Republican Party without hesitation.

    I don’t care HOW good your third party candidate is and I don’t care HOW terrible your GOP candidate is: the Democrats must be stopped by all available means at all times.

    The rest is just intellectual disagreement. Some think reversing just so much of the Whig agenda will be sufficient, and they’re right: a rollback to 2005 would be a massive victory.
    Others think to nip the Democrat menace in the bud, we’ll need to reverse a whole lot more than that. Some of us think the very Whig revolution itself needs to be reversed root and branch.

    That stuff can wait. If the President is to stand any chance at all of doing anything at all, he needs this vote of confidence from the nation.

    Mr President if you were to call for a million man demonstration in Washington to demand that you be allowed to do your job, you would get it in a heartbeat.

    • daniel says:

      CR, can you keep your comments on this post within this comment thread only, to make it easier to skip. Thank you.

      • Dave says:

        I skip through the comments by searching for the words “jim says”, then backtracking if he seems to be replying to something new.

        Leftists say we are doomed because their demographics will eventually overwhelm ours, which would be true if they had the self-restraint to not wake up the normies with a premature celebration. The Left is not a brilliant Evil Overlord surrounded by well-disciplined minions; it’s a loose coalition of people intrinsically unable to restrain themselves or each other.

        • Andre says:

          I’m toying with the idea that the left is basically social bacteria. It exists merely to disintegrate the carcass of dead civilizations as fast as possible so that a new one can grow in its place. Note how leftists are quick to defend the right, as long as this right belongs to another civilization that is either emerging from within or invading from without. Islam and organized crime being clear examples. They aren’t against the real right, they are against the cuckservative right that would simply slowly lead their society to doom. As a response, they make sure the power of that cuckservative right is eroded as fast as possible so a new right takes over.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            They aren’t against the real right, they are against the cuckservative right that would simply slowly lead their society to doom.

            The reason the cuckservative right exists is because the it gets support from the left in wiping out any actual right. The left will lend legitimacy to the cucks – it’ll give a cuck a NY Times op-ed column.

            • Andre says:

              The left has no interest in wiping out any actual right. Note how leftist revolutions always end in the establishment of a monarchy under a strong male figure. Note how they are quick to defend islamic “grooming gangs” and praise the patriarchal traditions of Islam as “real feminism”. Note how the same feminists that cry about how men are rapists because they look at them funny are quick to fight to protect ACTUAL rapists. If the left is fighting you, it’s either a shit test to see if you really are the right they seek, or it’s because they smell weakness. Remember, the left is simply women, the feminine mentality.

              • StoneMan says:

                “If the left is fighting you, it’s either a shit test or it’s because they smell weakness”
                So if a shark is trying to eat you, it’s because it’s a shit test or because it smells blood.

                Sharks are not the friend of man. Neither are leftists. Gouge its eyes out, burn it in the town square.

              • jim says:

                > The left has no interest in wiping out any actual right. Note how leftist revolutions always end in the establishment of a monarchy under a strong male figure.

                That is when leftism self destructs. The man riding the tiger sees he is about to be outflanked by those lefter than himself, and puts an end to the left singularity.

                The left just wants to knock over the apple cart so as to grab some apples. But it gets trapped in a holiness spiral, which if not ended by a Stalin, a Cromwell, or a Napoleon, ends in the Khmer Rouge autogenocide, or Szechuan province.

                Each leftist wants to be one step holier than the next, even if he knows or suspects that everyone going ever lefter will destroy everything. The strong man of which you speak is the man who stops it before everything is destroyed – sometimes by executing a few leftists and detaining a few more, sometimes, often, by killing one hell of a lot of leftists.

                • Andre says:

                  Except those strong men are worshipped by the left, not hated. Even though they are actually pretty shitty kings. Sometimes a loser alcoholic boyfriend is what the female craves more than a well-adjusted nice guy. I think of it as a marriage. When the husband (the right) gets to be too much of a cuck, the wife (the left) needs to find a replacement, so she seeks a lover (a better right). Don’t be the cuck husband, be the lover, and the left will actively fight for you. Or simply be a strong husband. The left is just the political and spiritual manifestation of the feminine. It is irrational, irresponsible, overly concerned with appearance as opposed to function, short-term minded, etc… but it serves an ecological function.

                • Dave says:

                  Q: What do you call Sunni Islam when it’s in the throes of a full-blown holiness spiral?

                  A: Sunni Islam.

          • Duke Norfolk says:

            Well I don’t know if you’re right, Andre, but I’m very intrigued. Probably the first original political thinking I’ve seen in some time.

            Interesting metaphor and thesis that deserves to be explored.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            @André’s “Social bacteria”

            Sure. NPCs too, or just sick evil bastards.

            Jim’s analysis is broadly right: the left is the tendency in human nature to tip the applecart then complain there aren’t enough clean apples.
            Wherever there is order, the left things an improvement can come from reducing or eliminating it.

            Where they see free markets trying to keep up with reality, they want the changing, arbitrary interference of a third party mind that must be obeyed *between competitors*, usually with a time lag that absolutely guarantees that third party is bound to do a worse job than a thousand competitors second-guessing the real world.

            Where they see communities existing through shared interests and bonds of heritage, they bus their kids and interfere with their housing.

            Where they see people using dating sites to meet people like themselves, they interfere with the search results.

            The only problem with Jim’s analysis is that he makes one unprincipled exception: the unity of command that comes from local lords giving the yea or nay to activities on their turf – that has to go and be replaced with anarchy.

          • alf says:

            Sort of true, but not by conscious design of the left. Note how God-Emperor Trump represents a new civilization, a new America, and note how leftists hate Trump with the fire of a thousand suns.

            • StoneMan says:

              “Not by conscious design”
              Then by what? Trillions of dollars aren’t thrown around upon “instinct”, brother.

              • alf says:

                Yea I’m unclear.

                I believe left / right are part of the cycle of life: the right builds, the left breaks down. But it’s not that the left breaks down for the sake of the right being able to build up, even if that is the way it plays out. The left just breaks down, and if allowed, they’ll break down until nothing is left.

                • StoneMan says:

                  Agreed. Keep in mind that there are those who would agree with your assessment and yet participate in “leftism”, merely for the sake of the goodies. Such is the nature of the enemy.

            • Andre says:

              Trump does not represent a new civilization, a new america.

              • jim says:

                If Trump or his sons do an Augustus, make themselves King while pretending to be preserving the Republic, he will represent a new civilization and a new America.

          • StoneMan says:

            “I’m toying with the idea that the left is basically social bacteria.”
            AKA entropy
            Go back a few years and your idea is new.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Yuri Bezmenov predicted that the first to be purged after the 4th stage of Cultural Marxism will be the vanguard itself.

          • The Cominator says:

            Among the 1st.

            People like us will be the 1st on the list (unless they recruit us to join the secret police to kill the more insane utopian leftists, that is basically what happened to Beria). The SJWs come right after us.

            • jim says:

              In final stage leftism the usual sequence is that they come after us pro forma and whack easy targets almost at random, and then they announce that those too far left are “objectively fascist” or some such, and secretly in cahoots with us, and go after the “objective fascists” for real.

              If they are not whacking the “objective fascists” yet, then it is not final stage leftism yet, and things are going to get worse.

              • The Cominator says:

                But if people like us can survive the 1st phase then the career of Beria suggests that some of us can survive by joining the secret police.

                Beria was an anti-communist (and who NEVER at ANY point believed in communism at all) who escaped execution initially and then was allowed to join the secret police to kill “Mensheviks” and other too far left communists. He almost got in trouble when later on they wanted him to go after non-leftists in Georgia during the great purge but flew to see Stalin personally and got his name taken off the purge list.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  No need to co-opt human deathsquads when you can just have robots do it. Maybe you could help write the software, but your still ending up in the biomass recycler.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          “I skip through the comments by searching for the words “jim says”, then backtracking if he seems to be replying to something new.”

          LOL – ditto!

      • Alrenous says:

        #CR

        He cannot. I therefore suggest all posts under CR posts should contain the #CR tag, so we don’t accidentally start reading CR threads.

  3. Andre says:

    “For the merely elected leadership to be effective against the holiness spiral, they to intervene in the priesthood to stop holiness competition, which is what Viktor Orbán has been doing. He made superior holiness a poor career move.”

    Why not simply have a different state religion in which the holiness spiral is productive instead of destructive?

    • jim says:

      A sound religion with public and conspicuous holiness leading to worldly power is going to rapidly become an unsound religion.

      The conspicuously holy should be rewarded with honor and a hermitage in the Aleutian islands, preferably a hermitage that requires a long trip in a small boat to get to or from the Archbishop’s palace, the better to free them from mere worldly distractions.

      • Andre says:

        Why?

        • The Cominator says:

          You don’t see how competitive fanaticism is likely to end badly?

          • Andre says:

            I don’t see how you can make a call like that. Fanaticism is just intensity. Radicalism is just commitment to fundamental principles. What you are intense about matters. The roots of your religion matter. As far as I can see, all power is always and forever derived from the church. There is no independent warrior class, at best you can have a warrior-priest king that acts as founder of a new church. I see no serious case against fanaticism. There is no such thing as expedient political power. In order to wield political power you must make the conscious choice to be willing to die to enforce your will.

            • The Cominator says:

              You fail to distinguish between fanaticism which is bad and RESOLVE which is good. Trump is not a fanatic but he has fanatical resolve.

              There are many independent warrior classes throughout history, you always have a state religion. How influential it is differs depending on the time and place.

              Generally you want to make the other person die to enforce your will…

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                I’m going to come over all Robert Wright for a second, and then I’ll dip out because André’s original and interesting enough to make this thread worthwhile without any interference….

                So, my impersonation of Robert Wright vs Daniel Dennett:

                The more I hear you say Throne, Altar and Freehold must involve the neutering of Altar, the more I see an abolitionist.

                • alf says:

                  You’re like a woman dating a badboy.

                  ‘no this time I’ll leave you, for realsies!’

                • Roberto says:

                  He’s like a woman in a multiple ways.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I think you know I’m right.

                  Jim writes:

                  “No Bishops, therefore no King. Once again I repeat my prescription: Archbishop, Inquisition, and Grand Inquisitor.

                  To implement that in America, likely will need a King.”

                  And he’s right!

                  Except mention such a King having his Inquisition actually DO anything and he spits the dummy and calls you a leftist lol

                • Roberto says:

                  1) Your worldview is not right-wing.

                  2) The ruler will have no incentive to adopt your worldview (and therefore, probably won’t).

                  3) On the off-chance that the ruler adopts your worldview, the rich will emigrate, resulting in state failure.

                  4) Consider posting in a blog of your own.

                • StoneMan says:

                  “If redistributing welath isn’t part of the restoration then what purpose could bishops possibly have??!”
                  Guiding souls to Heaven, counselling miscreants toward the light of order, protection of the unfortunate,. Boring stuff for those who want holiness gibs.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The more I hear you say Throne, Altar and Freehold must involve the neutering of Altar”

                  Of course you need to neuter the altar, the priests need to be kept off the backs of warriors and productive citizens and stick to productive pursuits like real scientific research, other bad religion and reminding women that they are innately wicked fallen and inferior to men who they must always respect and obey.

                  State religion cannot be abolished, but you only want it just strong enough to keep bad religions from taking its place.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I meant that the priests needed to focus on “keeping out other bad religions”.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “1) Your worldview is not right-wing.”

                  Fine, I’m not even wedded to the whole ‘right-wing’ thing. I want a healthy society, and most of that (racism sexism homophobia, refusal to undermine the upper and middle classes for the benefit of the lower classes, scepticism of consumerism, IQ chauvinism, etc. etc.) tends to get painted as ‘right-wing’ by normal people.
                  You people aren’t normal lol

                  “2) The ruler will have no incentive to adopt your worldview (and therefore, probably won’t).”

                  Well you keep on asserting that, but I fail to see why a sane ruler would be laid back about what the foreign corporations are turning our people into.
                  When I look at someone who works hard all week and then hands so much money to shitty pizza places that they’re one surprise maintenance bill away from destitution, I DON’T tend to think “oh they’ll sort it out – we’re all equal when it comes to self-management”. I tend to think “the bastards, this has to stop”, and I expect a sane ruler would too.

                  You’re laid back about it because you think that guy should just rot. That’s why you wouldn’t be a sane ruler, because a ruler that wants some of his subjects to rot has goals other than the ones he ought to have if his job is running the nation.

                  ‘Fuck you Jack I’m alright’ libertarians won’t get a say in a future healthy society, and never should have gotten a say in ours.

                  “3) On the off-chance that the ruler adopts your worldview, the rich will emigrate, resulting in state failure.”

                  So says you. Britain seemed to be doing pretty ok prior to the Civil War without foreign oligarchs funding and controlling everything. The idea that every high street MUST have kebab shops and every peasant MUST go to Greece on holiday is very contemporary.

                  We have enough competent people to produce clothing, food, furniture, housing and art. Some of those will no doubt become absolutely filthy stinking rich, and they need never worry about money-grubbing consumerists saying they should give it all to the plebs so the plebs can get fat.

                  “4) Consider posting in a blog of your own.”

                  Too lazy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “When I look at someone who works hard all week and then hands so much money to shitty pizza places that they’re one surprise maintenance bill away from destitution, I DON’T tend to think “oh they’ll sort it out – we’re all equal when it comes to self-management”. I tend to think “the bastards, this has to stop”, and I expect a sane ruler would too.”

                  People don’t generally get impoverished due to their habits of eating out. There ARE people who eat out almost every day, but most of those people can easily afford it.

                  People get impoverished because they spend too much on booze, or buy stuff they can’t afford on credit, or they gamble and are bad at it.

                  Who do you actually know who is impoverished because they eat out too much, I’ve never seen this here in the States.

                • jim says:

                  > > When I look at someone who works hard all week and then hands so much money to shitty pizza places that they’re one surprise maintenance bill away from destitution,

                  > People don’t generally get impoverished due to their habits of eating out.

                  Black Welfare mothers get impoverished by eating out at fried chicken places and run completely out of money well before their next child support payment comes through, despite these child support payments being quite large. Carlylean Restorationist projects this behavior onto the white working class and blames pizza parlors for it because he is unable to acknowledge black misconduct. He is recycling standard left wing argument against capitalism, that single mothers are caused by bad men, and the behavior of the black underclass is caused by free markets.

                  He is a bot, and is giving us the leftist script with minor adjustment for us being evil racists.

                  He knows that if he told us that capitalism causes the behavior of blacks, we would be unimpressed, so tells us that by not imposing socialism, we are oppressing white workers – but this is a standard welfarist meme among Cultural Marxists, not a standard prole meme among old type Marxists.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That would be a parsimonious explanation: that this is a Europe/Britain thing and America simply doesn’t experience it.

                  My gut tells me no.

                  My gut tells me you’re a bougie swine who has no blue collar friends or even acquaintances, and you have no idea what it’s like to live on full-time minimum wage pay where it takes two wages to pay the rent.

                  I’m telling you that, in Britain at least, it’s completely normal for those people to live paycheck to paycheck with no savings and often running into their overdraft *for consumption purposes*. They’re literally one dental bill away from eviction and/or bankruptcy……..

                  YET, they dine out all the time.

                  I’ve hypothesised before that this has to do with dignity, but either way, they’re spending an awful lot of money on some very unfancy products that are priced ridiculously high and aren’t frankly doing them any good.

                  A libertarian would say “so what – their choice, no-one’s forcing them” but a prosocial, empathic right-wing dissident who does NOT think all men were created equal is willing to entertain other hypotheses.

                  It’s not all about the dinner places but they’re a useful part of the picture because they bring out the worst in libertarians. If you won’t act on this, what will you act on?

                  If not this, what; if not now, when

                • jim says:

                  > My gut tells me you’re a bougie swine who has no blue collar friends or even acquaintances, and you have no idea what it’s like to live on full-time minimum wage pay where it takes two wages to pay the rent.

                  > I’m telling you that, in Britain at least, it’s completely normal for those people to live paycheck to paycheck with no savings and often running into their overdraft *for consumption purposes*. They’re literally one dental bill away from eviction and/or bankruptcy……

                  Indeed it is common for those people to live paycheck to paycheck, but when you blame capitalist pizza rather than beer and expensive appliances, you are not describing the actual proletariat, but rather giving us the cultural Marxist explanation of why fast food joints are full of welfare mums, rather than describing the observed behavior of actual white workers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “My gut tells me you’re a bougie swine who has no blue collar friends or even acquaintances, and you have no idea what it’s like to live on full-time minimum wage pay where it takes two wages to pay the rent.”

                  I’ve recently been elevated to the station of a gentleman but I lived in a not too prosperous area for a long time and was just a regular schmoe until about a month ago except I’d been putting everything into AMRN stock for years. I know plenty of working class people.

                  The most pervasive expensive vice among them is spending too much on BOOZE when they are out (though most of them economize by mostly sticking to one dollar beer), secondarily probably among some of them would be weed. Spending too much on food going out is not even on the radar screen.

                • jim says:

                  > Spending too much on food going out is not even on the radar screen.

                  Exactly so.

                  I have hung out with rich and poor in many countries. Carlylean Restorationist has had his bot script for “oh those poor women on child support” inadequately revised to address those likely unimpressed by the sad plight of women on child support. He probably uses the old unrevised bot script on other blogs.

                  Ditto international travel. The only people I ever see improvidently engaged in international travel is women who recently divorced their husband and are now burning the family assets. Improvident international travel is exclusively characteristic of fertile age women who just divorced their husbands, and improvident eating out is exclusively characteristic of women on child support. People who actually work for a living simply don’t do that stuff. None of them. Zero or as near to zero as makes no difference.

                  Improvidently using weed, yes, is a big problem. Improvidently eating pizza, or improvidently engaged in international travel, simply never happens.

                • Roberto says:

                  >I’m not even wedded to the whole ‘right-wing’ thing.

                  Neither am I, tbh, yet our respective ventures outside the traditional left-right binary have evidently led us in polar opposite directions.

                  >I DON’T tend to think “oh they’ll sort it out – we’re all equal when it comes to self-management”. I tend to think “the bastards, this has to stop”, and I expect a sane ruler would too.

                  False dichotomy. I think neither of those things. I think, “People are unequal, and deserve nothing more and nothing less than what their own conduct yields.” This means that capitalists should not be subject to opprobrium for allowing St. Darwin to weed out the inferior; quite the opposite, capitalists should be lauded for it, as well as for their production of value.

                  >You’re laid back about it because you think that guy should just rot. That’s why you wouldn’t be a sane ruler, because a ruler that wants some of his subjects to rot has goals other than the ones he ought to have if his job is running the nation.

                  This is the core of the contention: you conceive of the ruler as a “benevolent social engineer” whose task it is to maximize the long-term happiness of the largest number of subjects. I completely reject this absurd notion.

                  Your programme is, first of all, egalitarian (for it asserts that the happiness of the 80 IQ’s is equally important as the happiness of the 140 IQ’s, which is patently absurd to me); secondly, it’s not even remotely compatible with Moldbuggian Neocameralism, which is all about the maximization of *profit* (oh the horror); thirdly, it is communist collectivism (BIRM), in the sense of “if X doesn’t like Y, none shall like Y”; fourthly, it leads to the exact opposite outcome of its ostensibly intended goal.

                  To elaborate on the third and fourth points by way of analogy: you are the teacher, and today it’s one of those extra-curricular days when you’re taking the 4th graders to do something fun. A swimming lesson at the local pool sounds like a nice idea, the principal approves, and the logistics are all done. Well, bad news goyim! See, 18 of the 20 pupils do very much enjoy water and swimming and would benefit from the activity. But 2 of them can’t swim (because they are niggers), and besides, they become unruly when outdoors. They’re gonna drown themselves or drown someone else, and generally cause uncontrollable mayhem. Nah, you can’t take the class to the pool; need to do something else…

                  This is collectivist communism. If X — as inferior as X happens to be — is dissatisfied, then *everyone else* must be deprived of *his* source of dissatisfaction. In this discussion, this translates to the following: if a bunch of retards spend all their money on pizza and burgers and fried chicken, then everyone else needs to be prevented from enjoying pizza and burgers and fried chicken – so goes your proposition.

                  This worldview is, ironically, the joykiller worldview (its inner contradiction lies in the impossibility of maximizing the long-term happiness of the largest number of individuals while applying a system of social protectionism aka ‘nannyism’ that precludes general society from benefiting from X whenever certain members of society negatively react to X), and inevitably leads to totalitarianism, i.e. the state, directly or indirectly, runs everything, and to a paralysis — or even reversal — of technological progress. And, of course, the killing of the joy.

                  NRx is not puritanism, CR. It wants to conquer the stars. What you’re proposing is puritanism in theory and luddo-totalitarianism in practice, as I have argued elsewhere. This community is not interested in what you’re offering, CR. Srsly, why are you here?

                • jim says:

                  > NRx is not puritanism, CR. It wants to conquer the stars. What you’re proposing is puritanism in theory and luddo-totalitarianism in practice, as I have argued elsewhere. This community is not interested in what you’re offering, CR. Srsly, why are you here?

                  All the NPCs showed up in multiple places at about the same time, indicating that someone in authority issued an order and allocated a budget for it.

                  You can tell CR is an NPC because he is unresponsive – if you give him a response that his script fails to cover, he will repetitiously respond as if you had said something that his script does cover, like one of those call center workers when you call one of those highly unhelpful help lines.

                  There are several governmental or quasi governmental programs with the job of telling “Muslim extremists” that Islam, rightly understood, is actually progressivism. These have been running, and government funded, for quite some time. The people running the outreach program for Muslims were recently tasked with expanding their outreach program to “right wing extremists”, and, by an amazing coincidence, immediately after being so tasked, we got an NPC infestation.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, it would not occur to a trve worker to covet his neighbors’ tendies.

                  Go to 711 and get a hot dog and a cup of coffee if you are a friend of the working man.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Black Welfare mothers, get impoverished by eating out at fried chicken places.”

                  I have little enough experience with them. I do know a lot of white working class people.

                  DRINKING out and weed are their biggest wasteful habit by far, buying things on credit probably as well (though this is a problem for American consumers of all classes below the rich). People of all classes also ruin themselves by gambling and not doing it well (I’m a guy who gambled and DID do it well, but if the AMRN study came in bad I probably would have committed suicide but I knew the chances of it coming in bad were almost nonexistent).

                • Roberto says:

                  >Too lazy.

                  No way. Your comments are both excessively frequent and excessively verbose, which means that you’re by no means too tired to type out your own thoughts (or, adhering to the NPC motif, “script”), nor do you lack the time to do so. You need to grasp that your dialectic argument vis-a-vis Jim’s blog will not result in any consensus-building around your ideas, and that to build the consensus, you need to have your own platform, perhaps with its own crowd. Take inspiration from the Landian exhortation to “Split!”, and go your own way.

                • peppermint says:

                  Weed is very cheap. It costs so little each time no one even considers the marginal cost any more than of a shower or plugging in a cell phone. You’ll annoy people more by downloading windows updates on their hotspot than by not paying for weed.

                  Booze can be arbitrarily expensive, but starts at a few bucks a session.

                  Drinking in bars, and eating bar food, is an expensive thing peasants do, but CR yells endlessly about bar mac&cheese and french fries, and doesn’t care about drinking, why, because progressives still have PTSD about the time their “lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine” drinking ban was rolled back.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Weed is very cheap. It costs so little each time no one even considers the marginal cost any more than of a shower or plugging in a cell phone. ”

                  Being neither a buyer nor a dealer I’m no expert on the market. I have heard conversations of people spending a lot on it, my impression is that its a commodity that flucuates in price very wildly.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim denies that full-time employed people live paycheck to paycheck once again, insisting this is welfare moms.

                  Nope, I’m talking specifically about people who work hard and do their best.
                  These are good people doing difficult work for long hours and relatively small pay.

                  It WOULD be acceptable pay were it not for consumer habits. I’m focusing on restaurants but you can include video games, expensive phones&contracts and all sorts.

                  Basically the claim of capitalism is that people are free to choose, and whatever they end up doing is the product of some kind of vaguely rational process.

                  In practice this isn’t true at all. Low and average IQ people are fiercely competitive with other consumers and *genuinely do not have the option* of saying ‘no’ to these things.

                  People like us DO, because we’re either rich (as in your cases) or else smart enough to just reach a point where we say ‘bolox’ to it.

                  I realise this is not what you want to hear, but I’m reporting on the empirical facts of the matter, and if you want to independently re-run my experiment, go out and talk to some fully employed working-class people in rented accommodation on minimum wage.

                  You’ll find them in corporate chain restaurants.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim projects thusly:

                  “You can tell CR is an NPC because he is unresponsive – if you give him a response that his script fails to cover, he will repetitiously respond as if you had said something that his script does cover, like one of those call center workers when you call one of those highly unhelpful help lines.”

                  That’s you and it’s completely transparent.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator makes the same point that I do, but focuses on different industries:

                  “DRINKING out and weed are their biggest wasteful habit by far, buying things on credit probably as well (though this is a problem for American consumers of all classes below the rich). People of all classes also ruin themselves by gambling and not doing it well”

                  Exactly. Poor people are not accountants or finance managers.

                  I know libertarians love to kid themselves that all men were created equal and thus all we need is to leave the masses to pursue choices limited as little as possible, and the happy fulfilled society will just emerge.

                  In reality, poor people need to be hand-held, and I say that as someone who’s taken a lot of stick in this blog for putting the interests of the poor ahead of the interests of (((Mark Zuckerberg))) and the rest.

                  The best solution for poor people of average intelligence is to be the employee of a wise social leader. If you were the butler in a great house, your life was extremely orderly and healthy. Every good habit was reinforced and every vice was sufficiently mitigated to pose no threat to your grandchildren’s wellbeing.

                  If we can’t go back to serfdom and life-long employment, we’ll need to address the environment instead. That means if some foreign entity is leading people astray, it has to stop doing that.

                  A total blanket ban on advertising would be a reasonable start, along with absolute nationalisation of the media.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You are saying I agree with you on this when I do no such thing. I agree that a lot of poor people have poor financial habits (that is the sole extent of my “agreement” with you), I don’t think the government should stop them generally.

                  Prohibition generally didn’t work. Weed is expensive because its not a regular industry.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s been so much deliberate intellectual dishonesty, including from the host, that it’s all too easy to just assume someone’s trying to mislead.

                  For the sake of clarity, I wasn’t claiming you agreed with my conclusion. I stated, correctly, that you were making the same point, which you were: that poor people are not behaving in ways that further their long-term interests.

                  Remember Jim’s been claiming repeatedly that this is just not a real phenomenon. He’s repeatedly asserted that what I’m really talking about is blacks on welfare, and I’ve had to clarify and re-clarify that that’s absolutely NOT what I’m talking about: I’m talking about fully employed white working class people who do difficult jobs.

                  The point you made about drink and drugs was the exact same point: that fully employed white working class people are spending far too much of their money on crap they shouldn’t be spending it on, and as a result are living on credit.

                  In fact your comment about credit was if anything an intensification of my point, because I only obliquely mentioned overdrafts.

                  You’re entirely right of course that many people are literally CONSUMING on their credit cards.

                  Now your conclusion’s totally different. You’re not Roberto: you don’t want them DEAD; but you don’t want anyone to do anything to intervene.

                  I beg to differ. If a force for good in society exists then this is a paradigm case of a situation in which that force’s exertion is both needed and appropriate.

                  These corporations need to disafukkinpear.

                • jim says:

                  > Remember Jim’s been claiming repeatedly that this is just not a real phenomenon. He’s repeatedly asserted that what I’m really talking about is blacks on welfare, and I’ve had to clarify and re-clarify that that’s absolutely NOT what I’m talking about: I’m talking about fully employed white working class people who do difficult jobs.

                  Yes, you are indeed talking about white working class – but following a script that was originally written about dark skinned underclass.

                  The script that you were assigned was originally targeted at conservative brown and black Muslims, so was originally written to blame underclass behavior on capitalism, and was then retargeted to address “right wing extremists” instead of conservative Muslims, so dark skinned underclass was replaced in the script by white working class, hence depicts working class behavior in ludicrously unrealistic ways.

                  You are using a script originally written to excuse the behavior of dark skinned people on welfare, that was edited to replace underclass with working class, to make it sound superficially more consistent with “hail fellow straight white male reactionary” in place of “Hail fellow conservative brownish Muslim”.

                  The script that you are roboticly following was originally written to tell conservative Muslims that they should be fine with child support and divorce at female whim, because the ensuing bad behavior is the result of capitalism, not child support. The script was then retargeted, badly, to right wing extremists, by someone not very familiar with “right wing extremists”, who assumed that “right wing extremism” was much the same belief system as conservative Islam. Which approximation is not entirely false, has much truth in it, but is sufficiently inaccurate to render the resulting script absurd and leave its original target (“hail fellow brown conservative Muslim”) clearly visible.

                  Pissing money away on travel and fast food, and then running out before the next child support payment arrives, is 100% females on child support and their latest boyfriend who is sponging off his numerous girlfriends. Working class simply never do that. Yes, a lot of white working class spend money irresponsibly, but not on travel, and not on pizza.

                  Working class self control is often inadequate. But it is not that inadequate, or they would not be able to hold down a job. When white working class piss their money away, they do so at the pub, not the pizza parlor.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Remember Jim’s been claiming repeatedly that this is just not a real phenomenon. He’s repeatedly asserted that what I’m really talking about is blacks on welfare, and I’ve had to clarify and re-clarify that that’s absolutely NOT what I’m talking about: I’m talking about fully employed white working class people who do difficult jobs.”

                  Jim never claimed poor people wisely managed their money. He just said your idea that working class people spend way too much on resteraunts isn’t true.

                  When I pointed out that what they DO spend too much on is booze and weed and perhaps crap they can’t afford that they buy on credit he agreed with me.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  From this very thread, and if I could be bothered, I could easily find a dozen more examples, but you wouldn’t listen, you’d just change the subject today, and then tomorrow repeat the original claim again.

                  “People who actually work for a living simply don’t do that stuff. None of them. Zero or as near to zero as makes no difference.”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim wrote this:

                  “Black Welfare mothers get impoverished by eating out at fried chicken places and run completely out of money well before their next child support payment comes through, despite these child support payments being quite large. Carlylean Restorationist projects this behavior onto the white working class and blames pizza parlors for it because he is unable to acknowledge black misconduct.”

                  So fuck you Cominator, you’re just shilling for a lying piece of shit.

                  GHY

                • The Cominator says:

                  “People who actually work for a living simply don’t do that stuff. None of them. Zero or as near to zero as makes no difference.”

                  Jim was specifically talking about working class people spending too much money eating out and Jim was right.

                  Working people often spend too much money DRINKING out and on weed.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*lies about another person’s comment deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  The original comment is right here, is entirely clear, and telling us what it supposedly says are just a distracting waste of space.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “So fuck you Cominator, you’re just shilling for a lying piece of shit.”

                  The NPC is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a marxist, zombie, SJW, sheep, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him an NPC and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

              • Andre says:

                “There are many independent warrior classes throughout history.”

                There really aren’t. Even something as simple as brazilian drug gangs have a religious foundation on which they rest, alternating between some sort of pagan satanism and a strange kind of christianity (they actually have rituals inside the prisons where they consacrate themselves to “Crime” in the name of Jesus Christ.

                “Generally you want to make the other person die to enforce your will…”

                And how do you make the other person die without putting your neck on the line? You can’t.

                • jim says:

                  A warrior class needs a priesthood – and in the modern era, needs its own officer academies that it controls. It is an independent warrior class if it keeps its priesthood in line and loyal.

                • The Cominator says:

                  As Jim said.

                  Independent warrior classes may very well have a unifying mythos and religion. But they are independent if they have supremacy over the priest of the religion.

                  WWII Japan’s warrior class was both insane and insanely religious but it wasn’t the Shinto priests who were calling the shots. A shinto priest who argued with a high ranking Japanese officer would have been shot or beheaded with a samurai sword.

              • Andre says:

                “You fail to distinguish between fanaticism which is bad and RESOLVE which is good. Trump is not a fanatic but he has fanatical resolve.”

                Explain to me the difference, as you understand it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Fanaticism requires irrational reality distorting belief in something that probably isn’t true and is irrational.

                  Trump is a man of RESOLVE, he believes in himself sure and in the policies he ran on and the entire media and all the pressure from his former associates in the establishment could not shake his RESOLVE but he doesn’t believe that he must die to impose Islamic law or the 57 genders or some such irrational crap.

                • Andre says:

                  Trump’s policies are not all that rational. They are less crazy than the 57 genders but crazier than Sharia Law. ISIS has a more reasonable civilizational model than Trump.

                • jim says:

                  Trump and Trump aligned republicans are the only political leadership pushing back against the holiness spiral, and we don’t know how hard and how effectively he would push back if he was King.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Trump’s policies are not all that rational. They are less crazy than the 57 genders but crazier than Sharia Law. ISIS has a more reasonable civilizational model than Trump.

                  Another NPC, orange man bad blah blah blah.

                  https://tenor.com/view/donald-trump-you-have-to-go-back-gif-5533515

                • Andre says:

                  I’m an NPC because I think Trump is too much of a cuck? Okay…

                  And yea, sure, I avoid judging Trump too harshly because I understand the reality of war, that his actual power is limited, that war is deception, etc.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The standard alt.right take on Trump is basically something like this:

                  1) Obviously he’s far and away the best thing to come out of electoral politics in decades and is probably the only decent president since Nixon.

                  2) He’s changed the culture, allowing things which were verboten to now be boten (lol)

                  3) He’s the accelerationist candidate, driving the left to show their true colours in previously unimaginable ways

                  4) He’s putting the final nail in the coffin of cuckservatism and libertarianism

                  5) The fact he can’t get anything done is very useful for us because it shows conservatives how badly off the system really is for them

                • Andre says:

                  The “you have to go back” meme just tells me you are trapped in a sinking ship. I’m not an american, I’m not in America, and I have no interest in being. I’m just a straight white male living on the fringes of the global “american” empire. I live in Brazil. I don’t consider myself brazilian because that is just the name of a dead empire. The “right” here is celebrating the victory of Bolsonaro, who is far to the right of Trump and far more likely to declare himself King. I’m skeptical because he still kisses too much ass. It seems to me that no electoral-executive solution is possible. What is the point of a strong king that defends feminist policies, even if he scales back the last 20 years of feminist radicalization? I rather have a weak king, so that my authority on the ground is not challenged.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The “right” here is celebrating the victory of Bolsonaro, who is far to the right of Trump and far more likely to declare himself King. I’m skeptical because he still kisses too much ass. ”

                  Bolosarno is awesome and you should be celebrating, what is wrong with you? Your country is going to be nearly 1st world in two years even with all the NAMs.

                • Andre says:

                  The rise of Bolsonaro does bring a smile to my face. Until I start talking to his supporters and realize just how cucked they are. He, like Trump, represents the rise of the cuckocracy. A strong male figure that will preside over a dying matriarchy, making sure the single-moms get their checks, “rapists” get harshly punished, young men cannot rebel against the system, and the fertility rates continue to plunge as the fundamental problems of our civilization remain unaddressed and we slide into oblivion in as much comfort as possible. I sure hope I’m wrong and it certainly could be worse but I’m not very optimistic. I just cannot see democracy fixing itself.

                • jim says:

                  > A strong male figure that will preside over a dying matriarchy

                  Maybe.

                  Cromwell seemed pretty leftist when he first took absolute power. Stalin actually was leftist, but by ending the left singularity made possible what we now see in Russia.

                  Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Ending the left singularity is the first and most urgent task, and it may well take a leftist to do it.

                • jim says:

                  > I just cannot see democracy fixing itself.

                  Of course democracy is incapable of fixing itself, but the power of the presidency is so enormous that should the president manage to get hold of it, he and his heirs are unlikely to ever lose another election.

            • Neurotoxin says:

              The Cominator: “You don’t see how competitive fanaticism is likely to end badly?”

              Andre: “I don’t see how you can make a call like that. Fanaticism is just intensity.”

              No. It is at least as much in the extremism of the position that is staked out.

              E.g., legalizing a man wearing women’s clothes (it used to not be legal)
              becomes
              demanding that a man in a dress be allowed to use the women’s bathroom
              becomes
              anyone who disagrees that a man in a dress should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom, is attacked as a “bigot”
              becomes
              a man who won’t kiss a tranny is a “bigot.”

              This is not just a question of how intense you are about your positions, but also what those positions are.

              Our host has a lot more on this: Items for Jim’s posts on holiness spirals and the Left Singularity:
              http://blog.jim.com/?s=left+singularity
              https://blog.jim.com/tag/left-singularity/
              https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-left-singularity-continues/
              https://blog.jim.com/culture/review-of-left-singularities/

              • Andre says:

                I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. See, the radical transgender agenda didn’t evolve out of a holiness spiral, it was the plan from the beginning. That implementation is gradual doesn’t mean anything other than the fact that the reality of power is that you can’t always dictate your will into being. Early communist writters spoke of “deconstructing” the family (which mostly means deconstructing male authority in the family, which mostly means subverting males), of the “erotic society”, etc. It’s not that the leftist religion became purer, it’s that resistance to it grew weaker.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.”

                  I’m disagreeing with your statement “Fanaticism is just intensity.”

                  It’s not just a question of whether you state calmly, or scream, that trannies should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom. It’s whether you advance to the next position of “Make out with a tranny or you’re a bigot.”

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “See, the radical transgender agenda didn’t evolve out of a holiness spiral, it was the plan from the beginning… It’s not that the leftist religion became purer, it’s that resistance to it grew weaker.”

                  It’s obvious from casual observation that the people caught up in the holiness spiral are caught up in a holiness spiral. (To various extents we’re all caught up in it.)

                  I’m not denying that the left also conspired to attack western civilization; of course they did. Conspiracies and spirals are not mutually exclusive.

                  But the holiness spiral, aside from its sheer obviousness these days, explains the fact that leftists themselves are being hurt by it, which a conspiracy theory can’t explain.

                  E.g.,
                  (1) The fact that the Left has been hurt more than the right by #MeToo. Plainly the Left didn’t plan that part!

                  (2) White Democrats’ fate in the new identity-politics Dem party.

                  These are examples of the left being steamrolled by the forces they themselves set in motion. White Dems obviously didn’t plan to be drummed out of power in their own party. They’re caught in a prisoner’s dilemma, in which each individual is forced to go along with the “hate whitey” stuff in ways that make them all worse off.

                • Andre says:

                  You are just wrong. Listen, things escalate. That is not a holyness spiral, it’s people realizing (or miscalculating that) they can get away with more than they used to. It’s the shifting of allies. It’s not about holyness it’s just the dynamics of power. You cannot abolish the dynamics of power.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  No. You’re ignoring what I wrote. The Left itself has been hurt by processes they put in motion. It’s not only them being able to get away with more. They wouldn’t use their ability to get away with more to fuck themselves over.

                  Here are some quotes from white Democrat Sally Boynton Brown when she was running for Chair of the Dem Party last year:

                  …she said in regard to the Black Lives Matter movement that Democrats need to offer “training” that teaches Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white.”

                  … “I’m a white woman, I don’t get it… My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt. … So please, please, please, get ahold of me… I need schooling so I can go school the other white people.”

                  This is disgusting, boot-licking self-abasement. It’s not a leftist reveling in her increased power and “getting away with things.”

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  No, it’s an assertion that she should have power over you because she’s holier than you are as long as there’s none of her totems actually around and speaking. “We all have to do better” is a stock NPC lefty phrase for exactly that reason – they use that when they are attacking you.

                • jim says:

                  You assume that the Democrats are careful to make sure that none of their totems are around and speaking – which was largely true but is rapidly ceasing to be true.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  No, it’s an assertion that she should have power over you because she’s holier than you are as long as there’s none of her totems actually around and speaking.

                  And the left’s master plan for total power ended with them wiggling on their bellies before their totems?

                • Andre says:

                  “White Dems obviously didn’t plan to be drummed out of power in their own party.”

                  I would not be so sure about that. Either way, self-destructive behavior is not evidence of a holyness spiral and the dangers of fanaticism. The essence of the left is a feminine mentality. It is this feminine mentality that is at the root of all these things. Women do lots of things, but I would not describe any of them as “holyness spirals”. The left is the most hypocritical bunch of people you will ever meet. They are the political manifestation of the feminine. Do not mistake their concern for appearances as fanaticism. Everything that can’t be explained by their core nature, can be explained by the general abundance of low IQ people in that segment of the population.

                • jim says:

                  > > “White Dems obviously didn’t plan to be drummed out of power in their own party.”

                  > I would not be so sure about that.

                  Nuts

                  > Either way, self-destructive behavior is not evidence of a holyness spiral and the dangers of fanaticism.

                  Self destructive behavior is evidence of a holiness spiral and the dangers of fanaticism.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “White Dems obviously didn’t plan to be drummed out of power in their own party.”
                  I would not be so sure about that.

                  For fuck’s sake.

        • StoneMan says:

          >Why?
          Because fuck you, that’s why.

  4. glosoli says:

    Firstly, I think I share c. 10% of CR’s views, if that. I have identified that the ApexCapitalistUsurers, the Roths, Payseurs, Rockefellers etc are the source of leftism, the source of greed and the drive to destroy White Christian civilisation and steal all of our wealth, and wreck our faith and our families. Other than that, I have no issue with those who are wealthy, grow businesses and accumulate capital.

    Jimbug however identifies that these (((people))) are:

    >Supposedly all these rape and sexual harassment charges are coming from Evil White Male Trillionaires, not from the cat ladies of Human Resources.

    He calls them ‘white’. Weinstein was white eh? Blankfein is white eh? Moldbug, is he white too? Are you really white Jimbug?

    Come on Jimbug, you’re obviously a paid-up shill for the ApexUsurers, and their tribe. Stop calling them white, they’re not, they’re the peak of satan’s evil tribe on earth.

    And the cat ladies and #metoo, how do you think that policy of theirs is helping Christian families to form and stay together? Every aspect of their plan involves trashing God’s design and Jehovah’s laws, commands and statutes.

    It’s no wonder you end this post calling for (yet another) King. They will have that King in their pocket, and the whole cycle would begin again. Sure, they might throw you enough shekels to blast off to Uranus, in your dreams.

    It’s no wonder you don’t end the post calling for a return to Jehovah’s ways, to a theonomic state, as in Judges Israel, which worked very well. You prefer King Solomon, a greedy man, after wealth and women (a couple of Jimbug traits too). A trait of the Israelite tribe. False Gods, always.

    Your whole approach is so transparent, they have primed you nicely, but I see through it, and I’m sure others do too.

    • peppermint says:

      The reason jew-baiters are the final enemy of civilization isn’t that jews are good. After 3000 years of them collapsing our civilizations honor demands they suffer the fate of the Amalekites.

      It’s because jew-baiters are unreconstructed leftists who blame jews for evil in our souls.

      Weinstein and Soros and Rothschild matter, but sending the smallhat goats into the desert won’t fix the SlateStarCodex crowd.

      Christianity was judaized by Sola Scriptura heretics, who in the early 20c regularly performed witchcraft using the Bible for divination.

      St. Constantine wasn’t a traitor to the Roman Empire, he brought the completion of the secular philosophy of the Cardinal Virtues which left us in limbo blown around by the winds of passion and fashion with the Theological Virtues of St. Paul.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Est bonum. Lingua Latina solutio nostra est.

      • Calvin says:

        Wow, the peppermint I remember used to lace every other sentence with anti-Christian invective. When did you convert?

        • peppermint says:

          I will deny to my dying breath any affiliation with the sentimentalists, judaizers, iconoclasts, sorcerers, sodomites, fornicators, heretics of the 20c. Jesus isn’t going to give you a magic pony if you believe hard enough and behave approvingly towards faggots and whores.

          The price, and reward, for civilization, is civilization.

          The Boomers listened to JFK tell them “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, and sanctimoniously squandered our tendies.

          The most recent Pope, forced into retirement by kidfuckers, told us millennials, this should resonate with any atheist, “the world offers you comfort, but you were not made for comfort, you were made for greatness”.

          • glosoli says:

            You didn’t answer my question from the last post.
            Also, sounds like you might have papist leanings.

            • peppermint says:

              From St. Peter to Benedict XVI, the popes have mostly, except in managing international relations, sided with the saints against heresy, as the incentives of the office suggest, until the Church was corrupted in the 20c, which St. Pius X tried to prevent with the Oath against Modernism http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm . Leo XIII wrote against communism in Rerum Novarum, and John Paul II, despite his disgusting failure, couldn’t but uphold the dogma against sodomites and thottery.

              • The Cominator says:

                The RCC was corrupted with Gregory “the Great” all but claiming to be god on earth and placing himself above and beyond the authority of the Emperor.

                • peppermint says:

                  The pope lacked the authority to release the king of France from his oath to Charles V. Westphalia restored international law. Henry VIII’s divorce might be grounds for schism, but the Pope was clearly, and apparently, biased by worldly concerns, and the Anglican/Roman split was nothing like the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

                  The slow collapse of the Western Empire left people confused about the authority of the popes.

                  When this is all over, the Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox are probably going to be back in communion with the status of the papacy better understood.

                  Every Catholic knows popes have made mistakes and proclaimed statements as infallible that were obvious heresy. Bergoglio is an amazingly terrible antipope.

                  Our community of nations and shared heritage means the episcopate is intrinsically international. International organizations need to be controlled, or they’re controlled badly, or by one of the nations against the others.

                  So, the Vatican isn’t Italy and the pope isn’t a national bishop.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “So, the Vatican isn’t Italy and the pope isn’t a national bishop.”

                  It causes problems if any bishop is not a national bishop.

                  Orthodoxy is compatible with restoration, Catholicism post Gregory is not. Gregory needs to be officially declared a heretic by the Church and dictatus papae (and other similar proclamations esp infallibility) before there is any question of Catholicism having a role in the restoration.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I’m really enjoying the new Catholic peppermint.

                  If you decide to join a parish and receive the sacraments, make sure you don’t reveal your power level. You can get away with being pro-trump and anti-homo, but you should be careful with gender roles. If you phrase it right, you can say that wives should generally submit to and obey their husbands, but if they ever hear about you leaving bruises on your gf, you’ll be threatened with imprisonment.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If you decide to join a parish and receive the sacraments, make sure you don’t reveal your power level. You can get away with being pro-trump and anti-homo, but you should be careful with gender roles. If you phrase it right, you can say that wives should generally submit to and obey their husbands, but if they ever hear about you leaving bruises on your gf, you’ll be threatened with imprisonment.”

                  Another reason to be Orthodox instead of Catholic, based Orthodox Russia decriminalized “domestic violence” with the full backing of the Church.

                • Nikolai says:

                  That’s more of a national difference than a religious difference. Any Orthodox parish in the US (not comprised of mostly immigrants) would react the same way as a Catholic parish. Catholic Slavs likely take the same stance as the Russian Orthodox Church.

                • peppermint says:

                  Consider: Trump becomes Caesar and makes Christianity the official religion of America. Will the archbishop of Washington have sodt power over Western Europe, will there be schism, will America and Russia be the new Rome and Greece? Or can we put the soft power outside of the hands of any one nation, with each king having the right to dissent?

                • jim says:

                  Peace of Westphalia worked. Moldbug argued that we should return to that being the basis of peace between nations – but it being the base of peace between nations is tightly coupled to it being the real basis of religious authority.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The soft power over a nation must be contained within that nation.

                  No powerful international bishops. Trump needs to be able to order the execution of the archbishop at any time. The priests must rightly work for Trump and be terrified of Trump.

                • jim says:

                  Quite so:

                  Orthodox Christianity.

                  The Orthodox Church should not have submitted to the communists when they sought to destroy Christianity, but Russian Orthodoxy was right to submit to Stalin when he was willing to play ball with Christianity.

                  Christian Orthodoxy has unity within a system of national Churches, without a supranational priesthood meddling in national affairs.

                  The split needs to be undone – Anglicanism needs to join the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church needs to join the orthodox community, but this unity should not be to any supranational authority, not to the Vatican, but to the communion of saints – need national churches within Orthodoxy, hence Russian Orthodox, American Orthodox, and so forth. America should be Episcopalian, and Episcopalianism should be American Orthodox. The head of the American Church should be in a palace in Washington, a palace alarmingly close to the president’s praetorians. The guards at the Archbishop’s palace should be under the ultimate authority of the president.

                  Roman Catholicism took a wrong turn a thousand years ago, and the Reformation was a continuation of that wrong turn.

                  We don’t want Sola Scriptura, but neither do we want a committee of Churchmen with authority to make up anything they please. There needs to be an official interpretation of scripture, but that interpretation has to be constrained to be generally consistent with the doctrine and practice of successful long lived Christian societies over the past two thousand years – the communion of saints.

                  The church needs to be both national and supranational – it should not be supranational in ways that facilitate outsiders meddling in national affairs, as this corrupts both the nation and the Church.

                  The peace of Westphalia, broadly interpreted is that the Church may not be an instrument of international power games, and the Sovereign has the right and duty to put a stop to such stuff.

                • peppermint says:

                  When the time comes, when the duke of Io wants to claim marriage to the sexbot with cloned eggs from Mars for lineage purposes, will the Bishop of Holy Mother Terra’s ideas about other people’s affairs carry any weight? Will there always be enough political diversity on Terra to prevent any one bishop from being the Bishop? Will the synod of Holy Mother Terra?

                  Were the English-speaking judaizers motivated partly by not wanting to respect Greeks and Romans or their ideas about church forms?

                  Was Jesus being a Jew helpful in getting German assent?

            • glosoli says:

              Still didn’t answer my question. Then again, most papists don’t really believe any of it is true.

      • yewotm8 says:

        Would the world be or would it not be better if the jews were removed? I can’t honestly see anybody arguing that it would not be better. Regardless of all the rhetoric behind “blaming the jews for bad things is leftism”, and the fact that of course a lot of the bad in the world is not the result of jews, the simple fact of the matter is that without jews, we’d be better off. They are not compatible with our society, in the same kind but to a lesser degree that blacks are not compatible with our society.

        • The Cominator says:

          Leftism would have developed without jews. Jews being so prominent in leftism actually tends to make lower class people more suspicious of it. Also Moldbug/Yarvin is a jew. Would Trump be president now if Erik Prince and Peter Thiel were not so impressed by the Open Letter and decided to back Trump wholeheartedly, maybe not.

          What Jews DID do that was really bad was push feminism which probably would not have happened without them, it was formulated by CIA leftists but they paid a bunch of almost entirely jewish women to push it.

          • Roberto says:

            Second Wave Feminism was indeed Jewish and CIA-orchestrated, but the hard core problem dates back to even before First Wave Feminism: courtly love, sexual chivalry, romanticism, and the sexual doctrines of puritanism, quakerism, and victorianism. “Women misbehave because evil men make them misbehave, therefore punish men for unchastity rather than punishing women for unchastity” is the Original (proto-)Feminist Sin.

            The real Jewish poison is — I’m writing this at the risk of sounding cliche — the movements documented in KMac’s CoC; each Jewish movement not being sufficient on its own to fatally memetically disrupt the West, but taken in aggregate, Boasianism-Freudianism-Frankfurtism has veritably managed to thought-criminalize exactly those ideas that are absolutely indispensable for modern civilizational prosperity, such as HBD. True, those alt-righters who base their worldview exclusively or almost exclusively on KMac (or on WN-writers in general) are dumbasses, but still, modern Political Correctness really is a Talmudic construct which just wouldn’t organically emerge within a freedom-valuing 100% Anglo-dominated memeplex.

            Leftism had initially developed independently without any input from ((()))-ism, but the Jews’ acceleration of the metastasis is undeniable. Whether or not Jews can help reverse the foul tide will soon become apparent.

            • jim says:

              The diggers first appeared during the Puritan Commonwealth, which was not significantly Jewish influenced. They so terrified Cromwell that he cracked down. During the nineteen sixties they reappeared, after three hundred years being a footnote in Das Kapital.

              So, even without Jewish influence, leftism is quite capable becoming pathologically evil and insane.

              While there is much truth in blaming the Jews, people who blame the Jews tend to wind up saying “Lets go back to good old non Jewish leftism”. Bad idea.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            The JQ’s illegal in Europe.

            “Would Trump be president now if Erik Prince and Peter Thiel were not so impressed by the Open Letter and decided to back Trump wholeheartedly, maybe not.”

            Would thousands of NRxers be practicing ‘passivism’ and waiting for the call to bring forth their glorious readiness to rule?
            Would you bastards be telling me that God-Emperor Trump has no right to shut down KFC?
            Yarvin has a lot to answer for frankly.

            “What Jews DID do that was really bad was push feminism which probably would not have happened without them,”

            Porn, the opioid epidemic, payday loans, central banking, nihilism, Freudianism, homosexuality, trans-genderism, forced integration….. you name it.

            But for the sake of my continued existence on planet Earth, I must insist this has nothing to do with those people’s mere religion. They were just of a cosmopolitan, pro-multicultural bent.

            • jim says:

              Feminism started off with Romance the eleventh century. Went quiet for a while, then proceeded to get a great deal worse with the failure to divorce Queen Caroline. Can’t blame the Jews for first wave feminism.

            • Nikolai says:

              The king, of course, has the right to shut down any establishment he wants. We’re saying he wouldn’t and shouldn’t shut down random restaurants for being somewhat unhealthy or charging too much.

              I’m curious though, why shut down KFC of all places? I spent some time working in the deep south and I’d go there once or twice a week on my lunch breaks. Most people there seemed like relatively well compensated vaisyas, construction workers and other blue collar types, though some of the customers definitely looked like they were making minimum wage.

              But even if everyone eating there was making minimum wage, their most popular meals are $5, you could eat there 3 times a day for less than 2 hours of minimum wage. It’s not like you have to empty your savings to regularly eat there. The food isn’t the healthiest, sure, but it’s fried chicken. You act like they’re selling radioactive poison when it’s just comfort food.

              Foods cheap and tasty, probably better for you than burgers, Trump’s base loves it and the God Emperor himself eats KFC in his flying palace. Why shut it down?

              • Roberto says:

                >Why shut it down?

                The CR-bot’s pretext is that he wants to increase people’s savings ratio, so leisure for leisure’s sake needs to be banned; he essentially considers modern consumerism to be a form of “self-abuse,” and like all puritans, wants to prevent people from abusing their own selves by eliminating the temptations.

                I call that a pretext because in reality, the modern consumption industry does not affect much the savings ratio of poor whites; it is upper-middle-class urbanites who go on successive vacations and dine out every day, *because they can well afford it*. I believe that the CR-bot is bitterly envious of their lifestyle.

                The CR-bot claims to not be driven by envy because, supposedly, he doesn’t want to redistribute resources from the rich to the poor; yet his envy manifests in the fact that he complains about people going on successive vacations, having private swimming pools, and changing the floorboards in their apartments. It’s not the poor who do all that.

                The CR-bot is actually 1,488% aware of the fact that it’s not poor whites who go on successive vacations and dine out every day. He wrote:

                “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: white people are horrible consumers. We not only save, but we look after our property and have this horrible habit of having one eye on the grandchildren’s future wellbeing. We’d rather buy something once and leave it to them so they can leave it to their grandchildren.

                “People who administer those who live on crime and welfare are all about ripping out the floorboards and replacing them just becuz, while the people themselves, who actually live on crime and welfare are playing X-box and eating Domino’s.”

                https://blog.jim.com/war/paternity-war-and-conquest/#comment-1913293

                This is called doublethink.

                In certain contexts, the CR-bot admits that whites don’t behave the way he normally claims whites behave, i.e. like a bunch of high time-preference retarded niggers. He said so himself!

                See, the quotes I pulled off are from a thread discussing third world immigration. When discussing third world immigration, the CR-bot is perfectly willing to admit that poor whites don’t excessively consume like feral low-IQ impulsive coons, and moreover, that those people whose consumption and spending habits tend towards indulgence (i.e. those who go on successive vacations and so on) are *those who can afford it*.

                How come he was willing to admit that? Because, in context, he sought to blame the capitalists for third world immigration; thus, whenever the CR-bot attempts to blame third world immigration on capitalists, he suddenly remembers, and suddenly admits himself, that it’s blacks, not whites, who live on daily fast food.

                Then, having admitted that it’s not whites, but blacks, who irresponsibly spend all their money on fast food, he goes on to denounce the restaurant chains for poisoning *whites* and for financially bankrupting *whites*.

                I believe the CR-bot himself is familiar with this tactic as the “switcheroo.” When it suits him, he says that the capitalists run restaurant chains to exploit poor whites who just can’t control their overpowering impulse to consume garbage; and when it suits him, he says that no, actually, the restaurant chains do no directly exploit poor whites, yet the capitalists are still to blame because they import the blacks to live on fast food.

                So basically, he’s looking for excuses to blame rich people, and that his excuses conflict with each other won’t stop him from bringing up them all in the same blog.

                So it goes like:

                The CR-bot: “Peppermint must not eat pizza at Domino’s, because he is a dumb white retard, and as such, can’t be trusted to mange his own finances responsibly.”

                Peppermint: “I am not a dumb white retard.”

                The CR-bot: “Yeah, okay, whites in general are not dumb retards. It is, indeed, the blacks who are the dumb retards. But capitalists import the blacks, so they’re still to blame.”

                *5 minutes later*

                The CR-bot: “So what about all those people who go on successive vacations and change all their floorboards on a whim, huh? Oh boy, capitalism sure is making people spend too much. Why should people be living like lords, anyway?”

                *2 minutes later*

                The CR-bot: “Roberto is a fucking malicious monster who’s trying to COLD-BLOODEDLY MURDER MILLIONS OF POOR WHITES —- THIS IS WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!! WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [*the CR-bot explodes at this point, and is replaced by an identical replica*] —- by allowing Domino’s Pizza, Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken to operate.”

                Jim: “Domino’s Pizza, Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken do not commit white genocide.”

                The CR-bot: “Fuck you (dad), you are just saying that because you are an egalitarian libertarian who believes in inalienable human rights. Pffffffft.”

                And on and on it goes; the CR-bot’s mission is to blame all bad things on rich people, whom he bitterly envies, and his scripts vary depending on the subject; for each different subject, the CR-bot has its own script for how rich people are a problem.

                Hope that answers your question, Nikolai.

                • Nikolai says:

                  That is a great response Roberto, thank you.

                  The thing is that even if you’re living off folding sweaters, welfare and selling dope you’d still have trouble bankrupting yourself with fast food. It’s just not that expensive, unless you go out of your way to order the priciest items separately (which admittedly some niggers do).

                  CR, white people are actually the best consumers because we’re the most productive so we make more money and thus spend more money. Most businesses rely on the kind of people who have at least a couple grand in their savings accounts. Airlines, auto companies, banks, realtors etc.

                  And the businesses that do cater to low income blacks are not fond of their clientele. The indian guy running a convenience store may make a decent amount selling lotto tickets and cigs to blacks, but that means passed out beggars outside his store who annoy him to no end. If he could, the store owner would kick out every nigger who walked in to save himself the trouble of dealing with them and to make his store more attractive to white people.

                • jim says:

                  Even black males with jobs do not do it that much. You really see this behavior (eating out with the more expensive fast food items every day till the money runs out) with women on child support, primarily black women on child support and their boyfriends, and to a considerably lesser extent, brown women on child support. Men with jobs, and women with intact families just do not do it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Nikolai what you’re describing is your idealised version of how our societies ought to run.
                  It’s no longer true and if you’re in Britain, I’m 100% confident you’ll get the same results as I have if you actually talk to working-class people.
                  If you’re in America, I’m prepared to give Jim and Roberto the benefit of the doubt to some extent, so I’m only 90% certain your results will match mine.

                  Either way, I suggest you do it: just ask someone who regularly lives paycheck to paycheck how often they dine out, and ask someone who regularly dines out whether they live paycheck to paycheck.

                  I’m very confident your results will be the same as mine: large numbers of working-class white people look forward to pay-day so that they can go out and spend money in restaurants.

                  Meanwhile they simply do not have savings. At the very most, they might have a ‘holiday fund’ which rolls one year to the next. Even that is unusual.

                  I’m certainly not slandering the working class and I’m certainly not calling for redistribution. Nor am I calling for greater regulation of restaurants or bans of unhealthy foods.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Even black males with jobs do not do it that much. You really see this behavior (eating out with the more expensive fast food items every day till the money runs out) with women on child support, primarily black women on child support and their boyfriends, and to a considerably lesser extent, brown women on child support. Men with jobs, and women with intact families just do not do it.”

                  Poor men who blow their money do it primarily on drink and weed.

                  Eating out… maybe women on child support do it because MOST women on any kind of male support but without their supervision have a genius for ending up utterly destitute (I say most because there are a minority of women who are good with money, so there are to speak financial NAWALT’s). If those women didn’t do it one way they’d almost certainly do it another way.

                • jim says:

                  Women are good with money if the man who supervises them appreciates them being good with money. And often better with money than the man supervising them.

                  They are seldom good with money for its own sake. This reflects an ancestral environment where property required a male to protect it, hence no point in an unsupervised female trying to economize and accumulate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I said it was rare but it does exist. Paris Hilton is probably the best example.

                  Even if you think Paris Hilton is an example of women gone bad she can’t be faulted on how she handles money (at least not yet) despite not having had a steady man that we know about.

                  And no she didn’t inherit it (she had little to trade on but her looks and her name but she didn’t have money of her own when she started out).

                • jim says:

                  True. Paris Hilton responsible and very good indeed with money. Not All Women are Like That with money.

                  But that is the way to bet.

              • Roberto says:

                https://i.imgur.com/mc59pge.jpg

                More effort than he deserves, but…

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Nikolai I’m not really interested in interacting with these others because they’re not debating this in good faith. They routinely misrepresent what I’m saying and use ‘debating tactics’ to win at all costs. They’re not ultimately interested in finding the truth.

                You on the other hand sound open-minded.

                I’m not singling KFC out and I take your point that they’re not a good example. I live in Britain and here we have a set of chains owned by a company called the Restaurant Group. This includes Franky&Benny, Bella Italia and Chiquito.
                They charge around £25-35 per head for an average meal without tips and our minimum wage is £8 or so, so if a man takes a woman for dinner that’s pretty much a day’s gross pay for one meal.

                My point isn’t that their pricing should be set by the government and it isn’t even that their food’s unhealthy. Sure their food IS unhealthy but ‘all things in moderation’ and all that.

                None of that’s a big deal at all.

                What IS a big deal is the fact that very large numbers of people in this country (I honestly can’t speak for America and am willing to give Jim and the rest the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s not the same over there, although very many people seem to think there IS a problem with consumer credit and lack of savings in the US) are living not only paycheck to paycheck but also getting into trouble with consumer debt including credit cards and overdrafts.

                The same people are spending an awful lot of money with these restaurants, and my argument is that the libertarian concept of rational choice isn’t adequately explaining this phenomenon.

                Something’s compelling large numbers of people to make extremely dangerous decisions that are leaving them financially vulnerable and also yes harming their long-term health.

                I’m linking this argument to the capitalist revolution, the institution of the closest thing we’ve seen to laissez-faire: the 19th century in America and to some extent in Europe. This is the philosophy of the American Revolution, currently embodied in the libertarian and classical liberal movements.

                It’s also worth noting that modern liberals also agree with the core assumptions of consumer capitalism: even the reddest of green-red communists wants to preserve consumer choice. They always go after regulatory intervention and never the withdrawal of choice, whether the goal is improved health, ‘equality’ of various kinds, or the green-red environmental agenda: the solution proposed always respects consumer choice.

                I’m arguing that this entire Whig prejudice is a huge mistake.

                These people are, I’m claiming, victims of their own alleged autonomy. They should be in jobs for life with some lord or chieftain, with certain positive rights granted them, including bed&board and enough resources to raise a family.

                Where people DO have sufficient agency to break free of that social stratum, I’m describing the healthy society as mainly favouring a saving culture with the accumulation of durable inheritable goods, passed down the generations to increase the wealth and health of families and propel them through the social classes until a kind of long-term meritocracy can operate with true social mobility without undermining the existence and stability of social classes and societal hierarchy. (Jim lumps this in with socialism.)

                In a saving culture, restaurants would be viewed with suspicion: why isn’t the wife cooking? My grandmother never set foot in a restaurant in her life. She saw it as alien and disturbing: a path to ruin. She was correct, too.
                Sure, for the rich, it makes sense sometimes: wives of powerful men sometimes have better things to do than cook, or even have a member of the household staff cook. Sometimes *being in* a particular place is part of the meaning of a social event.

                It’s absolutely not that all restaurants should be banned, or that all unhealthy food should be banned.

                It’s very narrowly that these specific corporate chains, which clearly ARE playing a role in widespread interactions with our people which are demonstrably harming them, should probably just go away.

                I would imagine Jim will delete this comment and call it ‘Marxism’ or ‘leftist entryism’ or whatever.

                The reason for this is that he knows deep down that my stance here is a deeply reactionary stance, suspicious of modernity for its modernistic nature and yearning for something older, something more stable and natural, something which better reflects human nature.

                He knows this and he’s afraid of it because he knows it doesn’t square, at all, with his residual libertarian capitalist biases.

                Now this comment was only aimed at you specifically, not this community.

                I viscerally felt the true nature of this community earlier today and it’s quite clear to me that most of the people here will put the interests of capital and GDP ahead of the interests of the nation every time without hesitation. The reactionary ‘flavour’ is just window-dressing: at heart this community’s all about getting the government/the-left out of the way so that capitalism/the-right can get on with what it wants to do:

                Meeting the most urgent of the as yet unmet needs of the largest number of people, without prejudice as to what those needs might be.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I’m from the US so I’ve never heard of the restaurants you mentioned. Looked up Bella Italia, large sandwiches are £10 and during lunch time you can get 2 slices of pizza for £5. At Frankie and Benny’s most entrees are less than £12.

                  I don’t see how one person could spend £35 at one of these places unless you ordered the most expensive entree and had a few beers and an appetizer and a desert. Maybe someone living paycheck to paycheck would get that much food on a birthday or if someone else was paying for it, but I can scarcely imagine someone making minimum wage regularly eating like that.

                  I, from time to time, go to nicer restaurants where I usually get $25 or so entrees and maybe a desert. But when I go I don’t see anyone there who looks like they’re living paycheck to paycheck.

                  “Either way, I suggest you do it: just ask someone who regularly lives paycheck to paycheck how often they dine out, and ask someone who regularly dines out whether they live paycheck to paycheck.”

                  Admittedly I was raised very brahmin, very oven middle class in TRS terms. I have not had all that much interaction with people who work paycheck to paycheck except for my time in the south. This was deep Trump territory. I passed by 5 different nondenominational churches on the drive there. The execs had Christian figurines on their desks, my boss had a copy of the KJV on his shelf. Many people had accents so thick I could barely understand them. People still casually used the word ‘retarded’ without fear of sanctimonious SJWs. You get the picture.

                  At the company I worked for, roughly half the workers were making $9-12/hour or so. For lunch pretty much all of them either brought their own food, bought some cheap snacks from the cafeteria or got fast food. The only non-fast food restaurant where I saw large amounts of white working class people was Waffle House.

                  If Starbucks exists to make you feel like you went to Harvard to write policy papers for a nonprofit, Waffle House makes you feel like you failed trigonometry, became a welder and know how to fix your car. Most popular meal there is the all star special, you get a big waffle, two pieces of toast, two eggs, bacon or sausage and hashbrowns or grits for under $8. If you get that and a drink and you leave a tip, should come out to about $12.

                  My last day there they took me to a steakhouse for lunch. The company was paying for it so we went all out and the bill came out to about $35/person after tip. Didn’t see anyone eating there who looked like they were making $9/hour.

                  What I’m saying is everyone around was white working class and I didn’t see anyone making at or near minimum wage who was regularly getting $25 lobster tails for dinner. Looked to me like the white working class mostly ate homemade food along with frozen food, fast food and the occasional meal at an inexpensive sit down place that implicitly caters to the working class.

                  I’m inclined to agree with you that autonomy isn’t always the best thing, especially for the low class and the working class. But I just don’t see people spending that much at restaurants. It just seems like a weird fixation you have that doesn’t really align with the problems of the working class.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Cultural Marxist account of how the masses spend their money deleted for inordinate length and boring content*]

                • jim says:

                  If you are going to post enormous walls of text describing the reality you believe the English proletarian masses, experience, start your own damned blog.

                  Or start a restaurant catering to the proletarian masses.

                  The reaction does not care about the proletarian masses, and from your account, they seem to be doing OK.

                  First world poverty, the inability of people earning quite large amounts of money, to make ends meet, is every bit as real as you claim, but it is not caused by eating out at Domino’s pizza.

                  It is caused by degree inflation and housing inflation, the ever rising cost and duration of education, and the cost of buying housing where your kids will not be beaten up by diversities.

                • Roberto says:

                  >your contemptible genocide apologia

                  You’re nuts.

                  >Everyone apart from libertarians knows full well that most white workers live the way I’m describing.

                  Fake consensus.

                  >NRx is clearly a movement of Brahmins

                  Duh…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto saw it before it was censored.

                  Roberto: Google:

                  “most workers living paycheck to paycheck”

                  and

                  “consumer credit at all time high”

                  There’s no reason for you to believe me. I’ve been smeared as a liar over and over. Believe your own eyes, and if you don’t believe Fitch and CareerBuilder, go and talk to real people in the real world.

                  I’m not making this up.

                  I need to go out. No doubt Jim will censor this.

                  He needs the truth to remain hidden.

                • Roberto says:

                  “Go google it” and “go talk to people” do not constitute proof, faggot.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What does then?

                  I tried posting links, but they were censored. I’m telling you to find your own links.

                  If you don’t think evidence has value, I don’t know what to tell you.

                  Then again, you in particular have no interest in any case, because even if you agreed with me 100% about what’s happening, you’d still say “let them starve”.

                  GFY

                • jim says:

                  You are providing copious and convincing evidence that a lot people cannot make ends meet.

                  Excessively copious evidence.

                  But your evidence shows these people are wealthy – and yet they cannot make ends meet.

                  You assert, but fail to provide any evidence, that the cause of this paradox is that Domino’s pizza is run by capitalists.

                  Since no one here is disputing that lots of wealthy people are strangely poor, I am not letting your evidence that the sun rises in the East through.

                  First world poverty, people earning six figures who cannot make ends meet, is caused by ethnic cleansing of white neighborhoods, and degree inflation. Not by Domino’s Pizza.

                • Roberto says:

                  You know CR, if you voiced the old Marxist complaint, “The living conditions of workers are abject because a tiny capitalist fat-cat clique hoards all the money and uses the means of production, which they exclusively own, to mercilessly exploit and impoverish,” I could at least minimally respect that. (It’s still false)

                  Your actual complaint is *worse than Marxism*. It’s literally, “Some people spend their money in a manner that I consider to be impulsive and unwise, yadda-yadda-yadda, therefore capitalism needs to be abolished.”

                  Nuts.

                • Koanic says:

                  Consumer Reports is Clearly Retarded.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I went for a run and suddenly everyone pretends they never denied a thing, now that the proof is beyond question.

                  Fine, that’s progress.

                  Jim writes:

                  “Since no one here is disputing that lots of wealthy people are strangely poor, I am not letting your evidence that the sun rises in the East through.”

                  Next time someone flatly denies it, I’ll refer them to this comment.

                  “First world poverty, people earning six figures who cannot make ends meet, is caused by ethnic cleansing of white neighborhoods, and degree inflation. Not by Domino’s Pizza.”

                  Are you saying that I’m talking about black people? Just so we’re totally clear, I’m talking about white people failing to make ends meet, who earn plenty of money but spend an awful lot at places like Bella Italia, and yes Domino’s Pizza. I’ve seen people spend $50+ on take-away from Domino’s and I know people in my close circle who’ve spent $100+ within the space of a week on Domino’s.

                  Let’s look at your proposed causes:

                  1. Ethnic cleansing of white neighbourhoods

                  This sounds suspiciously like a veiled claim that this is about housing costs. Subtract restaurant and holiday costs and the problem vanishes.

                  2. Degree inflation

                  So basically these people are what, over-paid? Not sure how that helps explain the phenomenon.
                  Or is it that they’re having to get higher and higher degrees to get a decent salary? Again the starting premise is that the wages aren’t excessively low and normal costs aren’t excessively high: there’s an anomalous problem with people with plenty of money making ends meet.

                  I’m saying they’re being pressured into living a certain consumerist lifestyle, and that it’s a problem that demands a solution. I’m further saying that the LEFT has no solution to it: they tinker around the edges, they create new bureaucracies, they impose silly regulations, but they never cut right to the heart of the problem because they, like you, think the ‘right to choose’ is inalienable.

                  I’m saying it’s alienable and should be aliened.

                • jim says:

                  > > 1. Ethnic cleansing of white neighbourhoods

                  > This sounds suspiciously like a veiled claim that this is about housing costs.

                  Nothing veiled about it. People who cannot make ends meet cannot afford housing where their children will not be beaten up, robbed, and raped. Food and clothing is no problem. Domino’s pizza is no problem.

                  It really is that simple.

                  > > 2. Degree inflation

                  > So basically these people are what, over-paid? Not sure how that helps explain the phenomenon.

                  Degree inflation prevents people from productive work. They spend too much time in Academia listening to propaganda and learning to repeat lies.

                  We need enforceable apprenticeships. Boys should start work at well before puberty. All academic job requirements are artificial.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto thinks my perspective is just personal and subjective:

                  ““Some people spend their money in a manner that I consider to be impulsive and unwise, yadda-yadda-yadda, therefore capitalism needs to be abolished.””

                  I’ve been trying to pin you weasels down for days.

                  Do you believe it’s **nothing to worry about** when most people are not only living paycheck to paycheck whilst receiving adequate pay, but are in fact going into debt that places them at risk of homelessness and bankruptcy?

                • jim says:

                  If people are living paycheck to paycheck, it is not because capitalism, and not because Domino’s pizza.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  To put it more simply, I believe that healthy societies grow wealthy by saving for the future and looking after possessions and resources, not by splurging on short term highs like high living, holidays and needless recreational expenditures.

                  That makes me a conservative, broadly speaking.

                  It also places me in agreement with all of western civilisation throughout all of its history until about 1970.

                  You seem to think that’s just a subjective whim, and that in fact a healthy society can splurge every last penny and borrow the rest. Not a problem, not a big deal, nothing to see here.

                • jim says:

                  > To put it more simply, I believe that healthy societies grow wealthy by saving for the future and looking after possessions and resources, not by splurging on short term highs like high living, holidays and needless recreational expenditures.

                  You demonize and seek to destroy those who save and invest.

                  It is not consumption but production that you seek to shut down.

                • Roberto says:

                  CR, when he wants to blame capitalists for third world immigration:

                  “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: white people are horrible consumers. We not only save, but we look after our property and have this horrible habit of having one eye on the grandchildren’s future wellbeing. We’d rather buy something once and leave it to them so they can leave it to their grandchildren.”

                  CR, when he wants to blame capitalists for over-consumption:

                  “Just so we’re totally clear, I’m talking about white people failing to make ends meet, who earn plenty of money but spend an awful lot at places like Bella Italia, and yes Domino’s Pizza. I’ve seen people spend $50+ on take-away from Domino’s and I know people in my close circle who’ve spent $100+ within the space of a week on Domino’s.”

                  We notice what you’re doing, CR. It’s not working. Nice try tho.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  When in doubt, roll out a whopping great lie!

                  “You demonize and seek to destroy those who save and invest.”

                  ??
                  It’s funny cos where I’m sitting, it looks as if I just said the entire point of society is cultivating those habits…… maybe there’s a difference of dialect here lol

                  “It is not consumption but production that you seek to shut down”

                  Ah I seee, the ‘production’ of consumer services, yes the glorious American ‘service economy’.
                  I forget sometimes just how MUCH of a libertarian you are. You’re with Bob Murphy that trade deficits don’t matter: America exports Treasuries and China exports finished goods, and everyone’s a winner because everyone’s getting what they want.

                  I seeeeeee, yes of course, how foolish of me. The world’s just one big marketplace and it makes no difference WHERE the capital’s concentrated: if it’s concentrated in the hands of a cosmopolitan élite, that’s something we shouldn’t care about at all!

                  lol

                  Sad

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto points to a genuine inconsistency, which I shall try to untangle.

                  1) Whites, ceteris paribus, are horrible consumers. Traditionally our societies have prioritised saving, and our civilisations (and only our civilisations) have had treasured family heirlooms handed down the generations. A mirror, a vase, a beautiful rug that your grandmother’s grandmother used to beat during ‘spring cleaning’.

                  Those people, like your grandmother’s grandmother, were horrible consumers: give them $2 and they put it away for a rainy day.

                  If you were a capitalist corporation, you’d much rather that $2 went to someone who’d make it more useful in the rotating economy.

                  Now Austrians generally insist they don’t apply value judgements, so the Mises Institute guys won’t explicitly say this, but in truth when they describe the freely rotating economy, they’re actively discouraging saving, which by implication means discouraging the habits of your grandmother’s grandmother.

                  2) Whites TODAY in the world as it actually is in 2018 aren’t all like that. In fact that’s putting it rather mildly. Most of us live paycheck to paycheck. Now there are still some, like me and I’m guessing probably like you, who aren’t like THAT, but the majority are.
                  Now those people are FABULOUS consumers!

                  I hang out with them. They’ve all got the best toys. I saw a box with some shit inside, I forget whether it was a skeleton’s hand or a fake critter or what, but something basically popped out of the box on demand, made a noise or whatever.
                  Then I saw a TV where basically it remote connects to the phone or the computer or some shit, and produces playlists on demand.
                  Then I saw their latest board games, their latest comic books, their latest memorabilia.

                  Think “The Big Bang Theory”.

                  Those people are consumers par excellence.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I’ve never been to the UK, so I don’t know how their working class behaves or how much dominos costs there. But you can’t spend $50 on take out here unless you get 4 large pizzas with multiple toppings, cheesy bread, desert and a bunch of soda, which is enough to feed a family of 4 for a weekend and thus a pretty decent value.

                  Anyway, I could see the working class going to places you describe and eating a $12 breakfast or maybe a $15 burger and fries, I could see them doing so about once every week or two. What I can’t imagine is someone living on minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet going out and getting a $30 dinner just to keep up appearances. I just don’t see people bankrupting themselves on expensive meals.

                  If you argued, “We should shut down the heart attack grill because it glorifies the most disgusting manifestations of gluttony” I could see your point and maybe I’d even agree.

                  If you argued, “Poor whites are bankrupt and destitute because they spend too much on deluxe pick up trucks that end up getting repossessed because they’re too dumb to understand interest rates. They should have to get permission from some sort of feudal accountant before making such a large purchase” I could see your point and maybe I’d even agree.

                  But no you argue that “Poor whites are bankrupt and destitute because they eat out at places where an average meal is $10-18 and somehow they end up spending $35 a head because big corporate chains are complicit in creating a culture where the poor have to buy the most expensive food they can in order to status signal so we should ban Frankie an Benny’s.”

                  I’m just not seeing it man. I don’t see the working class behave as you say they behave.

                  Also, if they wanted to status signal, why buy the most expensive food at an inexpensive restaurant rather than a normal meal at a fancier place? Surely a $25 meal from Outback or Red Lobster is higher status than the most expensive meal + a milkshake & appetizer at Frankie and Benny’s.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The funny thing is as far as restraining competitive wasteful status signalling by poor people Roberto Me and Jim have all spoken favorably of some kind of sumptuary laws (as well as another way of artificially bringing down the status of single women I’d for instance have a law that a single woman can wear no jewelry in public except for a week before and after Halloween).

                  CR never has spoken in favor of sumptuary laws, a tried and true reactionary way of restraining foolish consumption by the lower classes. He just seems to want a planned economy…

                • peppermint says:

                  To lower the status of single women, legalize porn, prostitution, and speaking crudely of women.

                  To raise the status of single women, ban porn, prostitution, and speaking crudely of women.

                  Women will not be controlled by baubles. Many single women don’t wear jewelry. Banning makeup has always been proposed as a solution to some problem or other.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jewelry is used between women for status.

                  Every woman knows youth and boobies are better, because men actually care about those.

                  The dangerous women aren’t the ones with jewelry. They’re the ones with youth and beauty and no husband, who every day demand to be tied up and raped, only sometimes in those words.

                • peppermint says:

                  Who is higher status, 23 with A cups or 28 with D cups?

                • The Cominator says:

                  I would of course legalize prostitution (with the provision that any honest man who wanted to could claim a whore for marriage) but that alone won’t do it.

                  Makeup genuinely makes women more attractive to men (if they don’t overdue it), jewelry does not.

                  Women’s status relative to other women is mainly what women care about, so banning jewelry for single women makes sense.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, that would work.

                  Have to restore the status of the wife.

                • peppermint says:

                  You’re talking about “people” who will dye their hair unnatural colors because when old people were young old people dyed their hair unnatural colors.

                  And you say you’re going to control their status games that no man should pay attention to by telling them to wear lace chokers instead of metal chokers and ribbons instead of earrings in order to advertise that they’re young and dtf.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And you say you’re going to control their status games that no man should pay attention to”

                  On the contrary we have an interest in making sure when it comes to status games that married women always beat single women.

                • peppermint says:

                  Married women already lose by default, because a single woman will flirt and maybe fuck you, and is probably younger.

                  You’re probably not going to have to enforce a difference between clothing and jewelry, though.

                  “I want to wear stuff that makes me look like I’m old and men shouldn’t approach me, but doesn’t give me a husband and children”, say the cute girls who drive fashion.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Married women already lose by default, because a single woman will flirt and maybe fuck you, and is probably younger.”

                  Married women and women in long-term relationships are the only ones who ever have any interest in me socially OR sexually. I don’t know why this is and wish it wasn’t so but its true. Also under our system the vast majority of women would be married very young.

                • peppermint says:

                  In a world of porn, prostitues and sexbots, a young single woman understands that her only way to get Mr. Right is to marry at 17-21, and in a world where college and grad school are jokes, Mr. Right is ready for her at 21-25.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “In a world of porn, prostitues and sexbots, a young single woman understands that her only way to get Mr. Right is to marry at 17-21, and in a world where college and grad school are jokes, Mr. Right is ready for her at 21-25.”

                  Most women won’t understand on their own until its too late. Which is why the decision should be their father’s with the provision they CAN elope past a certain age should their father fail to marry them off.

                • 7817 says:

                  Girl named CR invades male space, picks fight with everyone to attract attention, News at 11

                • peppermint says:

                  Sure, but we’re talking about how to force low status on inherently high status women.

                  Since they derive their status from male attention, distracting the men with porn, whores and sexbots will achieve that objective.

                  I want to see twerkers and bellydancers and burlesque “dancers” btfo by ballerinas. To achieve that, we also need to saturate the sex market so women need to do something impressive for men to notice them.

                  Movies no longer get any mileage out of random boobies. Instead, the boobies in The Godfather and Dirty Harry seem out of place.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think this is the solution.

                  Rather, single women are high status because they fuck around, and might fuck you.

                  The solution is obvious: Stop them.

                  We want men to be able to marry virgins, marry a woman who has not fucked a male far more alpha than their husband. One stone, two birds. Give her father all power and authority needed to stop her.

                  And if she is not stopped, shotgun marry her, ideally to the man who screwed her. And give her husband all authority and power needed to stop her from continuing to screw around. As with his house and his land, give him a fair license to use proportionate and appropriate private violence backed by society and backed by state violence, the family law of the Old Testament with enforcement as depicted in the Book of Proverbs.

                  If a girl is not going to be able to fuck you, you are going to treat her like your boring bratty little sister. Status problem solved.

                  If we have this system with polygyny, then we get the Afghan problem, the Islamic problem, a large class of incel males with no stake in society, hence the top political alphas (leading warriors and leading priests) need to price control women down and ration them to one per customer. Polygyny is less destabilizing if we have sex bots, or, as with some Islamic societies, large numbers of slave girls obtained by foreign conquest, but it is still destabilizing.

                  Sexbot and artificial womb technology is presently inadequate. Islamic solution is at present the only way to make polygyny work, which in a world of nuclear weapons, might be risky.

                  If you don’t keep women under control, polygyny becomes polyamory, which is in practice mighty harsh on men.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Rather, single women are high status because they fuck around, and might fuck you.”

                  Women in long term relationships who are pissed at their boyfriends are more likely to f*** me then single women who generally have absolutely no interest in me (I don’t want it to be this way but it just is).

                  But women are mainly interested in THEIR STATUS VS OTHER WOMEN not their status with men which is a secondary consideration.

                  Hence why confining single women to a spartan and drab wardrobe in public and not doing that to married women is a good idea.

                • jim says:

                  Agreed. Single women should be confined to a drab costume, while married women should wear whatever their husband approves.

                  That women who are pissed, or purport to be pissed, with their husbands or long term boyfriends are apt to fuck around raises the status of women pissing on their husbands. No easy cure for this other than to give husbands the right to use appropriate and proportionate violence backed by society and backed by state violence in defense of their property rights in women, similar to the way we now deal with trespass on land and hot burglary.

                • Koanic says:

                  Bible says women have to cover their hair, but not their faces.

                  Anonymity makes whoring easy. Covering the hair massively reduces sex appeal.

              • The Cominator says:

                Problem: Poor people spend and borrow foolishly putting them in danger of becoming a long term public charge on their 1st financial setback.

                Reactionary solution: Eugenics and sumptuary laws

                Marxist solution: Ban everything leisure related + planned economy.

          • peppermint says:

            Feminism in English started with this trash book they made us read about in high school and pretend to like because it’s a classic from our ancestors, that makes out King Arthur, the eternal defender of England, as a cuckold, from a time when there were no jews in England.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              ‘Le Morte a’Arthur’ was written by a norman who inserted his own OC donut steel ‘cool foreigner’ gary stu into the myth in the form of frenchy lancelot. It is only to be expected that when those of alien blood in a populace put pen to paper, the product is inevitably subversive in some manner.

            • The Cominator says:

              Arthur left for years seeking the grail and put his wife in charge of an impulsive but otherwise alpha male.

              What happened was realistic.

          • Oog en Hand says:

            What about the opposite theory, that Judaism is a feminist conspiracy to make sure all men end up with a circumcision?

            • Roberto says:

              Not so much a conscious conspiracy as gynocentrism sneaking in under an outwardly patriarchal politico-religious edifice.

        • peppermint says:

          I think blacks are probably more compatible than jews

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          The world would be a better place for group x is all other groups were removed (since they are competition).

          For Jews specifically it would be better then average for Hagnals since Jews either occupy a parasitic niche or the same niche and are thus a competitor. However Hajnal whites spend all their time fighting with each other so a non-Hajnal competitor will not be eliminated since it offers then another token to use in conflicts with each other.

          The only exception is Hitler, but he thought he was going to conquer all Hagnals and then breed them into Germans. Presumably if we get good genetic engineering the scenario will occur again.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Standard slander.

            Hitler sought to united the German-speaking parts of Europe and undo the worst excesses of the liberalism that had destroyed and re-destroyed his homeland during his lifetime and before.

            We’re only now seeing just what a terrible defeat his failure to do that was.

            Had Britain sided with Germany early on, Poland would have been spared half a century under red Russia and the current oppression coming from uncaring Brussels. Germany would not in the condition it is, and Britain&France would have had a model to look up to, rather than a ‘global partner’ guilting them into suicide.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              I’m not seeing how that is slander. If you don’t want to kill a people and you believe in competition between the races, the way you get long term cooperation is by intermarrying with them.

              As for a better path, that requires knowing what peacetime Nazi Germany would look like. Germany’s entire peacetime existence under Hitler involved massive rearmament spending for inevitable war. It could have ended with some form of legitimism. Or it could have gone further down the road to socialism and collapsed.

              • jim says:

                Seems to me that Nazi Germany did go down the road to socialism and collapse, though hard to disentangle that from the effects of the war. Hitler blamed the Jews for socialist failures, instead of backing off from socialism, or even attempting to implement socialism in a more thoughtful and careful manner.

                Socialists start off thinking socialism is easy. They fail less badly when they realize it is hard. Hitler went right on thinking it was easy.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I visited a branch of “Jack’s” today – it’s the new ‘discounter’ arm of established supermarket “Tesco”.
                  Their press releases claim they’re trying to compete with discounters like Lidl and Aldi. In actual fact, Tesco has many products which are priced lower than either of those competitors.

                  The new “Jack’s” store didn’t surprise me very much. I knew they’d be rebranding existing bottom-range items and I already expected them to increase some of the prices.

                  What I did not expect was how widespread the use of false weights&measures would be: the “Jack’s” jam was slightly dearer than the old (now withdrawn) “everyday value” jam, but it wasn’t until I got home that I discovered the jars only APPEARED similar: the new one was not only dearer but also 20% smaller lol

                  Other line items were even more interesting: their “Jack’s” rice pudding was 35p, compared the “everyday value” rice pudding still in stock at the normal “Tesco” for 30p.

                  Again I remind you, their press releases claim this is a new discounter arm created in order to compete with Lidl and Aldi (neither of whom have ever sold anything cheaper than the existing “everyday value” range).

                  The bread was cheap. I picked one up but it was obvious that it was a lot smaller than the standard UK 800g loaf. It was actually under 500g. Gram for gram it was more expensive than their mid-range loaves in the mainstream store, let alone the cheapest.

                  The bananas were on sale only at individual prices, rather than by weight. This is much more expensive.

                  And so on, and on.

                  I’d be very entertained to see you jump through hoops explaining how this is either

                  1) The gubmint
                  or
                  2) The free market pursuing profit

                  Don’t get me wrong, they ARE trying to make money, but they’re doing it through dishonesty ranging from quite convincing to blatantly obvious.

                  I have my own gut feeling as to what they’re really up to but I won’t spoil it. I want to hear you say how this is healthy and good and no sane ruler would ever raise any eyebrows at these people trying to Jack us with every dishonest price and sleazy underweighting.

                • jim says:

                  So?

                  Did evil capitalists hold a gun to your head and force you to continue shopping at “Jack’s”?

                  Their advertising told you stuff was cheaper at Jacks. You showed up. It was not cheaper. You will not be showing up in future. Problem solved.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  By the way, Asda (part of the Walmart group) tried the banana trick and were met with howls of outrage and had to pack it in. I guess if it’s tried enough, the public will eventually cave.

                  Free markets, gotta leave them be…. not like having a law stipulating mandatory weights&measurements would help *anyone who mattered* lol

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There you go, that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

                  You postulate, along with Rousseau and Hume, that all men were created equal.

                  You exclude from your ontology the possibility that there exist people who simply wouldn’t perceive *any* of that.

                  This is exactly what I’ve been saying all along: you’re an American Revolutionary Whig.

                • jim says:

                  if anyone is so dim as to not notice prices or not care about prices and portion sizes, I don’t care what happens to him, and neither should any reactionary.

                  Such people need supervision, need a system where they wind up as chattel slaves.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You contradict yourself by proposing two opposing responses.

                  “if anyone is so dim as to not notice prices or not care about prices and portion sizes, I don’t care what happens to him, and neither should any reactionary.”

                  This is the Roberto response: let them die in the gutter….. except nobody else will actually do that. What you’ll get, instead, is the welfare state.

                  “Such people need supervision, need a system where they wind up as chattel slaves.”

                  Precisely. The idea that if you just let the market cater to the most urgent of the as yet unmet needs of the largest number of people, a stable, healthy society will emerge is enticing and would be wonderful if true, but in the real world what you get instead is a kind of exploitation of the weak and weak-minded by the callous and calculating.

                  The simple truth is that most people of IQ<90 would live happier lives if they were someone's employee for life in exchange for bed&board and the ability to raise a family.

                  That's what we HAD before the Bastiats and Ricardos of the world told us to emancipate them.

                • jim says:

                  > but in the real world what you get instead is a kind of exploitation of the weak and weak-minded by the callous and calculating.

                  You live in the fantasy universe invented by Cultural Marxists in Academia, who evidently do not get out much.

                  That is just not the capitalism that I see right in front of me. I shop where the poor shop, I hire poor people, I hang out with poor people, I know what goes down.

                  I am indeed “callous and calculating” and yet I just cannot seem to find any of these weak minded people to exploit. I pay market rates for people, and buy the same goods at the same prices as everyone else. I shop where everyone else shops, and pay what everyone else pays. Right in front of me I see capitalism working as advertised: Competitive fair market prices for goods and labor.

                  You would have better luck with the Old Marxist argument that fair market prices are inherently unfair, than the new Cultural Marxist argument that consumers are the helpless puppets of advertisers.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Formulaic and much repeated call for standard left wing socialism to be imposed for standard left wing reasons deleted for excessive repetition.*]

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  So as expected you have no idea whatsoever why Tesco’s behaving the way it demonstrably is behaving.

                  Your faith in the equality of all men at the moment of their birth (with perhaps a few exceptions based on race alone) is unshakeable.

                  If Tesco’s mispricing and attempting to mislead, nobody’s falling for it because we’re all adequately rational and if anyone says otherwise, they’re just a Marxist who wants to steal your inheritance to give to the plebs so they can go and spend it instead of working.

                  It’s tiring and tired and tiresome. You’re basically Ron Paul with a smattering of male chauvinist rhetoric and shock jock views on very young girls.

                  It’s fun for a while but in the end you’re just another Whig who thinks all men were created equal.

                  In the real world, none of that bullshit was ever true. It was just the conceit of the super-intelligent.

                • jim says:

                  I shop around. I and my girl are smart, careful shoppers. I don’t see that one store has systematically higher prices than another without compensating factors that make it sometimes worth shopping there anyway.

                  So if you tell me that one shop has systematically higher prices than another and is able to get away with this by clever advertising and clever packaging that manipulates people, I conclude that you are just flat out bare faced lying about what is happening in right in front of your eyes, much as you flat out barefaced lied about the behavior of working class white people.

                  Chances are, you read this in your script, or in writings by Cultural Marxists, and then projected it onto some real or imaginary shop.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  LMAO @ “calls for left-wing socialism to be imposed”

                  What I SAID was IF you take the Roberto stance and ‘just let them starve to death’, other people will not allow this and you’ll end up with the welfare state.

                  That’s hardly a ‘call’ lol it’s a warning that you might inadvertently get something bad – pretty much the opposite of a ‘call’.

                  Sadly your first instinct is to lie and cheat.

                  It sickens me. This has happened dozens of times now and yet each time, I expect you to act differently, as if a (((((REDACTED))))) ever shows the slightest hint of honour.

                  FY

                • Roberto says:

                  Didn’t you get it the first time, CR? A King is needed precisely for this reason: to take Socialists, of all varieties, on helicopter rides. Whenever you say, “You’re going to end up with the welfare state for allowing capitalism,” the proper reactionary response is simply, “We want a King to take Socialist agitators on helicopter rises.” Socialism doesn’t magically fall from the sky. It is imposed by people — (((ahem))) — who get into power. Reaction wants a King to prevent such people from ever having power, thereby allowing capitalism to function smoothly.

                • StoneMan says:

                  “Didn’t you get it the first time, CR? A King is needed precisely for this reason: to take Socialists, of all varieties, on helicopter rides. ”
                  Well said.

                • Roberto says:

                  Addendum: the King needs to be a real capitalist. King Jeff Bezos would be decent, because Bezos is a real capitalist. King George Soros would be catastrophic, because Soros is a fake capitalist – he is a powerful priest. The Moldbug program of having a King-CEO is designed to, among other things, ensure that the ruler won’t have priestly proclivities. Why would he? He’s there to maximize profit. Real capitalism makes holiness signalling unprofitable, thus disincentivizes it. America being a communist country, its power structure selects for holiness. In a capitalist absolute monarchy, excessive holiness is *inversely* correlated with power. (And persistent excessive holiness results in a helicopter ride)

                  CR wants a powerful ruler for the exact opposite reason Moldbug does. At root, CR’s proposed ruler is simply a barking mad priest, hopelessly obsessed with TRS-type identity politics plus all-intrusive nannyism (thus a “national socialist”), who doesn’t care one bit about profit. He’s there to do Social Justice Warfare for wiggers. Or as Alrenous put it on Twitter: “tribal reversed-stupidity-is-wisdom.” Back to TRS you go!

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m suspicious of Bezos because he owns WaPo.

                  I know he doesn’t run it and the glow in the darks DO but he didn’t even try to put up a fight (the way Zuckerberg to his credit did).

                • Roberto says:

                  I chose him exactly because he is a leftist; channeling the Moldbuggian proposition that even a moderately left-wing real capitalist can be aligned with a NRx regime, unlike anti-capitalist despots. Obviously, a right-wing capitalist would be much preferable.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I chose him exactly because he is a leftist; channeling the Moldbuggian proposition that even a moderately left-wing real capitalist can be aligned with a NRx regime, unlike anti-capitalist despots. Obviously, a right-wing capitalist would be much preferable.”

                  Yeah better off to go with Trump or Erik Prince.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  I chose him exactly because he is a leftist

                  Read this https://www.isegoria.net/2018/10/some-russian-guy-tried-it-15-years-ago/ and see if you’re still convinced that Bezos is a leftist.

                  I’m not.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Yeah better off to go with Trump or Erik Prince.

                  That’s true; I would add that a break-up of the US (predicted by many) is likely to entail a pluralization of sovereignty – which, if concurrent with a transition from democracy to monarchy, will result in a plurality of Kings. The kingdom most amenable to Dark Enlightenment ideas — patriarchy, HBD/ethno-nationalism, a healthy state religion, catallaxy, and so forth — will prosper, in accordance with Gnon’s Law.

                • Roberto says:

                  Illuminating article, Steve. It shows that when Bezos defers to the Cathedral, he does it because he is aware, on some of level, of the status hierarchy of leftism: the priestly class is high on top. (Trump drives the shitlibs aka NPCs nuts precisely because he conspicuously fails to affirm the leftist status hierarchy) Bezos can make for an excellent King of California.

                • peppermint says:

                  Also see the post in which Moldbug points out that Scott Alexander is aware of how the government actually works in his professional career.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto:

                  You just repeat the same libertarian wishful thinking.

                  That’s what they were saying in 1820.

                  “Didn’t you get it the first time, CR? A King is needed precisely for this reason: to take Socialists, of all varieties, on helicopter rides. Whenever you say, “You’re going to end up with the welfare state for allowing capitalism,” the proper reactionary response is simply, “We want a King to take Socialist agitators on helicopter rises.” Socialism doesn’t magically fall from the sky. It is imposed by people — (((ahem))) — who get into power”

                  There are two angles to look at this crap that you’ve said at least a dozen times now without taking the slightest heed of history.

                  1) You think a healthy society is one in which millions of white people die inbetween contracts so that Jeff Bezos’ bottom line can be 1% higher.

                  2) You think you can intimidate Eric Sprott out of feeding those people before they die.

                  It’s completely retarded.

                  You cut workers loose whenever you don’t need them and the lower IQ, lower agency ones get into serious trouble.

                  Then people like me, and others who don’t like stepping over beggars in the street, start feeding them.

                  Then cases are identified in the public consciousness where nobody spotted them in time, so we create a bureaucracy. At first this is a 100% privately funded charitable foundation.

                  What I’m saying is that this morphs steadily into a state institution, for various reasons you can glean from history: it’s happened EVERYWHERE.

                  But let’s say, ad arguendo, that it remains 100% private.

                  A libertarian rat like you will say that that’s just NOT a welfare state. Then you’ll start hand-waving about helicopter rides.

                  Last time I checked, Christopher Cantwell’s aerial body count was still zero.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “when Bezos defers to the Cathedral, he does it because he is aware, on some of level, of the status hierarchy of leftism”

                  I’m yet to hear even a single argument, let alone piece of evidence, as to why Jeff Bezos can’t be explained much more simply thusly: HE IS A LEFTIST HIMSELF

                • Roberto says:

                  Private charity is not a welfare state, CR. So what’s the problem? If the King says “we shall not have Socialism,” then we shall not have Socialism. That’s why he’s the King.

                  Also, millions of dead whites is your sheer fantasy. Just how many useless pathetic wiggers do you think there *are*? (Not that it matters, in principle, but the answer is “not a whole lot”) Now, there will probably be millions dead, but they won’t be whites…

                  I’ll repeat: a safety net for those struck by misfortune is not a bad thing. Abolishing capitalism is a bad, insane, demented thing. These aren’t the same thing. And no, the safety net won’t become Socialism, because the King will give Socialists helicopter rides.

                  Poor people (regardless of race, but it’s overwhelmingly NAMs) who wantonly waste all their money — including charity money — on fast food *deserve elimination*.

                  I don’t give a shit about your e-celebs.

                • peppermint says:

                  If everyone including you pretends to be a leftoid to the extent required by law, then acting like a leftoid to the extent required by law signals fascist wrecker status.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Jeff Bezos can’t be explained much more simply thusly: HE IS A LEFTIST HIMSELF

                  It’s not so obvious that he’s a leftist. What’s certain, however, is that he’d make for a much better King than you (i.e. anyone holding your positions) would.

                  By the way, is there any more effective way to destroy NRx — whose “above top secret” program is to recruit the rich and the powerful, with special focus on the Silicon Valley set — than to convince NRx to hate billionaires in general and tech-billionaires in particular?

                  Like, nigga, where the fuck do you think you *are*?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  At risk of over-using the NPC meme, you’re really a bunch of NPCs.

                  I already told you you’d respond with “private charity is not the welfare state” and you responded

                  “Private charity is not a welfare state, CR. So what’s the problem?”

                  ROFL

                  Fine, cutting workers loose will inevitably lead to something which is exactly like the welfare state but with different name badges.

                  Are you still going to rage at me for making the prediction you now totally accept so long as the name badges are very carefully worded lol

                  You’re like John Major / Tony Blair: SEEEEEEEE? We privatised it: it’s being run by Virgin/Serco!
                  Just look at the name badges you damn socialist!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  but but but but but but my private charity won’t even be FUNDED by tax lol

                  (just by a social expectation that everyone will ‘chip in’, a kind of white zakat – again, look..at..the..name..badges..CR lol)

                  Sure it looks exactly like a tax-funded welfare state and creates the exact same outcomes and incentives; sure it’ll start no strings and end up as Duncan Smith’s Work Programme, but it’s totally totally private, just like the housing association that totally doesn’t ‘run’, just ‘organises’ shall we say, my covenant community lol

                  It hit me about a year ago: the difference between Hoppe and the town council is the same as the difference between Circle Healthcare and the NHS

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “By the way, is there any more effective way to destroy NRx — whose “above top secret” program is to recruit the rich and the powerful, with special focus on the Silicon Valley set — than to convince NRx to hate billionaires in general and tech-billionaires in particular?”

                  lolwut?

                  How’s that goin for ya

                • Roberto says:

                  Commie.

                  People freely donating to a charity of their choice, if and when they so desire, and discontinuing (or re-directing) their donations if and when they so desire, donating as much as they themselves voluntarily choose to donate, is absolutely dissimilar to the welfare state.

                  And there won’t be a welfare state, or any other kind of Socialism, if the King says, “Socialist agitators go on helicopter rides.”

                • Roberto says:

                  >How’s that goin for ya

                  I’m not part of the conspiracy, nor would I tell you even if I were.

                • peppermint says:

                  Tech CEOs are all leftoids. Our role is to tell the namefags, whose job it is to be popular with sheeple, when they’re deviating too left, and when they could be more popular by staying to the right, especially on women, but also on communism.

                • Roberto says:

                  As usual, Jim is right: when CR fulminates against KFC, he’s not referring to anything that has to do with white workers. No, he’s describing the behavior of IQ<90 blacks. These "people," and those who behave in a manner similar to them, deserve to be enslaved, exterminated in death camps, or something similar. Being both ethical and economical, my simple suggestion is to legalize cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and meth, quarantine the garbage where it belongs (away from humans), then sit back leisurely, sip a nice glass of vodka lemonade as you overlook the beautiful sunset, and exuberantly watch the coons, the deviants, and the trash weeding themselves out of existence.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You don’t understand how IQ works.

                  There will still be people with IQs under 90 in a eugenically modified homogeneous white society.

                  This is why murderous toe-rags like you should be in prison, not in government.

                  My claim about people is very modest and demonstrably true: large numbers of people are not fit to ‘run’ their own lives, and should in fact be someone’s bell-boy or footman. That certainly is NOT limited to black people, no matter how many times you assert that it’s so.

                  My claim about society is that capitalism is the out-sourcing of all responsibility from employers, such that instead of having staff for life, with all the obligations that go with such arrangements, instead the employers ‘buy units of labour’ from ‘the labour pool’. Emancipating business from the Crown just transfers the need to feed, house and clothe workers away from employers and onto everyone else. Where the Crown had a sense of ‘noblesse oblige’, the capitalist has a sense of “why should I pay you NOT to work? you daft peasant, go find alternative arrangements: it’s none of my concern”.

                  And this community sides with that, because you’re Whigs. You APPROVE of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie from lawful authority because you’re at heart anarchists and revolutionaries.

                  A reactionary spirit says “no” to the bourgeoisie with the same conviction as it says “no” to the peasants demanding wealth transfers and voting rights in how society’s organised.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jim goes on and on and binding apprentinceship. Taking on used up whores to serve as barmaids and derpy guys from the poor house for whatever is forbidden for some reason. You blame capitalism. So is marriage. Presumably, pimps paid the government to ban marriage to expand their trade in whores, which is good for the GDP.

                  Maybe you will write a document detailing how these relationships should be managed. Maybe you can promise that your document says nothing more than what the religious guidelines for these relationships are.

                • Roberto says:

                  >There will still be people with IQs under 90 in a eugenically modified homogeneous white society.

                  This is not about standard deviations. Even if the mean white IQ is raised to e.g. 140, there will still be (rare) deleterious de novo mutations causing their carriers to be idiots. Freaks gonna freak. That doesn’t invalidate eugenics and doesn’t invalidate the civilizational incentive to eliminate, or at least sterilize, genetically inferior specimen. Just the opposite: eugenics is absolutely indispensable as long as there’s a risk that idiocy will perpetuate itself.

                  Now, I’m not saying that idiotic mutants all belong in death camps; if they manage to not cause too many troubles, if they are well behaved, then by all means, let them live among general society, either as slaves (generally, that would be IQ<80), or even as freemen. And if they cause troubles for themselves through their own reckless stupidity, well, tough luck for them. Boo hoo. Society has no need for idiots and no obligation to save them from themselves.

                  In any society where the mean IQ has reached 140, or reached 125, people born in a healthy condition with IQs large numbers of people are not fit to ‘run’ their own lives, and should in fact be someone’s bell-boy or footman. That certainly is NOT limited to black people, no matter how many times you assert that it’s so.

                  Never claimed it’s limited to niggers. Stop lying.

                  Just the opposite: niggers should be enslaved, i.e. privately owned, and those who behave like niggers without even possessing a single drop of Sub-Saharan African blood, should likewise be privately owned. So the solution to the moron problem is slavery, death camps for those who behave very badly – or, if a nigger (figurative or literal) is neither a slave, nor prone to violent crime, allowing it to be ‘free,’ which means that Thomas Sowell can live next door, and his retarded kin get to overdose on crack. The solution is emphatically not abolishing capitalism. Capitalism and eugenics can create a positive feedback loop.

                • Roberto says:

                  (Meh – this comment got all scrambled)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Who’s this higher IQ for?

                  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that higher IQ wouldn’t be a very good thing for society overall, but I just get this nagging suspicion with your combination of priorities that you want this for nefarious reasons.

                  Priorities demonstrated:

                  1. Increasing IQ even if it means millions of people suffering and probably starving or otherwise dying

                  2. Unwavering support for the profit motive and the sanctity of capitalism, excusing all contrary evidence with really stretched excuses

                  My gut’s telling me you want to increase GDP.

                  Look this just goes round and round and round.

                  You lot aren’t loyal to the people of the white nations. You’re loyal to *something* but it’s not quite clear what it is: it’s definitely not the people.

                  Are you just rebellious technocrats?

                • Roberto says:

                  If that’s what your gut is telling you, you need to see a gastroenterologist. That said, I think you’re slowly starting to grasp what this is all about. Now, you just need to keep in mind that “we” are not a monolith… nuff said.

                • Eli says:

                  >1. Increasing IQ even if it means millions of people suffering and probably starving or otherwise dying

                  Life is evil, inherently. Either you continue with it, struggling and improving it incrementally, little by little or you destroy the whole Universe and stop Time itself. I’ve asked God countless times why he started life and the Universe altogether, but he never deigned to reply. You can’t do the latter, so the only moral thing is to do the former — as best as you can, obeying the laws of this Universe (on that later).

                  Do you know how much suffering it took to create you? I mean, the true suffering, as it’s integrated across billions of years? Those who willingly decide to not reproduce, despite possibility of family, are spitting in the face of their ancestors, and shit on their ancestors’ suffering, into their lineage stretching all the way to amoeba.

                  The irony, of course, is that you pretend to care about millions of people & and apes living presently, while failing to see the worth of people in the past and in the future.

                  IQ didn’t increase by statist organs, by bureaucrats with no skin in the game unilaterally deciding so and creating specialized institutions. It was increased slowly, generation after generation, by people living lives focused on their own immediate family, self, clan, and community. By waging wars and intrigue of survival on all these levels. It was not always fair and certainly not glamorous. It was painful, bitter. And the only things that people could turn to for relief were not so much things per se but each other and the power over each other.

                  I like a Greg Cochran’s post’s title “Burning seed corn” — this is what’s happening right now and it’s of order, no, several orderS higher magnitude of importance than some niggers or wiggers needing to become slaves or suffering from not being accommodated or, mostly, from their own stupidity.

                  >2. Unwavering support for the profit motive and the sanctity of capitalism, excusing all contrary evidence with really stretched excuses

                  Across time (and am, fairly certain, space) universal patterns and laws emerged. One can argue whether these laws precede the creation of the structures that they govern or whether these laws are simply emergent. It’s not germane to this discussion.

                  What’s important is that, for humans, these laws are expressed in the Old Testament, and in the oral traditions of people living presently. There are also meta-principles that both derive from and can generalize those laws, such as the need for skin in the game.

                  Looking at humans from a bird’s eye view, as aggregates of beings living together, the principle of capitalism is one of those things. It is recognizing the reality of the inherent evil of all beings, including humans and arranging such evils in a way that, overall, leads to a production of good. But organizing anything on large scale is inherently hard. Capitalism is one of those naturally robust arrangements that can, given existence of sufficient loyalty and group cohesion (as there is a need for enforcing peacefulness of the exchange) enable the above good to persevere.

                  Socialist structures (and this includes charity) can work only on the scale of a family unit, or maybe, small community. Any large scale, and these arrangements are no longer stable, and, in fact tend to result in bloody conflict and destruction when forced. They tend to attract people with no skin in the game advocating taking other people’s stuff or prohibiting actions and even motives beyond basic Laws, and said well-wishing demagogues and their helpers bringing the downfall of the very system and people they allegedly want to help. Sooner or later.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Life is evil, inherently

                  Zardiz says the penis is evil. God looked His creation and said it’s good.

                • peppermint says:

                  If “Satan’s green Earth” is the way you want to interpret the Old Testament, go ahead. I don’t intend to worship, kill, or have anything to do with your people.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Fine, you’re part of the coalition of those who put Whig concerns (in your case capitalism and eugenics) ahead of the people, and will not help us survive.

                  Fine, it’s not as if you’re the only ones.

                  Congratulations, you’ve joined the ranks of the useless.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Whig concerns (in your case capitalism and eugenics) ahead of the people, and will not help us survive.

                  Hahahahaha, not only do you fail at being a commie, you also fail at being a nazi.

                • peppermint says:

                  That’s right CR. Not just binding apprentinceships instead of college, and workhouse slavery or monastic discipline for men who can’t hack it in the real economy. No, you’re more reactionary than us because you want to ban ordinary White men from eating pizza, a discipline that a monastery would only impose as a punishment, and enslave them to their employers, despite their ability to manage their own affairs.

                  And only a libertarian would oppose you oppressing the poor and stealing from the wage laborer.

                  Once again: thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s tendies.

                • Eli says:

                  This my personal outlook. From the days way before any serious religious immersion. I shared a lot of my view with Schopenhauer, albeit I discovered him after my view became formed. In a sense, his nihilism resonated with me.

                  The point is that, one can start with very nihilistic assumptions but, if one has a thinking brain and perceptiveness, can go in a completely different direction. Similar happened to Nietzsche, student of Schopenhauer, if I recall correctly.

              • peppermint says:

                Intermarrying Whites with X means the children are X aligned. That doesn’t promote cooperation, that invites further conflict, until we start using cloned eggs, which is inevitable now as there are many more capable White men than fertile White women.

                CR talks like the power of the jew is money, but since the 90s jews have been at the forefront of campaign finance reform. They used campaign finance when they had good memes: when they were subsidizing one White against another as their platforms benefited jews.

                CR is confused into blaming jews for what they don’t do and capitalists for what jews do and ultimately into agreeing with the liberals for all the wrong reasons as if anyone cares why.

                (agreeing with the liberals for the wrong reasons is a troll, and it trolled them into rejecting young White men out of hand)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You still don’t get it Peppermint. I DON’T agree with the liberals: YOU do!

                  You just think the liberal programme should have settled into a steady state around 1850, and are gutted that it started to include outright insane characteristics starting with ‘big government’ and ending (for now at least) with white genocide and transgender preschoolers.

                  What you idiots fail to grasp is what Carlyle told you back in 1850: that’s the path those ideas will always take.
                  You have to restore noblesse oblige, because if you don’t, you get the welfare state and mass franchise democracy.

                  The cause of the European democratic revolutions was the laziness of the various rulers: they wanted someone else to look after their nations, and the capitalists were claiming to be willing and able.
                  Capitalism is a ‘phantasm captain’. Capitalism is democracy.

                  All I hear from you idiots is that Whiggery was just fine and dandy until 1850 then it went wrong and we just need to get it back on track so that it’ll work its laissez-faire magic again.

                  What you fail to understand is that it NEVER worked any magic. 1600 to 1850 was the afterglow of habits and traditions that took a thousand years to hone. They didn’t take a thousand years to destroy.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Intermarrying Whites with X means the children are X aligned.”

                  I’m talking about intermarrying French and German. Speaking about the unique essence of your nation is well and good, but if you don’t have any gene flow with neighboring populations you eventually speciate.

                  Yes, it is a long term thing. We are talking about Hitler who was perfectly willing to think about esoteric long term things.

                • peppermint says:

                  It’s funny because you openly admit to being unable to think about things before sounding off on them.

                  You say “those ideas”, meaning “capitalism”, meaning some combination of what progressives, Striker and Enoch, and you personally, say capitalism is.

                • peppermint says:

                  French + German in France is German-aligned and in Germany is French aligned. In America is White, so maybe wants to live in America.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The much repeated central lie of Marxism and Marxists deleted yet again.

                • jim says:

                  > rule by money-power

                  We have heard all this crap before far too many times.

                  This is formulaic Marxist crap which elides the distinction between individual private property rights and the collective rule of the capitalist class. You speak of individuals ruling over their own property selfishly in their own interest, using the words applicable to individual property rights, and yet you are in fact talking about the capitalist class selfishly owning the society and collectively ruling the society in the selfish interest of the capitalist class.

                  This stupid trick of rhetoric, sliding between one meaning and a contrary meaning, is targeted at stupid people. We see it everywhere over and over again, and I am not going to see it on my blog.

                  Absolute Monarchy is not socialism, it is the opposite of socialism. The King is absolute in that he could potentially intervene in any decision, or take charge of any property, but being mortal, cannot intervene in every decision, nor take charge of every property, and were he to attempt to do so, power would slip from his hands into the hands of a vast and faceless anarcho tyrannical bureaucracy.

                  And, if he claims divine right, he rules under God, so should not intervene in any decision, but only the exception, nor confiscate any property, but only the exception. He gets to decide the exception, but it is morally wrong for the exception to swallow the rule, as well as being unwise, for if the exception swallows the rule, he empowers a vast and dangerously powerful bureaucracy, which will eventually murder him or his sons.

                  God commands Kings not let the exception swallow the rule, in the same way as he commands you to wash your hands and refrain from sticking your little man up other people’s assholes.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Rule By Money Power
                  ************************

                  “This is formulaic Marxist crap which elides the distinction between individual private property rights and the collective rule of the capitalist class.”

                  You’re actively trying to be dishonest at this point. You think you’re turning it into a virtue.
                  Accidentally you sometimes touch on the truth.
                  It’s not that individual property rights merge into the ‘collective rule of the capitalist class’: it’s that what any one individual does with his property has effects on others.

                  Libertarians are very quick to deny this, or to pretend it doesn’t matter even if they admit it’s real.

                  It’s surprising to find people self-identifying as reactionaries taking the same position.

                  “You speak of individuals ruling over their own property selfishly in their own interest, using the words applicable to individual property rights, and yet you are in fact talking about the capitalist class selfishly owning the society and collectively ruling the society in the selfish interest of the capitalist class.”

                  In a way that’s right. It’s about the locus of responsibility for ensuring basic positive human rights for low agency low IQ workers.
                  Prior to capitalism, the responsibility was totally clear: if you were the serf of some local chieftain, it was part of his role in society to ensure you had a roof over your head, clothes to wear, all the tools and materials you needed to complete your work, and enough for you and your family to eat.

                  After capitalism? Somewhere between “nobody has such a responsibility” and “the individual shall provide for himself”.
                  In practice, that just doesn’t work, which is why what you always see under laissez-faire capitalism with labour as a commodity is *some kind* of social security safety net where the whole of society ends up paying.

                  Roberto accepted that it was likely some kind of private charity would indeed take on that role.

                  You on the other hand seem to be stuck at the starting gate, believing what the Whigs told you: that nobody needs to do it. Anarchy will provide.

                  “This stupid trick of rhetoric, sliding between one meaning and a contrary meaning, is targeted at stupid people.”

                  It’s nothing of the kind. I’m not saying a cabal of evil capitalists secretly rule the world. I’m saying that under laissez-faire, which you favour, and under which we do not currently live, society is ruled by property rights, which means employers are not responsible for their workers’ lives.

                  You can look at that through a class lens if you want, although it’s perverse, since you seem to like to pretend to be allergic to that way of thinking.
                  It works just as well through the individual lens: Seamus hasn’t got a guaranteed supply of meal if his contract ends under capitalism.

                  “Absolute Monarchy is not socialism, it is the opposite of socialism. The King is absolute in that he could potentially intervene in any decision, or take charge of any property, but being mortal, cannot intervene in every decision, nor take charge of every property, and were he to attempt to do so, power would slip from his hands into the hands of a vast and faceless anarcho tyrannical bureaucracy.”

                  That’s not what you believe. You believe he either would not, or could not, look at a place like BetFred or Bella Italia and decide it just has to go.
                  That’s a far cry from ‘absolute’ power.

                  “And, if he claims divine right, he rules under God, so should not intervene in any decision, but only the exception, nor confiscate any property, but only the exception. He gets to decide the exception, but it is morally wrong for the exception to swallow the rule, as well as being unwise, for if the exception swallows the rule, he empowers a vast and dangerously powerful bureaucracy, which will eventually murder him or his sons.”

                  I still fail to see how this bureaucracy emerges from simple commands to cease&desist.
                  You’re the one swapping concepts around liberally (in both senses of the word). You use ‘intervene’ in two senses: the sense I use it (to tell them to GTFO) and the sense of complex systems of regulation.
                  If it’s the latter, I agree with you and have never proposed anything remotely like that. It absolutely does NOT require a complex system of regulation to tell Bella Italia they’ve done wrong and they won’t do wrong any more because they’re shutting down to make space for family pizza shops to do good.
                  Family pizza shops can work out for themselves what to do to stay on the King’s good side, and it’s not complicated: don’t poison your customers, don’t over-charge and don’t push seditious ideas.

                  “God commands Kings not let the exception swallow the rule, in the same way as he commands you to wash your hands and refrain from sticking your little man up other people’s assholes.”

                  You under-estimate the extent to which God’s commandments apply.
                  Like all libertarians, you care about property rights and so on, but you don’t care about the structure of society.
                  You think you can abolish the social hierarchy and have anarchy produce an emergent social order to take its place.

                  We’ve tried it and it’s failed miserably. Carlyle’s ship needs a REAL captain. As he put it, these things have already been voted on. They don’t need the ‘votes’ of the market to decide them: they were decided before.

                  The peasantry requires the aristocracy, not some weird market anarchy of emergent contingent provisional semi-aristocracy with all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

                  It’s unjust, unstable and disgusting. Carlyle again, what has America, this great success of British democracy, produced in the way of great art, great architecture, great thought? (He was writing in 1850. Arguably America’s contribution to the philosophy and aesthetics of societal COLLAPSE has been impressive and admirable!!!!!!!)

                  Look you have every right to be some kind of pseudo-reactionary, Christian-leaning libertarian blogger.

                  Sure some of your regular commenters are vile and murderous, while others are just you on steroids – basically Hans-Hermann Hoppe minus the overlapping competing military agencies lol

                  But ultimately it’s good that you’re doing what you do so it’s not all that important to hammer out every single issue.

                  But you don’t get to call real reactionaries socialists without taking some flak. We want what you want back to 1820, then we want some more, back to 1500 or further potentially: with modern technology obviously, up to a point and so long as it really benefits us.

                  (That’s a separate discussion, and of course you dismiss any scepticism of Xerox machines and mobile phones as Luddism, without considering that perhaps the Luddites had a point.)

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  We have all heard this Marxist crap before, but to demonstrate good faith, leaving it up.

                  Everything you say is a lie, and they are old lies that have been rebutted so many times, not going to rebut all of them all over again.

                  Subsequent repeats will be deleted.

                  But, if I leave something up unrebutted, you will claim that I accepted it, that we are all agreed that it is true. So, going down the list.

                  > It’s not that individual property rights merge into the ‘collective rule of the capitalist class’: it’s that what any one individual does with his property has effects on others.

                  Lying about your own argument. You are framing your argument as externalities, but you are not in fact arguing externalities, but Marxist Class theory – that Capitalism consists of rule by the Capitalist class, therefore if Kings rule, or feudal lords rule, or the high priest rules, not capitalism, therefore capitalism is a quite recent development, and we will do fine without it.

                  No, capitalism goes back to at least the early Iron Age, the Ten Commandments and the Book of Proverbs, and probably all the way back to the neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck.

                  > Libertarians are very quick to deny this, or to pretend it doesn’t matter even if they admit it’s real.

                  Barefaced lie, much repeated, a lie about what Libertarians say, about what Republicans say, and about what anyone who does not want to murder the kulaks says.

                  Anyone who repeats this lie intends to murder everyone like me. You are issuing a lie about what I say, about what everyone you intend to murder says, against Libertarians, against every halfway decent person. Externalities are not an argument against capitalism, nor even for regulation, and libertarians do not concede that they are such an argument. Externalities reflect the imperfect alignment of property rights with the costs and benefits of decisions, and centralizing decision making to one big supreme decision maker makes the problem harder, not easier.

                  > It’s surprising to find people self-identifying as reactionaries taking the same position.

                  We take that position because we don’t want people like you killing people like us. To be more precise, nobody takes that position, but everyone who is worried by the mass murders of the twentieth century takes the position that you are misrepresenting. It is not that externalities don’t exist or don’t matter, it is that they are a hard problem without easy solutions and any attempted solution is apt to wind up murdering one hundred million people.

                  > > “You speak of individuals ruling over their own property selfishly in their own interest, using the words applicable to individual property rights, and yet you are in fact talking about the capitalist class selfishly owning the society and collectively ruling the society in the selfish interest of the capitalist class.”

                  > In a way that’s right.

                  It is exactly right.

                  > > “This stupid trick of rhetoric, sliding between one meaning and a contrary meaning, is targeted at stupid people.”

                  > It’s nothing of the kind. I’m not saying a cabal of evil capitalists secretly rule the world. I’m saying that under laissez-faire, which you favour, and under which we do not currently live, society is ruled by property rights, which means employers are not responsible for their workers’ lives.

                  You employ the Motte and Bailey fallacy

                  To argue from the motte is to argue from a strongly defensible position, whereas to argue from the bailey is to make broad and far reaching statements that are poorly defended.

                  The conclusions that you argue for do not follow from the entirely defensible proposition that employers are not responsible for their employees lives, but from the proposition that the Capitalist Class Rules the world. You slide between these meanings.

                  > I still fail to see how this bureaucracy emerges from simple commands to cease&desist.

                  Motte and Bailey argument, scarcely worth rebutting, but as a gesture of good faith, and treating you as if you were an actual human being rather than a old script regurgitating old Marxist lies:

                  You are not proposing to outlaw certain clear specific, identifiable, and uncomplicated bad acts, but proposing an enormous regulatory state arrogantly intruding into every minute detail of every person’s life with the most savage violence, into every waking moment of every person’s life with casual brutality. The nature of externalities is that they cannot be simply forbidden, they consist of blurry consequences of actions that slide over between one’s person’s life, activities, and decisions, and another person’s life, activities, and decisions, they happen at the blurry unclear interface between people. That is what an externality is. It is something where it is hard to draw lines. So you cannot simply say “Stop doing X”. You have to say “Do Y and do it exactly the way I tell you to do it.”

                  So you tell them to make bricks, and there is no straw, so you tell them to make bricks without straw, and then you punish them when the building falls down.

                  Thus for example, Venezuela cannot simply tell people to cease and desist from selling bread at more than price such and such. Venezuela has to tell the baker to sell bread at price so and so. And then the baker says says he has no flour, so Venezuela says …

                  For example you complained about the packaging a supermarket uses. So you are going to wind up designing their packaging for them. And you complained about their prices. Venezuela tried a simple cease and desist order on prices. Observe the results.

                  The baker does not provide bread at the commanded price, so the government cracks down. And then the baker does not provide bread at all. So the Venezuelan government takes over the bakery, and then the shelves are emptied, and mysteriously fail to refill by themselves.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Cummunist Revolutionary: “(That’s a separate discussion, and of course you dismiss any scepticism of Xerox machines and mobile phones as Luddism, without considering that perhaps the Luddites had a point.)”

                  Anyone who tries to confine Mankind to the Earth, anyone who tries to make Earth, Man’s prison…
                  Is an enemy of human civilization.

                  May Prophet Elon Musk and his fully reusable BFR take to the skies and fly Maezaki around the Moon!

                • Roberto says:

                  The gist of CR-topia is:

                  “Peasants digging the same patch of earth for eternity.”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto mocks:

                  “The gist of CR-topia is:

                  “Peasants digging the same patch of earth for eternity.””

                  Sure, or to put it a better way, Europe as it was from the time of Charles the Hammer to the time of Henry V.

                  Except with relevant modern technology. Instead of one library per city, one vast library available to all on demand. Instead of expensive concerts put on once in a while for a local congregation, concerts streamed across the globe and funded by everyone through the tax code.
                  Instead of picking taties by hand, nice machinery and nice fertiliser, all the advantages of modernity that actually enrich people’s lives.

                  But yes, basically stability over time.

                  Horribly reactionary, isn’t it.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Instead of one library per city, one vast library available to all on demand.

                  Already provided, unless you mean free Netflix, which may or may not be the BBC

                  > Instead of expensive concerts put on once in a while for a local congregation, concerts streamed across the globe and funded by everyone through the tax code.

                  You must really like the British government.

                  > Instead of picking taties by hand, nice machinery and nice fertiliser, all the advantages of modernity that actually enrich people’s lives.

                  …and eating them as fries at the burger place, or is that a sin?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim’s detailed argument that pre-Civil War England was a communist country:

                  “You are framing your argument as externalities, but you are not in fact arguing externalities, but Marxist Class theory – that Capitalism consists of rule by the Capitalist class, therefore if Kings rule, or feudal lords rule, or the high priest rules, not capitalism, therefore capitalism is a quite recent development, and we will do fine without it.

                  No, capitalism goes back to at least the early Iron Age, the Ten Commandments and the Book of Proverbs, and probably all the way back to the neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck.”

                  That early mediaeval stock market, all those booms and busts, how did they manage with quills and parchments!

                  No Jim, that’s just not true. Capitalism is when owners of capital are beholden to no man: their power speaks for itself. If you want to work, we’ll hire you at the market rate. If you want to buy, we’ll sell on the open market. Competition will set prices and no man has the right to interfere. Let us be, that we can produce. We are the producer class, the engine the moves the world!

                  It’s predicated on the equality of all men, the illegitimacy of divine rule (or any rule ultimately apart from the rule of law, of judges) and the primacy of buying and selling when it comes to health and happiness.

                  It’s a Whig sham.

                  “Externalities are not an argument against capitalism, nor even for regulation, and libertarians do not concede that they are such an argument.”

                  I know they don’t! I’m not arguing for regulation, as I may have mentioned LOL
                  What I’m saying is that when I set up an online casino and tell the peasantry to “gamble responsibly”, this has effects not just on my customers but on society as a whole.
                  I do not want to live in the kind of society where it’s just understood that some people will take marijuana today and I do not want to live in the kind of society in which literature and music are dumbed down to the lowest common denominator until Beethoven requires justification but Taylor Swift does not.

                  “Externalities reflect the imperfect alignment of property rights with the costs and benefits of decisions, and centralizing decision making to one big supreme decision maker makes the problem harder, not easier.”

                  Straight out of Milton Friedman. Tell me about the tall chimleys, Jim.

                  You’re recasting what I’ve said as standard leftist ‘externalities’ arguments. That’s not what I said. What I said was that Franky&Benny’s actions have consequences far beyond their immediate transactions. We live in a consumerist Utopia where anyone who DOESN’T live paycheck to paycheck is low status.

                  “We take that position because we don’t want people like you killing people like us. To be more precise, nobody takes that position, but everyone who is worried by the mass murders of the twentieth century takes the position that you are misrepresenting.”

                  Do you have a single example of a 20th century society that ever questioned any of the things I’m questioning?
                  Just one will do.
                  [[Insert bog standard socialist example that disapproved of wealth inequality as convenient replacement for an actual argument]]

                  “It is not that externalities don’t exist or don’t matter, it is that they are a hard problem without easy solutions and any attempted solution is apt to wind up murdering one hundred million people.”

                  Well that’s why I haven’t once mentioned chimley stacks or dirty washing.
                  What I’ve said repeatedly is that certain companies – BetFred and Domino’s being the poster boys – are doing things that are harmful to society as a whole, creating an ugly, fragile culture and inculcating toxic values: me first, more more more, I want the red one.

                  “> > “You speak of individuals ruling over their own property selfishly in their own interest, using the words applicable to individual property rights, and yet you are in fact talking about the capitalist class selfishly owning the society and collectively ruling the society in the selfish interest of the capitalist class.”

                  > In a way that’s right.

                  It is exactly right.”

                  No it’s not EXACTLY right, but in a way it is right: the people who own these restaurant chains and gambling dens aren’t affected by them. In your gated community, most people don’t live paycheck to paycheck on account of their dining habits. You’ve said so yourself.
                  Well lucky old you. Some of my friends are weighed upon heavily by the demands of the consumer culture and it’s affecting them in demonstrable, measurable ways that are unsafe and unsound.

                  I’m talking about individuals, not a class of people. If I buy shares in BetFred, I’m not benefiting from something that doesn’t affect my neighbourhood. It DOES affect my neighbourhood.
                  The CEO of BetFred is unaffected.

                  THAT is the sense in which the above citation is ‘in a way right’.

                  NOT in the broad sweeping sense you’re trying to project.

                  “> I’m not saying a cabal of evil capitalists secretly rule the world. I’m saying that under laissez-faire, which you favour, and under which we do not currently live, society is ruled by property rights, which means employers are not responsible for their workers’ lives.

                  You employ the Motte and Bailey fallacy”

                  That’s not true at all. I’m laying my cards on the table. Under laissez-faire, employers owe wahtever’s in the contract to the employee and nothing more.

                  Under laissez-faire, society is destablised *by that*, not by secret cabals of evil capitalists twirling their moustaches. It’s destablised *BY* the fact that any employer owes nothing more to the employee than what’s in his employment contract.

                  This in stark contrast to the responsibilities incurred through noblesse oblige by the Lord to his footman.

                  “The conclusions that you argue for do not follow from the entirely defensible proposition that employers are not responsible for their employees lives, but from the proposition that the Capitalist Class Rules the world. You slide between these meanings.”

                  Not the capitalist class: capitalISM. CapitalISM is the fact that employers do not owe employees anything beyond what’s in their contract.
                  CapitalISM is what replaced feudalISM.

                  – block quote –

                  “> I still fail to see how this bureaucracy emerges from simple commands to cease&desist.

                  Motte and Bailey argument, scarcely worth rebutting, but as a gesture of good faith, and treating you as if you were an actual human being rather than a old script regurgitating old Marxist lies:

                  You are not proposing to outlaw certain clear specific, identifiable, and uncomplicated bad acts, but proposing an enormous regulatory state arrogantly intruding into every minute detail of every person’s life with the most savage violence, into every waking moment of every person’s life with casual brutality. The nature of externalities is that they cannot be simply forbidden, they consist of blurry consequences of actions that slide over between one’s person’s life, activities, and decisions, and another person’s life, activities, and decisions, they happen at the blurry unclear interface between people. That is what an externality is. It is something where it is hard to draw lines. So you cannot simply say “Stop doing X”. You have to say “Do Y and do it exactly the way I tell you to do it.”

                  So you tell them to make bricks, and there is no straw, so you tell them to make bricks without straw, and then you punish them when the building falls down.”

                  This is just in your imagination. All I’ve EVER said is that any sane person observing the behaviour of Franky&Benny’s customers will wonder why they’re doing it. What’s in it for them to make themselves permanently poor while handing over such large amounts to these companies?
                  It turns out there’s a widespread culture, cultivated through highly effective marketing campaigns, that’s established a kind of minimum socially acceptable standard of consumption. It’s a delicate operation ranging from “The Big Bang Theory” to the central banks setting low interest rates.

                  Once this culture’s been ended, things can return to normal. Just like Moldbug’s martial law, it’s a temporary measure to restore order so that other priorities can be attained.

                  Closing down the restaurants would be deeply unjust and unpopular, but people would get over it. They wouldn’t notice at first, but give it three months and they’d suddenly have a lot more money and be less worried about an unexpected dental bill or a boiler going wrong.
                  They’d be less anxious when winter lasted longer than expected.

                  Pretty soon, people would go along to get along, and stability would begin to emerge.

                  Meanwhile the gap in the market left by the corporate chains would enable family businesses currently kept out of the market by impossible-to-meet entry costs and low status, to start to take up the remaining legitimate demand.

                  A VAT may be needed as well, to ease things along.

                  Either way, by hook or by crook, this consumer culture must end.

                  “Thus for example, Venezuela cannot simply tell people to cease and desist from selling bread at more than price such and such. Venezuela has to tell the baker to sell bread at price so and so. And then the baker says says he has no flour, so Venezuela says …”

                  Venezuela wants to have its cake and eat it. Like all socialist régimes, the Maduro administration wants equality (impossible) and liberty (freedom to choose).
                  Insofar as it wants lower bread prices, it’s not willing to nationalise bread production: it insists on the consumer’s right to choose, but wants to dictate terms.
                  This is fail mode. What’s needed, if you want to keep the price of bread low, as Napoleon did, is to simply nationalise the entire endeavour and have people produce as much flour etc. as is needed.

                  “For example you complained about the packaging a supermarket uses. So you are going to wind up designing their packaging for them. And you complained about their prices. Venezuela tried a simple cease and desist order on prices. Observe the results.”

                  Promoting farmer’s markets and local produce by penalising imports would solve the packaging question overnight. Loyalty has *positive* externalities and this is one such.

                  “The baker does not provide bread at the commanded price, so the government cracks down. And then the baker does not provide bread at all. So the Venezuelan government takes over the bakery, and then the shelves are emptied, and mysteriously fail to refill by themselves.”

                  This never happened under Napoleon and Napoleon is the proper comparison, not Maduro.

                • jim says:

                  > > “You are framing your argument as externalities, but you are not in fact arguing externalities, but Marxist Class theory – that Capitalism consists of rule by the Capitalist class, therefore if Kings rule, or feudal lords rule, or the high priest rules, not capitalism, therefore capitalism is a quite recent development, and we will do fine without it.
                  > >
                  > > No, capitalism goes back to at least the early Iron Age, the Ten Commandments and the Book of Proverbs, and probably all the way back to the neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck.”

                  > That early mediaeval stock market, all those booms and busts, how did they manage with quills and parchments!

                  The for profit joint stock corporation was introduced in the restoration by Charles the Second. But capitalism means that, as Jesus explained in his parables, the owner of capital has the right to use it for profit, and to pay his employees whatever they both agree to.

                  > No Jim, that’s just not true. Capitalism is when owners of capital are beholden to no man: their power speaks for itself. If you want to work, we’ll hire you at the market rate. If you want to buy, we’ll sell on the open market. Competition will set prices and no man has the right to interfere. Let us be, that we can produce. We are the producer class, the engine the moves the world!

                  Well they actually are the engine that moves the world, in that industrialization and all that is caused by capitalism in general, and corporate capitalism in particular. Immediately after the restoration, we first see Rand’s heroic engineer scientist CEO entrepreneur, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make that technology widely available, first canals, then railways, then railways with steam engines Then comes the industrial revolution and all that.

                  We want to conquer the stars – which will require star capitalism under the rule of star emperor. Because that is the social technology that gave us the industrial revolution, the British empire, and the scientific revolution.

                  These are the guys that first made steel affordable:

                  Shockley gave us the transistor. Those men are, as represented in Ayn Rand’s fountainhead, the engine that moves the world. Without them, no transistor, no computers, and steel far too expensive for routine use.

                  > It’s predicated on the equality of all men, the illegitimacy of divine rule (or any rule ultimately apart from the rule of law, of judges)

                  Modern Corporate Capitalism was introduced by the Divine Right King Charles the Second, the restorer, under whom no one dared openly advocate such ideas, and those who doubted his rightful authority to appoint Bishops wound up moving out of England, and in some cases got burned at the stake. Our earliest written records depicting the moral code and commercial conduct of a capitalist societies is the Book of Proverbs, issued by the court of King Solomon or his immediate successors, and I am pretty sure that King Solomon would have taken a dim view of anyone advocating such things and his high priest would have come after anyone advocating such things.

                  As Nazis are, in large part, people who want to re-implement what Hitler implemented, we reactionaries are in large part, people who want to re-implement what Charles the Second implemented.

                  You, like Maduro, want to finish of the destruction of Charles the Second implemented.

                  > You’re recasting what I’ve said as standard leftist ‘externalities’ arguments.

                  Nah, it is a motte and bailey argument with standard Marxism 101 as the bailey and with standard leftist ‘externalities’ argument as the motte. You pretend to present the arguments for the left wing regulatory state, and concluding the standard left wing totalitarian terror state, like feminist pretending to present the arguments that women should be equal to men, and concluding female supremacy.

                  > That’s not what I said. What I said was that Franky&Benny’s actions have consequences far beyond their immediate transactions. We live in a consumerist Utopia where anyone who DOESN’T live paycheck to paycheck is low status.

                  No one I know who lives paycheck to paycheck is high status. Everyone I know who is high status has substantial assets, and can afford the little luxuries in which he indulges from time to time. High status people have substantial assets, both liquid and illiquid. People without substantial assets can be induced to hate them and seek to destroy them. Covetousness is a standard left wing tactic in which you engage.

                  Old type Marxists Leftists tell people “The reason you have no assets is because evil people took it all from you, so you should kill the cows and burn the crops of the peasant with two cows” New type cultural Marxist leftists tell people “The reason you have no assets is because evil people mind controlled you into pissing it all away on overpriced goods, so you should burn the supermarket.”

                  You are a new type cultural marxist, but this tactic does not work on us, because most of us do have substantial assets.

                  > > “We take that position because we don’t want people like you killing people like us. To be more precise, nobody takes that position, but everyone who is worried by the mass murders of the twentieth century takes the position that you are misrepresenting.”

                  > Do you have a single example of a 20th century society that ever questioned any of the things I’m questioning?

                  Khmer Rouge Cambodia was enthusiastically endorsed by every academic everywhere – in that numerous academics spoke out enthusiastically in favor of Pol Pot, and any tenured academic who doubted remained silent. So I would say that all of academia questioned what you are questioning. Similarly, the New York Times backed Hugo Chávez to the hilt.

                  You are telling “right wing extremists” that the economic program of Hugo Chávez is actually reactionary, much as similar people are telling “Muslim extremists” that feminism and child support is actually Islamic – and indeed some of your arguments are arguments that child support is Islamic recycled and retargeted, with the white working class substituted for brown single mothers.

                  > What I’ve said repeatedly is that certain companies – BetFred and Domino’s being the poster boys – are doing things that are harmful to society as a whole, creating an ugly, fragile culture and inculcating toxic values: me first, more more more, I want the red one.

                  That is not what you are saying, and if it was what you are saying it is not true, and if it was true, any solution would likely wind up murdering one hundred million people and placing everyone in poverty after the fashion of Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Venezuela, and Mao’s china.

                  “Me first” is the the opposite of Globohomo, Globohomo being the greatest good for the greatest number.

                  The reactionary position is midway between globohomo and Randian egoism, being that one should care first about oneself, then about close family, then about family about family and friends, then about co-religionists, co-ethnics, tribe, and nation, and for the rest, should follow a policy of peace and goodwill to the extent practical and safe. Which does not mean always peace and goodwill, because sometimes war, collective and individual violence, is the only practical solution. And disgusting freaks have got to stay out of sight. By and large, capitalists and capitalism promote the reactionary position as much as they can get away with, as for example at Christmas time they promote the nuclear family and goodwill to all men, but family first.

                  > Some of my friends are weighed upon heavily by the demands of the consumer culture and it’s affecting them in demonstrable, measurable ways that are unsafe and unsound.

                  Bullshit. Your friends are cultural Marxists embedded in academia, and they rant that they are being affected by the demands of consumer culture like a feminist claiming that men oppress her and threaten her with violence. I know actual poor people, and they are totally unaffected by “the demands of consumer culture”.

                  > Under laissez-faire, society is destablised *by that*, not by secret cabals of evil capitalists twirling their moustaches. It’s destablised *BY* the fact that any employer owes nothing more to the employee than what’s in his employment contract.

                  Rather, it is the other way around.

                  The problem is that society is destabilized by the fact that employee does not owe the employer any more than what is in the employment contract, that just as old type binding marriage is illegal, old type binding apprenticeship is illegal. This problem set it with the dissolution of feudalism and the enforceable apprenticeship system. Just as you cannot restore marriage by cracking down even further on men, but only on women, you cannot restore the apprenticeship system by cracking down even further on employers, but only on employees. It is at will employment that is the problem, the problem is the excessive rights of the employee result in a defect/defect relationship between employer and employee, just as the excessive rights of the wife result in a defect/defect relationship between husband and wife.

                  We plan to restore the old pre-revolutionary apprenticeship system, and to some extent restore outright feudalism and slavery. We are going to enserf those who are not good at looking after themselves.

                  We plan to go backwards to old type apprenticeship, which is the opposite of your plan.

                  > > You are not proposing to outlaw certain clear specific, identifiable, and uncomplicated bad acts, but proposing an enormous regulatory state arrogantly intruding into every minute detail of every person’s life with the most savage violence, into every waking moment of every person’s life with casual brutality. The nature of externalities is that they cannot be simply forbidden, they consist of blurry consequences of actions that slide over between one’s person’s life, activities, and decisions, and another person’s life, activities, and decisions, they happen at the blurry unclear interface between people. That is what an externality is. It is something where it is hard to draw lines. So you cannot simply say “Stop doing X”. You have to say “Do Y and do it exactly the way I tell you to do it.”
                  > >
                  > > So you tell them to make bricks, and there is no straw, so you tell them to make bricks without straw, and then you punish them when the building falls down.”

                  > This is just in your imagination. All I’ve EVER said is that any sane person observing the behaviour of Franky&Benny’s customers will wonder why they’re doing it.

                  According to you, the evil Franky and Benny is mind controlling them to do stupid stuff, so you are going to outlaw Franky and Benny mind controlling them. But this in practice requires you to outlaw not evil mind control, but supposedly stupid stuff, and the supposedly stupid stuff that you are outlawing is pricing and packaging, which pops you right into Venezuelan socialism.

                  The stuff that they are doing is not in fact stupid. That is just cultural marxists pompously and arrogantly proclaiming their superiority to common folk that they intend to torture and murder, and demonstrating how deeply they care about the welfare of those that they intend to torture and murder. And if it was stupid, it is not Franky and Benny evil mind control but the spontaneous stupidity of the customers and employees, and if it was Franky and Benny evil mind control, you would not be able to outlaw the magic invisible mind control, since it is magic and invisible, but only the prices and packaging themselves, whereupon, like the Venezuelan authorities, you get overwhelmed by the impossibly complex task of attempting to run everything and make every decision about every waking moment of every person’s life.

                  > > “The baker does not provide bread at the commanded price, so the government cracks down. And then the baker does not provide bread at all. So the Venezuelan government takes over the bakery, and then the shelves are emptied, and mysteriously fail to refill by themselves.”

                  > This never happened under Napoleon and Napoleon is the proper comparison, not Maduro.

                  Napoleon instituted protectionism, high barriers to imports. He did not attempt to control pricing and packaging. You complain that prices are supposedly gouging, and packaging is supposedly deceptive.

                  Napoleon never attempted to restrain, and entirely failed to notice, the supposed bad behavior that you supposedly see.

                  And I and my girlfriend are careful shoppers and we don’t see it either. The directorate attempted to control prices, and wound up flaying people alive. History tells us that those who supposedly notice this supposedly bad behavior are bad people who intend to do bad things.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, I’m very impressed with your capital ISM sermonizing.

                  Now what are your policy proposals?
                  * shut down pizza places so people won’t have access to pizza without buying pizza stones and pizza flour themselves
                  * steal people’s money and spend it on entertainment for them because you can’t figure out how to sell your entertainment (presumably on the grounds that the current entertainment industry is technically not government run so it’s the people’s fault, except that you think it’s the capitalists’ fault, even though in the UK, it is run by the government directly)
                  * ban people from digging a hole in the ground and filling it with water

                • peppermint says:

                  Q: why can’t I buy Moonman’s Eclipse album?
                  A: capitalists like Jeff Bezos conspire to prevent me from being able to buy stuff they don’t promote
                  Q: why am I afraid it will somehow start playing out my phone speaker at work?
                  A: the capitalists I work for would fire me regardless of performance
                  Q: in Feudal times, would I have been more free?
                  A: yes, I would only have to worry about the Bishop’s disfavor instead of a bunch of capitalists
                  Q: can we pass a law making it illegal for capitalists to restrict freedom of speech by banning content from their platforms or firing people for non-performance-related reasons?
                  A: agreeing with the liberals for all the wrong reasons only works as a rhetorical gambit to confuse the enemy about the way his preferred outcomes and policy proposals line up. Regulating social media is part of the solution, we should demand our 1A rights, but we should recognize what the 1A definition of free speech is.

                  In particular, porn is free speech. CRs used to hate it, their high water marks were bowdlerizing Shakespeare and a century later putting a burqa on a statue in the DoJ building, but they’ve decided that porn is great and to promote miscegenation porn in pretty much every Netflix show. Netflix is capitalism, of course.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Old type Marxism 101 deleted. We have heard it all before, and hearing it yet again is a waste of reader bandwidth*]

                • jim says:

                  Half the time you give us new type cultural Marxism, that evil capitalists mind control duped employees and duped customers, and the other half the time you give us old type Marxism 101: That feudalism is rule by the feudal class, and capitalism is rule by the capitalist class, therefore capitalism is supposedly very recent.

                  Reaction 101: Capitalism dates back at to least our earliest written records, to at least the early iron age, and probably all the way back to the neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck. Moses was consciously restoring the real or legendary social order of the Patriarch Israel against the decadent socialist social order of the late Bronze age, and the social order of the Patriarch Israel was a survival from the Y Chromosome bottleneck.

                  Reaction 101: We are never ruled by capitalists. The capitalist class is no more capable of ruling than the proletariat is capable of ruling. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. Right now we are ruled by priests, and when priests rule, they are apt to succumb to holiness spirals.

                  Reaction 101: Science is dying, replaced by the demon haunted dark of peer review. Corporate capitalism is dying. Technology is stagnating.

                  Reaction 101: Corporate capitalism dates back to the Restoration of Charles the Second, which gave us empire, corporate capitalism, industrialization, technology, and science, which is exactly what we intend to restore. Corporate capitalism is one of the things that we intend to restore, under a divine right monarchy resembling that of Charles the Second.

                  Reaction 101: We want to restore what gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, and empire, so that mankind can rule the stars under the star empire.

                  Reaction 101: Reaction looks to the past to revive old social technologies that have been lost, and avoid repeating past errors. Notable among those past errors was the murder of a hundred million or so by socialists, socialism, and leftists. The cure for that error is the corporate capitalism of Charles the Second. Another error was the thirty years war. The cure for that error is national churches and the peace of Westphalia. As with Orthodox Christianity, the Church should be both national and supranational, with neither characteristic obliterating the other.

      • Klondike says:

        Sola Scriptura heretics, like St. Paul, who wrote: “Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 CO 4:6)

        • peppermint says:

          Now if only Sola Scriptura ppls could be trusted to keep to what St. Paul said

        • Koanic says:

          False translation, Klod.

          • Klondike says:

            “Do not go beyond what is written.” NIV
            “You may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.” ESV
            “So that in us you may learn, ‘not beyond what has been written.'” Berean Literal
            “You may learn not to exceed what is written.” NASB
            “So that you may learn from us not to go beyond what the Scriptures say.” ISV
            “That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written.” KJV

            You lie like Hillary, Koanic.

            • Koanic says:

              Your translation is false because you stripped it of all context, and gave it a false meaning, one that could not possibly have been intended, since the Bible did not then exist.

              Paul is in fact quoting a common saying, not written by himself, to support the main point of the passage, which has nothing to do with “sola scriptura”.

              Such a fundamental doctrine would not be introduced in passing, when far lesser ones are belabored unceasingly.

            • Koanic says:

              1 Cor 3 came up in my random audio shuffle on the walk back from dinner, so I listened through to chapter 4.

              Klod may as well claim from the verse, “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power,” that the principle of 1 Cor 4 is “nulla scriptura”. The conclusion of the chapter is, “Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me,” and following the personal is opposite in principle to following the text. The descent of authority endorsed by the chapter is patriarchal, and delegated to Timothy, which argues for the chain of church custody which the Protestants argued against and broke from under the a-scriptural slogan, “sola scriptura”. It is a terrible chapter to prooftext for that cause.

              Whenever someone reasons like this, I picture a weakling, for it is written: “Bodily exercise profiteth little.”

    • The Cominator says:

      Glos you are doing your theonomic state thing again stop it.

      Jesus intends to enact the theonomic state when he returns personally. Ancient Israel could not follow Old Testament law.

      The extreme Scottish Puritan Covenanters who made a very real attempt to enact Old Testament law in Scotland got beaten by Cromwell’s much more sane and moderate Puritans in probably the worst defeat for the Scots in their history.

      If Divine Providence has a hand in history then God does not favor your scheme before the 2nd coming since so far nobody has been able to follow Old Testament law.

      Who do you mean by the Apexusurers, the old money foundation families or insitutions like the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.

      • glosoli says:

        They weren’t in any way theonomists. I just read their covenant. It’s all about King and country, and God. For example:

        ‘And in like manner, with the same heart, we declare before God and men, That we have no intention nor desire to attempt any thing that may turn to the dishonour of God, or to the diminution of the King’s greatness and authority; but, on the contrary, we promise and swear, That we shall, to the uttermost of our power, with our means and lives, stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King’s Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and preservation of the foresaid true religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and assistance every one of us of another, in the same cause of maintaining the true religion, and his Majesty’s authority, with our best counsel, our bodies, means, and whole power, against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever shall be done to the least of us for that cause, shall be taken as done to us all in general, and to every one of us in particular.’

        Great that they were anti-papist, but sad that they felt they had to commit to a human King so fervently, always ends in tears.

        Theonomy is Kingless, just direct authority from Jehovah to His people, like Judges Israel, with laws only adjusted to reflect the sacrifice of Christ. Anything that espouses a King, or any other laws, is by definition leftism, anti-God, doomed to certain failure. There’s no need whatsoever to be holier than God, or holier than the Bible, we just need to commit to the actual laws/commands/statutes, and neither add nor subtract laws.

        ApexUsurers: yes, intergenerational wealth, Roths, Payseurs etc. The kind that have so many thousands of trillions they can run Goldman and the US Treasury on loose change, the BIS too, just for shit and giggles as part of their evil plan to own the whole world and to attempt to defeat Jehovah’s great plan for us. They will get close too, but He’ll thwart them when necessary.

        • The Cominator says:

          The king was intended to be a marionette for Presbyterian elders and have no real power.

          When Charles II was restored he was extremely lenient with former Cromwellian puritans and utterly merciless to Scottish Covenanter puritans. It was them he ended up hating the most…

          • glosoli says:

            They quote dozens of acts of parliament as they pledge allegiance to the King. A million miles from theonomy, so no surprise they were slaughtered.

        • jay says:

          ”Great that they were anti-papist, but sad that they felt they had to commit to a human King so fervently, always ends in tears.”

          It would be great. But we aren’t under God’s direct political rule like Ancient Israel.

          Yet in the time of King David and Solomon. God didn’t try to phase out Human Kingship from Israel.

          Likewise in the Prophets. The Messiah is mentioned as ruling over Human Kings in the coming 1000 year Kingdom.

          • glosoli says:

            >It would be great. But we aren’t under God’s direct political rule like Ancient Israel.

            That’s how things should be, that’s what Jehovah intended, and it worked well. The dumb Israelites wanted a King, so Jehovah gave them one, with warnings about what suffering and troubles that would likely entail. Obviously He was correct.

            It’s easy to be under God’s law, if you have a tribe, some land, you just make a covenant with Jehovah, and away you go, He’ll take care of your enemies, no problem at all. It’s a work in progress for me.

            • jim says:

              That is not the Christian view. You are not even preaching Sola Scriptura, but your own private post Christian demon worshiping religion.

              It is not even the old Testament view. Israel got kings because insufficiently virtuous for direct rule by God. The Christian view, unambiguously expressed in the New Testament, is continuing rule by Kings. Direct rule by God does not resume until the return of the Messiah.

              You are a leftist, in that you are attempting to immanentize the eschaton. Anyone planning to immanentize the eschaton is non Christian or post Christian.

              • The Cominator says:

                “That is not the Christian view. You are not even preaching Sola Scriptura, but your own private post Christian demon worshiping religion.”

                What he is preaching is actually DIRECTLY CONTRARY to scripture. The kingdom of Jesus under the law of Jesus is NOT TO BE ESTABLISHED UNTIL THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS DURING THE MILLENIUM.

                In the end times the Churches are all to have fallen away in at least some respects and the kingdoms of the earth are to be wicked and far from God’s law. Saying that you can establish the kingdom of Jesus before Jesus himself contradicts scripture and is calling God a liar.

              • Klondike says:

                Anyone planning to immanentize the eschaton is non Christian, e.g., Jesus.

                “On earth as it is in heaven.”

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  Jesus will immanentize the Eschaton in his own time. You and Glosoli will not.

                • The Cominator says:

                  For THINE is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever amen.

                  The kingdom is not for fallen men to make on earth as it is in heaven it is for Jesus himself to establish when he returns.

                • jim says:

                  Leftism is social entropy and disorder. Leftism is knocking over the apple cart to grab some apples. Immanentizing the Eschaton is the ultimate excuse for knocking over the apple cart to grab some apples. Immanentizing the eschaton justifies the breaking of any number of eggs to make the omelette.

                  It is also the ultimate holiness in the holiness spiral. Thus, immanentizing the Eschaton is leftism in lethal concentration.

                • The Cominator says:

                  One thing the restored church needs to preach both on Easter and at Christmas service at the very least is that anyone talking about immanentizing the Eschaton is PREACHING LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL and in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to scripture.

                  One of the immanetizing the Eschaton scriptures will be one of the very very few which are mandatory to attend for all those who want to avoid being labeled dissenters.

                • Klondike says:

                  “Nuts” = NPC triggered.

                  “Mandatory to attend for all those who want to avoid being labeled dissenters” = NPC programming.

                  NPCs always project.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most of the populace are sheeplike and NPCs.

                  Leftism always promises to create heaven on earth and ends up creating hell on earth. It must be preached that utopianism is a lie from the pit of hell.

                • Roberto says:

                  (They’re not sending their best)

                • Roberto says:

                  It’s irresistible…

                  “When the Cathedral sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing misadjusted scripts. They’re bringing obstinate ignorance. They’re NPCs. And some, I assume, used to be real humans.”

                • Klondike says:

                  “On earth as it is in heaven.”

                  Context is imminent, as imminent as nutritional needs, as in “give us this day our daily bread.”

                  Jesus was a Leftist Jew. NPCs are programmed by him.

                • jim says:

                  Leftists spin Jesus as a leftist, as community organizer.

                  See my post How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner for a different analysis.

                • Koanic says:

                  Anacyclosis: Monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ochlocracy.

                  We are due for the return of kings. The most farsighted among us might then prepare by becoming the aristocrats who will rule, post-tyranny.

                  For now, this means serving as officers to the coming kings. The general population is still far too debased for democracy, much less kritokracy. In kritocracy, they would simply be destroyed or conquered.

                  However, the restoration of tribal theocratic kritokracy ought to be the long term aim. We wish to escape the anacyclotic treadmill, with its terrible miscegenating phases of empire and conquest.

                  Kritokracy is anti-fragile. With suitable updates for modernity, it can be the strongest and most stable form of government.

                  The example of Sparta proves that even fallen Man can beat the historical odds, if he has the will to make the necessary sacrifices. If History always repeats, let us at least force her to play a novel variation on decline’s theme.

                  The New Testament is very concerned with forbidding suicidal Jewish rebellion against Roman rule, but not at all with informing Christians how to behave at all phases and conditions of the historical cycle. That is what the Old Testament is for. Those who lack the perspicacity to understand this are better off taking the message of submission to earthly authorities literally and absolutely, since a fool makes for a short revolution. The opportune moment exists only for he who can discern the times. Blind men playing baseball have no teeth.

                  How to achieve kritocracy? All one needs is a Moses to lead 40 years of wilderness attrition, who steps down for a Joshua, who leads flawless conquest, who steps down for kritocracy. Let the aristocracy who desires it become capable of such deeds.

                  Kritocracy does not immanentize the Eschaton. It merely decentralizes doom to hormetic levels.

                  > On earth as it is in heaven.

                  “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

                  Whether he is a slave or a king, the Christian prepares himself to rule.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The example of Sparta proves that even fallen Man can beat the historical odds, if he has the will to make the necessary sacrifices. If History always repeats, let us at least force her to play a novel variation on decline’s theme.”

                  Sparta was a socialist and feminist nightmare.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Sparta was a socialist and feminist nightmare.

                  And if I say, “Consider the source,” does that impugn the Athenians or the Americans?

                • Judicial Activism Now! says:

                  Koanic = Democrat.

                  A Kritocracy is a government ruled by judges.

                  Perhaps the most famous instance of the use of the word was during a discussion between United States Supreme Court Justice Stanley Reed and his law clerk about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The clerk mentioned that the then still-evolving majority of the Court was reaching the “desirable” result. Reed thought that this observation was irrelevant and dangerous, for if judges voted for results merely because they privately struck the judges as desirable, the Court would overstep its jurisdiction and set the country on the path to Kritocracy.

                  We’re there now. Enjoying it, everybody?

                • Koanic says:

                  > A Kritocracy is a government ruled by judges.

                  The sort of idiot who cannot distinguish a difference between two things which share the same name, will be convinced by your argument, and you are welcome to him.

                • jim says:

                  Kritocracy, rule by judges, worked in Israel, because it was not supposed to be rule by judges, but theocracy, and either it really was theocracy, or the people involved plausibly believed it to be, and were constrained to act as if it really was theocracy. And when the sons of Samuel acted as if it really was not theocracy, as if it really was rule by judges, it fell apart.

                  So we have no working examples of rule by judges that produced tolerable results and a social order that did not swiftly collapse – at least none where judges openly ruled as judges.

                  One could argue that Saga period Iceland was rule by judges, but it was rule by warrior priests. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, so when you combine the two …

                  Anyone who claims that Judges period Israel was kritocracy, was rule by judges, lies or implies that the judges were lying or self deluded. If they were self deluded, the delusion nonetheless constrained their conduct to act as if it really was theocracy.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Kritocracy, rule by judges, worked in Israel, because it was not supposed to be rule by judges

                  Hence why I called it tribal theocratic kritocracy. Kritocracy is a little-used word handy for referring to the system used by Judges Israel. If we prefer some other word, I’m open to suggestions. Rule by the Supremes is about as far from Judges Israel as one can get. Kavanaugh wept where Samson slaughtered.

                  > One could argue that Saga period Iceland was rule by judges, but it was rule by warrior priests.

                  Sounds like Judges to me, when it worked. I presume they were called judges because that was their one inalienable function – the court of final appeal. Their other powers were to be exercised at need.

                  The transition from judge to no-judge was always delicate. Eli+Samuel fumbled the football through failure to discipline their sons.

                  The other exception is Deborah, the exception that proves the rule. And she did go with the army.

                • jim says:

                  > > Kritocracy, rule by judges, worked in Israel, because it was not supposed to be rule by judges

                  > Hence why I called it tribal theocratic kritocracy.

                  Josephus called it theocracy, not tribal, not judicial. What we know of it comes from Josephus, who calls it theocracy, and the Old Testament, which describes it as what we would now call theocracy. You are interpreting Josephus and the Old Testament in ways that neither Josephus nor the authors of the Old Testament would be happy with.

                  A society with a Christian tradition cannot implement theocratic kritocracy, because theocracy is not supposed to happen till the second coming, and if we implement non theocratic kritocracy – well we already have, and it is not working too well.

                • Judicial Activism Now! says:

                  If only we can perfectly emulate Jewish judges with just the perfect hue of Jewish Israelite Kritocracy, but not the other kind of Jewish Israelite Kritocracy, which is so very much different, then European Civilization be saved. Whatever would we do without the Jew leading us?

                • Koanic says:

                  It was not my idea to call Judges Israel a kritocracy. I read it somewhere. I am fine with calling it a theocracy instead.

                  Every Christian is already in a theocracy. We are ruled by Jesus, not the powers of this Earth. The children are free. Nevertheless, that we do not offend them, we submit to legitimate earthly authority, which is granted from above. The Early Church’s submission to Rome was no different than the Jewish submission to Babylon or the Israelite submission to Egypt. No armed rebellion against the central government was sanctioned by God at that time; thus none could prevail. Yet the Jews stood for their lives at Purim without sin, and Christians even in Rome may have fought similar limited actions without sin. Indeed, this became necessary as the dark ages closed in.

                  The Church is expected to handle her affairs internally without appeal to civil courts. She is already a nation apart, called to separation. Over time this naturally births new synthetic nations out of old decrepit pagan shells which have lost their legitimacy and cohesion.

                  So far from Jehovah refusing to covenant with any nation since Israel, He has covenanted with men of every nation, through the bridge of Jesus Christ. The eschaton cannot be immanentized, but it is closer than at any time in the Old Testament. It would be very strange if the Spirit poured out on the believers bore no fruit of national scale.

                  Even in the Old Testament, Jehovah was always willing to bless those who honored Him of every nation, even if they knew Him under a different name. Though accidents befall the individual, at the national scale we see Him consistently rewarding virtue and punishing vice.

                  There are certainly changes of regime which come from God and are not to be opposed. When Israel split from Judah, that was from God, and civil war was forbidden. When Babylon besieged Jerusalem, that was from God, and surrender advised. When Rome ruled Judah, that was from God, and not to be disputed. But there is also always a remnant and a restoration, e.g. a Nehemiah.

                  Jehovah will not again dwell on Earth in a tabernacle or temple before Christ’s return. Nor will Christ personally, directly rule an earthly kingdom before his military conquest of Earth. But the Holy Spirit may certainly rule a nation through fallible Christian men; it is a power contesting with Satan for dominion of Earth. I would argue that the age of the Holy Spirit has already shown glories beyond the imagining of 0 AD, and will show more ere it expires. It is our duty to embody this glory to the highest degree possible, and resist the entropy of the pagan dark. Nor will monarchy always be the best form of government by which to do so. For the people who demands a king does so because they have rejected Christ as their king. The Church does not need secular courts, much less secular kings. However, those who call themselves Christians today need both just courts and strong kings, and have neither.

                  The New Testament proclaims liberty of form. Let each man observe the day or not, according to his conscience. What applies to individuals, applies to nations. Let each national theocracy take the form best suited to her temperament. The heavenly priesthood encompasses all believers, yet it is still advisable that the national priesthood be hereditary. Neither human nature nor Jehovah’s has changed in the years since Jericho fell. Judges Israel is the only government blueprint written by Man’s designer; it would be foolish to overlook the opportunity to steal.

                  More materialistically, if the Icelanders could do warrior-priest theocracy without Christianity, then the Europeans can certainly do it with Christianity. There is no curse in the Bible against such an attempt, as for example there was against refounding Jericho.

                • jim says:

                  Agreed

                  I just don’t like the term kritocracy, since I am sure that the judges of Israel would not have liked it (maybe the sons of Samuel would have liked it) and we have kritocracy here right now, and it works really badly – a thousand little emperors is anarcho tyranny. Their incentives are those of mobile bandits, while one emperor is a stationary bandit.

                • Koanic says:

                  I am glad to be rid of the term “kritocracy”. I always forget it and have to look it up again. From this I infer it has negative brand value.

              • glosoli says:

                >Agreed

                Thanks to Jehovah for giving Koanic the spirit to explain Judges Israel so eloquently, and the connections to our situation here on earth today.

                Thanks to Jehovah for helping Jim to see the truth, and to reach agreement.

                Truly, with Jehovah, all things are possible, praise be to Him and all glory.

            • jay says:

              It requires the physical presence of the Glory of God. Israel is a Theocracy. And God’s Law in the OT works very well because God is directly on earth actively issuing decrees and reigning as a King would.

              God is not in direct political control. So your proposal will end in disaster as with all past attempts to immantize the eschaton.

              Jesus has to physically return.

              • jay says:

                Above has better responses. Ignore my comment.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think you put it very well. In the era of judges God was actively issuing the judges orders. Without that the system doesn’t work.

        • peppermint says:

          (1) the Bible isn’t kingless and has bishops, see Matthew 16
          (2) God’s direct rule contradicts Man’s freedom, see Matthew 16
          (3) God doesn’t talk to you directly, see Matthew 16
          (4) demanding to miraculously see in the Bible what the Saints haven’t is one of the temptations of Christ, see Matthew sqrt(16)
          (5) Matthew 16

          1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

          2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.

          3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

          4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

          5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

          6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

          7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

          8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

          9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

          10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

          11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

          12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

          13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

          14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

          15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

          16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

          17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

          18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

          19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

          20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

          21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

          22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

          23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

          24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

          25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

          26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

          27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

          28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

    • Andre says:

      The issue of the ultra-rich can be solved by simply reminding yourself that your enemies are not defined by how much wealth they have, or don’t have. Loyalty is the first rule of politics.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      “I have identified that the ApexCapitalistUsurers, the Roths, Payseurs, Rockefellers etc are the source of leftism, the source of greed and the drive to destroy White Christian civilisation and steal all of our wealth, and wreck our faith and our families. Other than that, I have no issue with those who are wealthy, grow businesses and accumulate capital.”

      Please don’t include me in that model. The source of leftism is human nature. Leftism is just entropy. It’s easier to destroy than to create.
      Worse, the effects are cumulative: removing the power of the King and aristocracy hastened leftism’s march, as did the universal franchise, as did the welfare state, as did the vast regulatory bureaucracy, etc. etc. etc.

      The culprits for spreading entropy throughout society are, in order:

      1. The priestly caste: academics, journalists and public intellectuals
      2. The state, especially state education and state subsidies
      3. Churches and businesses folding to leftist demands (exactly like Jim says)

      but then

      4. The already-indoctrinated rich, who use their power for evil
      5. The crony capitalist corporations who win in the ‘statist’ game

      Unfortunately the effects are very serious indeed, and yes I agree the Normans are certainly more than happy to take advantage of leftism in order to create a society that’s more comfortable for them, as Kevin MacDonald describes.

      My great heresy here is in not giving the capitalists a free pass for being right-wing economically (even though most of them aren’t).

      • jim says:

        > 1. The priestly caste: academics, journalists and public intellectuals
        > 2. The state, especially state education and state subsidies
        > 3. Churches and businesses folding to leftist demands (exactly like Jim says)
        >
        > but then
        >
        > 4. The already-indoctrinated rich, who use their power for evil
        > 5. The crony capitalist corporations who win in the ‘statist’ game

        This is true, but 4. tends to be the foundationists, rich people who have abandoned the activities that made them rich, and are instead pursuing status full time, and 5, of which George Soros is the most important, dangerous, and powerful example, are hired by the permanent and unelected government, to attack the subjects of the state, and are usually of a different ethnic group to the people that they are hired to destroy – usually Jews or dot Indians. The typical real capitalist is of my own race, sex, and ethnicity. They are generally good people, and I don’t want to see them harmed.

        Price controlling bread and banning swimming pools is entirely irrelevant to this problem.

        The reaction will fix problem 4 by redefining status – the King in his role as the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, that Charles the Second wielded so successfully.

        As for problem 5, well, I regret to report that conflicts of interest between the sovereign and his subjects will continue to happen. This was a notorious problem of the Turkish empire, though the root of the problem tended to be uppity women of the Sultan’s harem, rather than out of control bureaucrats. We see less of it when the King is in control, but the problem does not entirely go away.

        Problem 5 tends to be most severe when you have anarcho tyranny, one state with a thousand emperors instead of one emperor, as the incentives for mobile banditry lead to greater conflicts between the state and its subjects, hence more jobs for the likes of George Soros.

        We intend to fix anarcho tyranny which does not eliminate problem 5, but does substantially reduce it. Either the powerful state or quasi state minion serves at the pleasure of the sovereign, and can be fired at whim, or else, if not so easily fired, he has his own clearly identified domain (quasi feudalism), with incentives to love and protect those subject to his dominion.

        Rich people that are actually making money usually regard social justice warriors and HR as cancer. If they are paying them off, it is Danegeld, and the people they are paying off are being paid in substantial part to influence leftism and leftists to be less damaging to capitalists in general and in particular their paymaster.

        In companies with over fifty employees HR is usually complicit in legal threats against the company. Theoretically they are protecting the company from lawsuits, but but in practice are apt to “protect” the company by sending off memos that guarantee the company would lose a lawsuit if it does not do what HR tells them to do, and then quietly leaking information about the existence and content of the memo to the complainant’s lawyers.

        Similarly, your accountant is apt to rat you out to the treasury.

        • The Cominator says:

          I’m more investor then entrepeneur (as a literal sperg I can’t see myself dealing with customers or clients) but having recently made fuck you money my observations match yours.

          The people I know who are actually interested in learning about making money tend to be either libertarians or far right Trump supporters even though I still for the next two months live in poz central the capitalist I know are not pozzed.

  5. Doug Smythe says:

    > And so, in any synthetic tribe, you tend to get priests on top, and the path to get to the top of the priesthood is apt to be superior holiness.

    Normally there is a very rigorous and militaristic hierarchy within the priesthood (parallel to that within the warrior society, but even stricter), and the path to getting to the top is superior holiness *appropriate to one’s place*, and backed up by severe personal austerities, parallel to the way a warrior has to back up threats with action. Uncontrolled holiness spirals happen in pathological cases where a) the hierarchy has been compromised or abolished, and b) You can affect superior holiness with holy-sounding talk without having to back it up with much if anything by way of personal sacrifice.

    The Cathedral has about as much in common with a real priesthood as teens who talk trash on the Internet have in common with real bikers and tough guys.

  6. Anonymous 2 says:

    I’m somewhat bemused by the successful trolling of the NPCs at the NYT. But not actually astounded.

    “We are atheistic darwinian nihilists, how absolutely dare you say we are soulless animals that can be taught various stimulus-response actions without any privileged meaning?”

    (I personally have a further fondness for the ghoul hierarchy, even if it will probably never enter the mainstream.)

    • peppermint says:

      Shutting down your brain and saying whatever is the survival technique for encountering a level 3 ghoul.

      The NPC is the man who, lacking any way of knowing who’s the level 3 ghoul, or any hope at all, has his brain shut down permanently.

      You can still tell him from a ghoul, because he doesn’t covet his neighbor’s tendies.

      The ghoul rejects hope, an unforgivable sin that leaves it in a state of living death. The level 1 ghoul, when it sees anything, asks how it can eat or fug or smash it. The level 2 or 3 ghoul asks how it can gain power through every interaction.

      Ghouls see normie NPCs as allies because they don’t see any difference between having power over a person and that person repeating whatever.

      Normie NPCs fear to come here, if they even dare to allow themselves to hope such a place exists, level 1 ghouls have no interest in debate, level 3 ghouls like Scott Alexander have long since written us off. That leaves CR.

      Normie NPCs are on Twitter, so that’s where the meme caught on. When the time comes, the normie NPCs will be encouraged, and they will smash the ghouls.

  7. yewotm8 says:

    >To implement that in America, likely will need a King.

    We are taught that the founding of America occurred to prevent there ever being a King.

    • peppermint says:

      The Caesars were taught the same of Rome, they called themselves Commander-in-Chief instead.

    • jay says:

      He is 1st Citizen or Princeps.

    • pyrrhus says:

      America doesn’t need a King, it needs another Andy Jackson…And Trump is aiming for just that if he can escape all the traitors, assassination attempts, etc. Trump can be the greatest President in history, but if he is killed or fails, we will end up with a King or Kings….

  8. Klondike says:

    Human Resources employees, accountants, and government employees against capitalists

    Proverbs 11:28 The one who trusts in his riches will fall, but the holiness spiralers will flourish like a green eco leaf.

    Proverbs 28:11 The rich capitalists are wise in their own eyes; but the human resource employee who is poor and discerning sees how deluded they are.

    written by a Jew. Jew never changes.

    • jim says:

      Human Resources are pharisees. And if Jesus said unkind things about the rich, that is nothing compared to what he says about pharisees.

  9. Klondike says:

    Jesus? He didn’t write Proverbs.

    But now that you bring him up, Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the rich in equally negative terms. Woe unto the rich. Woe unto the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus’ condemnation of the rich is much more intense than the mere “unkind things” that you’re slyly trying to pass off, especially Luke 16:19-31.

    • jim says:

      Nuts

      Jesus did not condemn the rich and the pharisees in equally negative terms. That is just commies spinning Jesus as a commie, same as they spin Adam Smith as a commie and Mohammed as a feminist. Progressives tell Christians that Christianity, rightly understood is progressivism, they tell Muslims that Islam, rightly understood, is progressivism, and reactionaries that reaction, rightly understood is progressivism.

      • Klondike says:

        Jesus: But woe unto you that are rich! (Luke 6:24)
        Jesus: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees. (Matt. 23;13)

        Those are equally negative terms. Exact same words of condemnation. You’re just spinning your rationalization hamster wheel, Jim.

        • jim says:

          You are cherry picking.

          You are picking the worst of what Jesus said about the rich, and the least bad of what he said about scribes and pharisees. Scribes and pharisees are the equivalent of today’s journalists, professoriat, and judiciary.

          Jesus’ position is very similar to today’s reactionary position: Google is evil, but the big problem is not the capitalists, it is the priesthood.

          • The Cominator says:

            Jesus did condemn the rich (eye of the needle too) but I have a theory though its somewhat unreactionary since I don’t share the typical NRx position on slavery… my interpretation of what Jesus says about the rich of his time was that they were condemned because almost all fortunes of the ancient world were built on the backs of hordes of slaves.

            Still his main point of emphasis was his TIMELESS condemnation of the pharisees (Brahmin fanatics in NRx terms) rather then his topical and less strong condemnation of the rich of his day (Optimates in NRx terms).

            • Koanic says:

              “Eye of the needle” refers to a gate that the camels had to kneel to crawl through, I have heard. This would fit Jesus’ wordplay elsewhere – see e.g. “on this rock” “gates of hell”.

              • Klondike says:

                Jesus’ wordplay.

                That’s how progressives always construe his words.

              • The Cominator says:

                Apparently there is no evidence this gate ever existed.

                • Koanic says:

                  My websearch turned up a number of interpretations ranging from dubiously dumb to excessively clever. I don’t know which is correct, if any. The meaning is clear enough – it is possible with God.

                  Anyway, Jesus loved the young man, IIRC. The standards were very high at that time to enter the kingdom, since doing so meant physically following Jesus around, and persevering through the winnowing of the crucifixion. This extreme selectiveness is not on display after the resurrection.

              • Klondike says:

                [*lie about my words deleted rather than rebutted, as restating what I originally said would waste reader bandwidth*]

            • jim says:

              Should not spend too much thought and energy interpreting Jesus, since that leads you into Sola Scriptura, which is apt to have bad outcomes.

              You should rather interpret the words of Jesus in the light of the words and practice of over a thousand years of successful Christian theory and practice: The communion of the saints.

              Or, as a neoreactionary would say: Conserve social technology, because developing social technology is apt to be slow and costly.

              • Oog en Hand says:

                Which means only Roman Catholicism can even be considered as a valid state ideology. It was only Roman Catholics, of all Christians, who could make ANY claim to have defeated the Pagans of Rome and the Heathens of Germany.

                So, learn Latin, and read the Vulgate. Follow peppermint.

                Ingredere ad ancillas vestras…

                • jim says:

                  Untrue.

                  Roman Catholicism did not actually exist until the great schism of 1054, until the heresy of Pope Gregory VII. Orthodox Christianity defeated the pagans, Orthodox Christianity defeated the Saracens.

                  English Anglicanism should become a branch of orthodoxy ruled from Canterbury, American Episcopalianism a branch of orthodoxy ruled from an Archbishop’s palace in Washington, or an Archbishop’s palace in what is left of Harvard after the stormtroopers are finished, and the Vatican should rule its branch of Orthodoxy.

                  The peace of Westphalia requires national state religions. Supranational state religions tend to be used as instruments of aggression by one state or society against another state or society. But we don’t want each state religion interpreting Christianity idiosyncratically for itself and declaring all foreign Christians to be damned, so need both unity and nationality. Churches need to have both a national and supranational identity, without one obliterating the other.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The major problem with Catholicism (other then homosexuality) is if the pope starts giving Emperor Donald Trump trouble Emperor Donald Trump can’t just have him executed without invading Italy.

                  Orthodoxy is probably the best NRx religion but honestly sola scriptura Protestantism is better then Catholicism with its foreign supernational pope and homosexual priesthood.

                • peppermint says:

                  Why should they control access to the Holy City?

                  Shall we deny it to deny them soft power?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Why should they control access to the Holy City?”

                  Jerusalem, Rome, or Constantinople?

                  Christians don’t do the pilgrimage thing too often.

                  I have no problem with Netanyahu (who supported Trump and is /ourguy) ruling Israel.

                • peppermint says:

                  The holy city from which legions of men poured forth with short stabbing swords that conquered the world and built roads and water pipes and boats bigger than had or would be seen in ages.

                  We can plausibly claim that the ancient Romans are extinct and thus Italians on sacred ground are just Italians. Then we need to make sure public intellectuals don’t contradict the party line too forcefully.

                  If CERN was still inventing computers and the ESA was effective, we would need strict accounting and oversight to enable national governments tell them to stick within their mandate and not impose unauthorized religious and political points on their employees.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The holy city from which legions of men poured forth with short stabbing swords that conquered the world and built roads and water pipes and boats bigger than had or would be seen in ages.”

                  In that case I suppose Italians should have control over that particular holy city. But the bishop of Rome should not have soft power outside Italy.

                • peppermint says:

                  The archbishop of Italy should proclaim as loudly as possible that Italians are the closest to God and the king of Italy is wise and just and his opponents are foolish and wicked, and Sudtyrol and Corsica and Abyssinia are rightful Italian clay.

                  You say “oh, that holy city” because you anticipate claiming Jerusalem to be the Holy City and Rome a wretched hive of scum and villainy, because public intellectuals who speak too fondly of Italians get looked at by the Inquisition.

                  When the French take Jerusalem, you’ll have to find another Holy City, preferably one of your own, maybe cin America we claim the Native Americans are holy people and one of their mounds is the Holy Site and start blandaing upp.

                • peppermint says:

                  I’m not sure how the Papacy wrote its blessing for Westphalia, but it clearly agreed, because the Papacy stayed out of the World Wars, and is content with the Holy See, leaving the greater Rome metropolitan area to the Italians who populate it, since the modern city is very different from the old city of the Empire.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “because public intellectuals who speak too fondly of Italians get looked at by the Inquisition.”

                  You could like Italian stuff all you want. I like Italian stuff.

                  But if I were the Emperor… ex-Catholics who agreed to sign the oath to support the Patriarchate of Washington so they could be members in good standing of the Imperial Orthodox Church and then started speaking fondly of the Bishop of Rome would attract inquisitorial scrutiny.

                  Ditto Ex-Catholics who spoke in favor of clerical celibacy or open borders.

                • peppermint says:

                  Romanizers looked at funny, Judaizers ignored, is how Judaizers win. Followed by worshiping jews, whether or not we kill them all first.

                • peppermint says:

                  (I was hoping you would say ‘the pope didn’t like Westphalia’ so I would reply ‘corrupting the pope is the devil’s favorite thing to do, but he had to give at least a pro forma disapproval because there were actual heretics in that fight’)

                • peppermint says:

                  It doesn’t matter how much of a Nordic chauvinist I am or how much I make fun of guidoes. I say Rome is the Holy City, the bishop of the Holy City says Sudtyrol is Italy, suddenly it looks like I think Sudtyrol is Italy.

          • Klondike says:

            [*lies about my words deleted, rather than rebutted, as repetition would waste reader bandwidth*]

      • Klondike says:

        Just commies spinning Jesus as a commie: “not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.”

        • jim says:

          That Christian communism was not the command of Jesus. That was an early Christian community interpreting his words, which interpretation was swiftly abandoned, probably for the reasons given by Paul.

          • The Cominator says:

            Lying NPCs are pouring over the border… Shareblue isn’t sending their best.

            • Klondike says:

              So quoting the Bible is now “lying.” Only if the Bible is lies. Try not stepping on your own dick.

              • jim says:

                Selectively quoting the bible is not lying. Misquoting me is lying.

                • Klondike says:

                  Keep erasing the Bible verses I quote accurately that disprove your bullshit interpretations, Jim. It’s hilarious. Your intellect is too fragile to leave them, since you cannot refute them.

                • jim says:

                  In order for bible verses to disprove my bullshit interpretations, you would first need to truthfully depict my interpretations.

          • Klondike says:

            “Christian Communism.” You have said it yourself.

            And it was commanded by Leftist Jew Jesus, even though you try and try and try to deny it.

            “…primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad…Jesus’s words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor…. In God’s Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer. -Ludwig von Mises (Socialism pp. 413-420)

            And “Christian Communism” was included in the Bible as a good example to follow, not as poor example to not follow.

            Also, if other Biblical authors disagree with it, so what? There are many disagreements among the Jewish authors of the Jewish Bible. Is that so much a surprise to you? Ever see two Jews agree on much, much less two Jew Christians?

            “But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.” Galatians 2:12

            Those disagreements between various sects of Christianity are archived throughout the New Testament.

            • jim says:

              > “Christian Communism.” You have said it yourself.

              > And it was commanded by Leftist Jew Jesus, even though you try and try and try to deny it.

              Obviously it was not commanded by Jesus, since Paul tells the early Church not to do that, and the Church for the past two thousand years interpreted Jesus as Paul did.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                There’s community of goods and then there’s capital-C Communism. They aren’t interchangeable. Throughout history start-up groups and people in dire circumstances will pool their resources together, not because they believe that all property is theft, all gainful employment exploitation, or all rich people damned, or even because they want to, but because they have no choice. Churches and other physical seats of a community don’t pay for themselves after all. Naturally these communities have to whip up heroic, give-til-it-hurts public spirit in the membership, and obviously have to deal with conflicts of interest and attempts by unscrupulous individuals to use common property for their own private gain. So they have to use some rhetorical hype that does look a little like Communist doctrine, but isn’t really.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > “primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad”

                  This is sophomore neckbeard-level stuff. Mises should have been ashamed of himself for having written it. There are too many things wrong with it to answer in a comment, so I’ll just point out one. Bolsheviks want to kill people and take their stuff. Christians believe the fundamental articles of Divine law prohibit killing people and taking their stuff.

                • I think in this case y’all may be missing the truly important point. That sort of community of goods was not at all about lay people living a normal family-work life pooling their productive resources like farms. It was about a religious community with a strong mission to go out and preach, so a lot of folks would be full time preachers without a normal job. And they had to be supported.

                  The point is there are times in history when there is this sense urgency to do a really important project, and many of the community will have to work on that, preach a new religion or research friendly AI [……………|..] ( <- irony meter) that requires contribution from others, and there are normal times in history where we tend our gardens and nothing special.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “so a lot of folks would be full time preachers without a normal job.”

                  Doubtful there were many. Since Christianity was illegal a full time Christian preacher without a cover job would be far more likely to get denounced to the authorities.

                  And when they asked his profession if he didn’t have one it’d be kinda an open and shut case.

                • The Cominator: Christianity wasn’t illegal. Refusing to sacrifice to the Roman gods was illegal and even that only from 250 on.

                  It was really an unfortunate clash of incompatible mindsets. From Emperor Decius’ viewpoint, they were not being intolerant, all they wanted is a short ceremony to signal loyalty to the Emperor, once, get a certificate, and then everybody is free to worship their own gods as they want to. Something akin to a citizenship oath. From their viewpoint there were no good reasons to refuse it unless being actively disloyal and seditious. They simply didn’t understand why it is unacceptable for a Christian.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “It was really an unfortunate clash of incompatible mindsets.”

                  It sounds more like a conspiracy to seize power versus people in power.

                • jim says:

                  Christians get into power. Holiness spiral ensues as Christians compete with Christians for power. Emperor cracks down.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Jews wouldn’t sacrifice to the Emperor’s Gens either and they were not viewed as a subversive sect (more a hostile race with a strange religion). Whatever prejudiced the Romans against the Christians so much is what not merely their refusal to sacrifice.

                  It wasn’t that they were monotheistic either, as most Romans who considered themselves philosophers would confess in private at least that they were monotheistic in belief.

                  I’m not sure how the Christians were viewed but I’m bet it was something akin to a combination of Wahabbist and Bolsheviks.

                • peppermint says:

                  TJG and friends/alts are right about Zeus/Theos, JuPiter, the Allfather, Gott/Woden. Monotheism isn’t alien to Socrates.

                  Unfortunately, Odin’s son never had saints like Paul, underdtandable because Odin’s son wasn’t trying to reform an empire of cities.

  10. simplyconnected says:

    > See my post How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner for a different analysis.

    I take away from this: to preserve cooperative equilibrium, you must first give an opportunity for other kinds to behave horribly, which justifies wiping them.

    Reminds me of how Russia reacted to Beslan, and sadly may mean horrible things are inevitably coming to the West before any pushback.

  11. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    ‘Capitalism made me do it’ sounds kinda familiar.

    You know one or two millennia ago a number of really smart dudes considered the question of ‘the devil made me do it’ excuse. It might be edifying to looksie what answers they arrived at…

    • Koanic says:

      It certainly didn’t help Judas any.

    • peppermint says:

      Christians are clear that the devil has no power to compel, with the possible exception of posession, which, like drunkenness, has to be invited first.

      When progressives harass old men who did what Hitler said, they’re not acting like Christians, they’re acting their bizarre mockery of Christianity which includes an incarnate devil with the power to compel. Presumaby their god also has that power.

      Which is why they see science as worthless. Christians believe God only performs miracles under extraordinary circumstances and the devil needs to manipulate people, so it’s important to understand the world as it is to predict most things and the people the devil manipulates.

      Progressives think they’re in a magic war that they can win by chanting slogans.

      Their delusion and inability to learn is why we’re winning.

      Ironically they hold Sherlock Holmes, who disregards supernatural explanations and uses his knowledge of the world and men to find the men responsible for crimes, as their hero. He’s cultually Christian, not progressive. Progressive Sherlock would shout diversity is our strength while suppressing crime reports which to middle class taxpayers is almost the same thing as suppressing crime if they can be taught to say diversity is our strength at every piece of litter, and pouring more money into free housing, food and heroin for criminals in the hope that they will be satisfied and vote Labor.

      They first became holier than Rome and gave their kids weird jewish names and accused everyone of worshiping pagan gods while sacrificing men and women after accusing them of witchcraft as if magic is real. Reading and memorizing the lines of the Bible they liked, they forgot and accused of heresy Aquinas and Augustine, then Paul. They were then holier than Paul, the dirty old homophobe, they were the true Early Church, without worldly influence. Then they became holier than Jesus, a man who slutshamed, they recognized women as equals. Then holier than God, because God likes Christians, but they also like Buddhists and Musulmen.

      Those who hate Jesus, God on Earth, and the one holy catholic and apostolic Church that Jesus left behind, hate God, and Man, and themselves, and fun.
      They know nothing, because everything is magic to them. They have no friends, because they are all trairors. Their lives are joyless and dishonorable.

      • Nikolai says:

        Peppermint going from bashing ‘christcucks’ twice every comment to defending the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a better redemption arc than Ted Cruz.

  12. vxxc says:

    Kill a million?
    No one cares.

    Kill one journalist and everbody loses their minds.

  13. Man With No Name says:

    Be very, very wary: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RplnSVTzvnU

    “Who is Warburg?”

  14. Art says:

    Jim and CR:

    Based on British TV I formed the stereotype of British poor that is quite different from the American poor.
    I see British poor as obsessed with class and status, desperately trying to prove they are higher class than they are.
    And they do that by conspicuously consuming goods that signal higher class to their peers – big televisions, silly furniture,
    ordering the most expensive meal at a local joint while making sure everyone can see it, etc.

    Assuming that stereotype is correct:

    That would explain why CR’s observations are different from Jim’s, and may also explain why he came to the conclusions he did, for reasons other than Marxism.

    I would expect entrepreneurs to cater to that class obsession by selling crap that consumers value for being expensive and thus sending social signals.
    Just like they sell to rich women diamonds that are valued for being expensive.

    I also think it is presumptuous of CR to think that catering to that need is abusive. He has no need to signal class. But to those who do,
    the ability to do so represents real value, and does make them a little happier and their misery – more tolerable.
    CR complains about expensive crap in pretty packaging but that packaging is precisely the value the target consumer is after. That’s what sends the signal he wants to buy.
    Such indulgences BTW are not unique to the poor. Many middle class people spend resources on expensive tastes and hobbies that a puritan would invest “wiser”.
    But we all know puritans invest badly. How many men lying in their death bed would regret buying that Harley?
    Will a dying poor woman regret spending her welfare check on some crap that made her feel like queen?
    That feeling is worth a sacrifice, and it is presumptuous to assume those who make it don’t understand the value of what they are getting.

    Everyone is not equal. Not everyone is smart. But it is a Marxist mistake to underestimate rationality of not smart people,
    to project onto them your own circumstances, and to assume that if they make choices different then yours they must be irrational.

    • jim says:

      > Based on British TV I formed the stereotype of British poor that is quite different from the American poor.
      I see British poor as obsessed with class and status, desperately trying to prove they are higher class than they are

      I know that British television, and particularly the BBC, lies about and systematically misrepresents the white working poor. I do not know if this particular spin is a lie, but I do know that the source is biased and unreliable.

      • Indeed, my impression was that the most visible attribute of the British white working poor was wearing tracksuits all the time. Other attributes were that while many were very friendly, there wasn’t really a strong social code for friendliness or politeness (which class aspiration would kind of imply), answering to questions with “shog off, moite” was also fairly regular. My overall impression was the literal opposite – proud to be working class, disliking toffs (rich kids) and their influence on Labour and so on. This was around 2006.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Art:

      “I also think it is presumptuous of CR to think that catering to that need is abusive.”

      I’m under no libertarian obligation to respect the right of the market to supply every need presented for auction.

      I don’t support the right of the market to supply child pornography.

      I don’t support the right of the market to supply crack cocaine.

      I don’t support the right of the market to supply cock fights.

      I don’t support the right of the market to supply profanity on television.

      And I don’t support this.

      I tried to post multiple links to the proof that most white workers are now living paycheck to paycheck and getting into financial vulnerability or outright trouble.

      Jim censors every piece of proof because he wants to give the impression I’m just a Marxist.

      He’s defending globo-homo and you should take note of that and ask yourself whether you want to do the same.

      I need to go out. I’m trying not to even be here but from time to time I encounter references to myself from reasonable people like you.

      You should re-examine your positions because it’s quite apparent to me at this point that this community is firmly on the side of globo-homo gayplex, of Zog, of the New World Order, of global finance, of the ruling élite, the people who fund the DNC and ProPublica.

      • Roberto says:

        Your long-winded reply to Nikolai was hysterical, and contained zero “proof” of anything. You basically called him a maniacal bare-faced liar for politely disagreeing with your assessment. You seem to be excessively emotional all the time; you need help…

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Even you can recognise what you just did as a leftist move…. or can you?

          Maybe we’ve all been wrong all this time. Maybe it isn’t “leftists” who behave this way: maybe it’s ALL people.

          That would be consistent with the view that democracy is a bad idea.

          (I would include the ‘democracy’ of the market.)

          Anyway I need to go out.

          What I told Nikolai was that just because his own personal encounters with a small section of the working class were a particular way, that didn’t invalidate other people’s experience. I told him to use Google if he thought his limited encounter was more typical than all of mine.

          I don’t expect anyone to take my word for anything: go find out in person.

          Most white workers are living paycheck to paycheck, spending an awful lot of money on high living and getting into debt.

          It’s a fact.

          Don’t take my word for it. There’s a REASON Jim’s censoring this so fiercely.

          • Nikolai says:

            I didn’t get to read your response before Jim deleted it (I hope the phrase “your contemptible genocide apologia” wasn’t directed towards me).

            Most white workers are living paycheck to paycheck yes. But the word “worker” can mean anything from a minimum wage worker to a relatively well compensated blue collar tradesman (plumber, welder, electrician etc.)

            I’d have to agree with Cominator that if a minimum wage worker is living paycheck to paycheck it’s more likely to be due to booze, cigarettes and weed than due to getting $12 breakfasts on his day off.

            And I’d have to agree with Jim that if a plumber making 60k/year is living paycheck to paycheck it’s not because he’s getting $30 ribeyes every weekend, but because has to pay exorbitant amounts in housing to avoid vibrancy and because he’s paying even more for his daughter to go to college so she can get a liberal arts degree and convince herself she’s actually a man. (Just happened to a cute slavic girl I knew growing up, went from a pretty girl-next-door type to blue buzzcut and a septum piercing. Tragic tbh). See Jims posts on the cost disease and fixing housing, healthcare and education.

            Roberto, you claim to have a white working class background iirc. Do your observations more closely match mine or CR’s?

            For the record, I am not nor have I ever been a libertarian, though I was a pompous Bill Maher style anti-sjw leftist when I was a teenager.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Yes it was, Nikolai, and I stand by it.
              You’ve made it very clear that if it’s a choice between acting to save the white race and stepping aside to respect the rights of global capital, you’ll defer to Aunty Ayn’s advice.

              I’m telling you that hard-working white people in the United Kingdom are living paycheck to paycheck and getting into debt at a worse rate than at any time in living memory – and probably in all of history.
              I’m telling you that the ones I know do an awful lot of dining out: minimum once a week; and that they don’t go to places like the ones you’ve described, and would in fact shun those places. They go to very expensive rip-off joints, all of which are global corporate chains, and they pay a lot of money for very unimpressive food.

              I’m saying this is a strange phenomenon. I’m offering the hypothesis that this has something to do with social status and the preservation of dignity in the face of a world in which it’s increasingly impossible to have a family and even to have a roof over your head, with two people working long hours in difficult jobs.

              I’m also offering the observation that poverty is good for GDP, that welfare is good for GDP and that mass immigration of third world savages is good for GDP, in which case GDP is not a good barometer of the nation’s health! (I assume most of you will already agree that debt, in particular government debt, is good for GDP if you know your Moldbug.)

              OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT ENDORSING THOSE THINGS THAT ARE GOOD FOR GDP. I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THAT GDP WILL GO UP, NOT THAT I WANT IT TO GO UP.

              • jim says:

                > I’m telling you that the ones I know do an awful lot of dining out: minimum once a week; and that they don’t go to places like the ones you’ve described, and would in fact shun those places. They go to very expensive rip-off joints, all of which are global corporate chains, and they pay a lot of money for very unimpressive food.

                liar.

                You have plainly never met these people and know nothing of them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim writes:

                  ““Since no one here is disputing that lots of wealthy people are strangely poor, I am not letting your evidence that the sun rises in the East through.””

                  I will refer people to this comment whenever they call me a liar and flatly deny that people are living paycheck to paycheck while earning adequate wages.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  So you’re back to denying reality.

                  OK Mr Smartypants if workers aren’t frequenting Franky&Benny’s and Bella Italia, WHO IS?

                  https://www.frankieandbennys.com/menu

                  Dough Balls starter £4.49
                  Chilli Cheese burger £11.99 (there’s also one at £15.69)
                  Side of onion rings £3.69
                  Straight up Waffle £4.99

                  £25.16 per person, not including tips or drinks

                  Diet Pepsi 16oz £2.79 each

                  Who’s dining here if not the people I described?

                  Your bougie foodie SWPL gourmet friends? Hardly.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Maybe it’s because you’re a boomer!

                  This is Millennial Magazine

                  https://millennialmagazine.com/2018/05/07/the-perils-of-dining-out-too-often/

                  “Millennials are certainly not the only contributor to the increase in sales restaurants have seen each year. More than half Americans’ food expenditures are spent on food prepared away from home, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). For the first time in history, Americans are spending more money on restaurants than on groceries. Although there are valid reasons as to why this is happening, there are reasons to reconsider spending habits.”

                  They go on to say people are working too long. I’m not so sure, but it’s possible I suppose.

                  I don’t claim to have solved it, but I do have a fix for it lol

                  One that makes ‘reactionaries’ spit the dummy and quote Ayn Rand.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I only just discovered “Millennial Magazine” through a Google search for “dining out too often”, but it’s a gem and it illustrates other things I’ve been saying and you’ve been flatly denying.

                  Obviously they’re leftists, Brahmins, what-have-you.

                  “MiLLENNiAL is an aspirational lifestyle brand profiling the global adult millennial. Comprised of a collective of international storytellers, our contributors offer readers intrinsic value and heart-felt articles that provide insight into the most relevant topics of today’s era.

                  From celebrities involved in causes to CEOs disrupting industries, MiLLENNiAL not only highlights the heroes of the generation but also showcases the evolving market demands and cultural trends of the affluent professional around the world.”

                  Why do they worship CEOs? Why is there a whole section devoted to entrepreneurs?

                  Because your old libertarian dichotomy “government bad business good” is dead and gone.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There you go Jim, the girl in the Nikeair t-shirt “comes from an engineering background and knows nothing about business and finance”, but she’s got a great idea: Cheese Tea! In little paper cups, just like Starbucks, only better, bougier, more individualistic!

                  https://millennialmagazine.com/2018/01/26/jenny-zheng-brings-cheese-tea-to-los-angeles-little-fluffy-head-cafe/

                  Compare and contrast: Patrick Gage fights slavery in the business world lol

                  “What is the most critical obstacle preventing us from having a slave free world?
                  Apathetic consumers. At the end of the day, people still prioritize price over ethics. Retail giants thus feel little pressure to genuinely change how they do business, perpetuating cycles of poverty and abuse.

                  What is the most important lesson you have learned while fighting for freedom?
                  The private sector can do incredible good, so instead of attacking companies, we should help them. Fight with, not against.”

                  https://millennialmagazine.com/2018/01/14/patrick-gage-fights-trafficking-in-the-business-world/

                  These are sickening people, but they’re certainly not economic socialists, not anything remotely approaching any such thing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I suspect CR is guilty of projection.

                  CR is obviously a financially envious brahmin. He perhaps earns good money but blows it all in foolish status signalling and perhaps wasting it in more expensive restaurants. He probably bought a lot of s*** he didn’t need on credit too.

                  He wants to outlaw private stock investment because that allows people like me (I had an electrical engineering degree but got out in the awful 2000s economy could never get a real engineering job because Indians and affirmative action and never made more then 50 grand at a job… despite this I’m still rich now) who practice extreme parsimony to get ahead whereas despite his equivalent of an 90000 dollar a year (I don’t know the exchange rate or how that translates in terms of purchasing power) civil service or academia type job hes probably drowning in debt.

                  CR I would advise you stop the money envy, NRx may bash puritans but the puritans had good principles of capital accumulation. I suggest you use them to transform your life. Get out of debt, downgrade your lifestyle if you have to. Learn to have your money work for you intelligently. This is the fundamental secret of the jews and the puritans.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s not about me. What happens to a society when this is normalised?

                  Nobody knows because it’s never happened to a first world country before.

                  What we DO know is what happens to somewhere like Argentina when they mess about with savings in the interests of equality.

                  Is this really going to be so different? Instead of equality, the goal is a wealth transfer from the locals to the globals, but I can’t say I’m at all sure the results will be very different.

                  Again I’ll ask you what I’ve asked the others: are you relaxed about consumer debt being at all-time highs?
                  Are you relaxed that ‘most workers’ are now one major bill away from destitution?

                  “people like me … who practice extreme parsimony”

                  So we’re the same. Do you feel how I feel when you see fifty-year-olds singing the birthday song and paying £30+ a head for burger and chips?
                  If not, why not?

                  “CR I would advise you stop the money envy”

                  It’s a good troll but it has no foundation in reality. If my programme were implemented, it would transfer many people’s wealth *to themselves*, nothing else; there would be no interpersonal change at all, in one direction or another. The only losers would be foreign predators, but since they’re not part of the community, they don’t count, and unless you want to claim they have a property right in other people’s future expenditure on an as&when basis, you can’t really disagree.

                  “the puritans had good principles of capital accumulation. ”

                  Sure, that’s probably true to some extent. We don’t need to be fanatically partisan. The Thomistic understanding of gluttony is compatible with this but as I’ve said many times, this isn’t ultimately about gluttony, it’s about the state of the nation’s finances and future robustness.

                  “I suggest you use them to transform your life. Get out of debt, downgrade your lifestyle if you have to. Learn to have your money work for you intelligently. This is the fundamental secret of the jews and the puritans.”

                  lol very nice troll.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “So we’re the same.”

                  You have had government/brahmin jobs whereas I’ve had pretty shit jobs generally yet you suffer from wealth envy…

                  You should be rich by now if you are a Brahmin who has practiced extreme parsimony (I thought British taxes on capital weren’t too bad).

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s a less impressive troll. To make a really good troll, you have to make it slightly plausible.

                  I’m not going to doxx myself by publishing some sort of ‘CV’ so that you can put ticks and crosses next to the jobs.
                  I already told you I WAS in a social justicey job in the early 2000s and was a true believer. I now hold all of those aims & objectives to be harmful and all of those beliefs to be utterly evil and disgusting.

                  Again, this isn’t about me.

                  If you live the way you claim to live, how do you regard the trend in society for normal people to spend everything, live paycheck to paycheck and hammer their credit cards for immediate consumption?

                  It’s not a tough question and it won’t compromise your principles lol

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Crickets….. because The Cominator wants a nice comfortable ‘philosophy’ where he can rage at liberals without having to challenge anything he already holds dear.
                  Of COURSE the future restoration will look exactly like globohomo, just without the liberals……… <>

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If you live the way you claim to live, how do you regard the trend in society for normal people to spend everything, live paycheck to paycheck and hammer their credit cards for immediate consumption?”

                  Don’t care about them generally. You can love your neighbors (well mostly I hate them) you can’t love abstract people you don’t know.

                  I had a very close friend ruin his life boozing despite my best efforts to stop him (though I think hes made a partial recovery he contacted me on facebook when AMRN’s data came in thanking me for being up several thousand dollars).

                  I knew a girl who a real NAWALT in some ways but was nuts and had BDP (wonderful beyond any girl I’ve known in many ways a total train wreck in others) eventually got into hard drugs and OD’d (and btw for Jim’s information she was married at the time she really started spiraling downward, it did lead to divorce but she refused to try to rip off her husband at all).

                  They BOTH had over 140 IQ (higher then mine).

                  You can’t stop stupid people from destroying themselves if they are really determined to destroy themselves, you can’t even stop REALLY SMART people from doing so. And these were both people I know and I cared about and I tried to stop them. Lots of other people tried to stop them too ()

                  Obviously the masses would be better served by better financial habits, but people just aren’t naturally virtuous. Abolishing public schools would probably help. People having to endure prison like schools during childhood probably doesn’t make them want to cultivate restraint in adulthood.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  We’re still in agreement lol

                  You agree with me that Roberto’s quest for higher IQs is wrong-headed because it won’t solve the problems, and you agree with me that self-control and the free market won’t solve the problems either.

                  You may still disagree with me that a Great Man is required to direct the nation as if it were a ship circumnavigating the globe, or you may simply shrug your shoulders and say “fuck you Jack I’m alright”.

                  Your business, but if a Great Man does rise (don’t worry it’s not going to be me or anyone like me lol think Donald Trump on steroids) he’s going to be completely indifferent to your indifference.

                  I’ve been looking at this horrible Millennial Magazine.
                  Doesn’t even seem to be particularly ‘global coastal élite cosmopolitan new world order’ish lol
                  lots of Asians and young rich gentiles, and totally ok with capitalism in all its forms big and small.

                  The Cathedral, if you will, has now entirely absorbed capitalism. I know it’s a shock because you people like to think capitalism’s a hold-out where the church, the schools, the military, the police are all long lost…. capitalism is just too robust, too fiercely independent lol
                  yeah right

                  https://millennialmagazine.com/2016/08/01/alexi-panos-and-preston-smiles-redefine-relationships/

                  Black man, white woman, loving relationship……… globohomo conservatism that’s not even CUCKservatism, it’s just completely liberal.

                  NEO-liberal if you like.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You don’t seem to understand what reactionaries think of the relationship between capitalism and the cathedral still. We don’t argue that capitalism is moral at all, just that it is both extremely efficient and very responsive to incentives.

                  Please brush up on your Moldbug before telling us our opinions on capitalism (which you do not understand) and the relationship between capitalism and the state and the state church.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  God I really hate these people, and if I can convince even one of you lot to come over to the alt.right, you can hate them too! lol
                  Half kidding, I really do hate these people…

                  Is this…. a SOCIALIST? lol

                  https://youtu.be/h6GsCSLJdzo

                • The Cominator says:

                  It appears to be a woman who is giving a self help video it doesn’t seem like she is preaching marxism, doesn’t appear to be fat or have blue hair.

                  Why am I supposed to have some kind of special hatred for her as if she was Rachel Maddow or something?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Honestly, I know I’m a bit hyper, but this Millennial Magazine is a wonderful discovery lol
                  I went searching because Jim was trying to dismiss what I was saying about consumer spending, and Google shot me toward this crazy magazine…….. but seriously if you’ve got 4 spare minutes, click that YouTube video of that Greek women with the black long-term boyfriend and business partner……. she’s a libertarian. That could be Adam Kokesh lol

                  She’s telling you pull yourself up by your bootstraps: anyone can be successful if they just make the effort and take real decisions instead of talking big and doing nothing………

                  Great, right?

                  Yeah………. she does volunteer work in Africa, she’s a massive bougie consumerist and she holds all the liberal values….. but wait: her profile says she’s also “gone all the way down the rabbit hole” into conspiracy theories……

                  What? I thought libertarians were the OPPOSITE of lefties!!!!

                  lol

                  Yeah………….. o….k….

                  And if you want more, Strike&Mike’s discussion of the polyamory of Ayn Rand and Emma Goldman is on there too but it’s longer and I’ve made enough links on Jim’s blog.

                  I’m off for a run. Watch the damn video! People like that bitch? They’re total shitlibs.

                  And so are you lol

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  ROFL

                  Now THAT, sir, is how you troll.

                  I just got you to say exactly what I wanted you to say: that she’s NOT a Marxist, she’s NOT the enemy, she’s if anything a libertarian-leaning conservative in good standing….

                  WRONG, baby, WRONG!

                  https://alexipanos.com/about/

                  Oh they’re MARRIED!!!! lolz

                  “I also feel extremely blessed to be the co-founder of the non profit organization E.P.I.C. (Everyday People Initiating Change), along with my partner Tennille Amor, where, for the last 10 years, we’ve been focused on bringing clean water and community development to those in need in rural Africa. In 2013, we launched our E.P.I.C. Fellowship Program, a volunteer-abroad program that fosters and develops global leadership and participation for those with a calling to serve. E.P.I.C. continues to stand as one of the most life-changing things I’m involved in, as I’m always stretching myself and expanding my heart with every trip out there.”

                  “Because I’m completely OBSESSED with creating experiences that matter, move + inspire people into their greatness and authentic selves, so in 2016, I proudly created the school I always wanted to go to: SOUL SCHOOL. It’s a global community of awesome humans who are serious about diving deeper into what it means to live an incredible life, align with their unique truth and create with a sense of purpose.”

                  The Bridge Method lol – means this:

                  “We’ve worked with clients from so many different backgrounds, and no matter what they want— more success, financial abundance, happiness, the love of their lives, or an inspired life vision—what’s at the core of all of that… is THEM. If we want to call in an ideal life, we must become the highest version of ourselves. This program is designed to do that.”

                  etc. etc.

                  You, sir, have been pwned

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Dude!

                  For $97 a month you too can become part of “Soul School”

                  .

                  “Tap into a global TRIBE of people just like you.”

                  .

                  ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                • The Cominator says:

                  “She’s telling you pull yourself up by your bootstraps: anyone can be successful if they just make the effort and take real decisions instead of talking big and doing nothing………”

                  She is generally right about being rich, I didn’t know about any of the other stuff with volunteer work and the black boyfriend because I’ve never seen or heard of her before today.

                  If you decide being middle class is important you will likely go into debt supporting a middle class lifestyle, if you decide being lower class is okay will likely spend all your money on beer and weed and perhaps trashy jewelry.

                  If you decide you are going to be rich you have to focus your mind on how you are going to achieve that and generally part of that will be drastically reducing your own consumption and channeling your resources into ways that will likely make you money.

                • peppermint says:

                  > reducing your own consumption and channeling your resources into ways that will likely make you money.

                  Save 10$/mo by using a slower cell phone plan, 10$/mo buying a 250$ instead of 500$ cell phone every two years, 10$/mo buying a Ryzen 5 and RX580 instead of an i7 and GTX1070, 10$/mo buying a few less inches and pixels of TV, 400$/mo minus additional raw ramen and tendies getting only the 1$ coffee and hot dogs for fast food.

                  Do we invest in precious metals in a hole in the ground where CR won’t steal it but they lose value when the economy improved and we’ll need guns to defend them in the scenario where they appreciate?

                  Do we invest in “AAA” bonds?

                  Do we invest in the S&P index fund with exposure to Google and Facebook?

                  Or do we spend most of our take, leave the rest in a savings account that doesn’t lose value because the economy would need to go somewhere to have inflation, and dream about the future when we’ll actually have decent income and be able to save money?

                  Due to the ongoing invasion, housing prices are insane. No, Millennials can’t buy into that. Social Security obligations and real estate is all owned by Boomers.

                  Born into the comfiest time of all times to date, all Boomers wanted was to be loved. Now they are hated by all people of all times and places. I hope some day my grandchildren are as cozy as the world the Boomers were born into.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Do you feel how I feel when you see fifty-year-olds singing the birthday song and paying £30+ a head for burger and chips?

                  I don’t covet my neighbor’s tendies.

                  But I hate 50+ year olds because they were born into a good economy and destroyed it for 40- year olds.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Just got back from my run.

                  You’re missing the point Cominator. I’m NOT claiming she’s making shitlib videos. She’s making libertarian videos. She’s economically right-wing: she thinks if you try hard enough, pretty much anyone can achieve their dreams.

                  Now she’s a shitlib in the following sense: she sees humanity as one big brotherhood of man – the Rousseauvian ‘fraternity’.

                  Her economics are predicated on the fundamental equality of man – the Rousseauvian ‘equality’ (which all libertarians fundamentally agree with and any who don’t are in transition to the alt right or the third position – give it two years!).

                  And her worldview is basically centred around individual freedom – the Rousseauvian ‘liberty’.

                  Her ideology is essentially that of the French Revolution before the fact: classical liberalism.

                  But…… here’s the rub, here’s the meat, here’s the juice:

                  When you give her $90 a month for telling you you’re awesome, she takes that and uses it to help the negro in Africa. YAY, right? Who could be against preventing the starvation and disease-deaths of little babies?
                  Yeah except those ‘children’ are rocking up on the wrong side of the Mediterranean and they sure as hell wouldn’t be if they’d starved to death or died of whatever shithole diseases they have.

                  Am I contradicting myself? Don’t I lecture Roberto about how leaving people to rot leads to the welfare state? Nope, these aren’t part of our civilisation, they’re savages. We should leave them alone and let them be. Laissez-faire for the uncivilised is perfectly defensible.

                  But there’s more: not only did she marry a nog herself, and not only is her business partner something exotic as well, but she believes the world’s one big tribe, so what do you think her political campaigning’s actually like in practice? Do you think she LOVES Trump’s wall?

                  LOL get out of here. I said she was Adam Kokesh and she IS……….

                  But here’s the climax: her ideology is 100% compatible with globohomo – open borders, funneling money to Africa, intermarriage……. and she’s a LIBERTARIAN.

                  She’s saying what you’re saying!

                • peppermint says:

                  Economics 101: people with many decisions prioritize the important ones and ignore easy ways to save small amounts of money.

                  Which is why

                  Reaction 101: delegate authority and responsibility to someone who cares

                  Which contradicts

                  CR 101: all power to the supreme soviet, digging a hole in the ground and filling it with water verboten, selling pizza verboten

              • Nikolai says:

                “Yes it was, Nikolai, and I stand by it.”

                CR, it is considered impolite to say such mean things on the internet.

                “You’ve made it very clear that if it’s a choice between acting to save the white race and stepping aside to respect the rights of global capital, you’ll defer to Aunty Ayn’s advice.”

                I really don’t see how £11 bacon cheeseburgers are a threat to the white race. And I’ve never read an Ayn Rand book.

                Look, suppose one goes to Franky and Benny’s every week for a bacon cheeseburger and a soda and leaves a decent tip. Should come out to about £16. Let’s say the man eating could’ve made himself a similar meal for £4 worth of groceries (it’d probably cost more, but whatever).

                So every week he spends an extra £12 to eat out and enjoy himself and I’ll round that to £50 per month. I just do not see your logic of how £50 per month is equivalent to genocide. That isn’t nothing and of course it adds up over time, but genocide? Really?

                You say people spend £35/head there but that’s only possible if you get a pricier entree with an appetizer, desert and extra side. I really don’t envision minimum wage workers eating like that.

                “I’m telling you that the ones I know do an awful lot of dining out: minimum once a week; and that they don’t go to places like the ones you’ve described, and would in fact shun those places.”

                Franky and Benny’s prices are only slightly higher than Waffle House and Bella Italia’s lunch menu is downright cheap. I made a good deal more than minimum wage and I didn’t shun those places, hell the God Emperor is a billionaire and he doesn’t even shun McDonalds and KFC!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I started interacting with you because you seemed more reasonable than the other regulars. You’re actually worse.

                  Here you are repeatedly denying that most American/European/white workers are living paycheck to paycheck, even after Jim’s acknowledged that it is in fact perfectly true and not even debatable.

                  I have no interest in ‘debating’ people who use strategic dishonesty to score strategic victories. You have no interest in the truth, only in feeling like you’re winning.

                  Fine, feel that way. I linked the Frank&Benny menu earlier for Jim and I’m not about to do it a second time just because you can’t add up.

                  The claims I’ve made are in no way controversial and the most cursory search online will confirm every single thing I’ve said.

                  You really have no non-libertarian argument against my proposed solutions, so instead of trying to make a rational argument yourself, you pretend my premises are in doubt.

                  They’re not. My premise, that workers are now dangerously financially fragile, is not even *slightly* controversial.

                • jim says:

                  > Here you are repeatedly denying that most American/European/white workers are living paycheck to paycheck,

                  You are lying about Nikolai’s words, as you lied about mine.

                  The question is not whether the white working class is under financial stress, of course it is under financial stress.

                  The question is whether that financial stress is caused by expensive restaurants, or by ethnic cleansing and degree inflation. Whether evil capitalists are causing it by mind controlling the proletariat into big spending, or academia is causing it by ethnic cleansing and degree inflation.

                  Nikolai does not address the issue of whether people are living paycheck to paycheck.

                  Putting you on moderation. All comments will have to be approved before they become visible to other people. Lying about someone else’s words will result in automatic silent deletion.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  ” I really don’t envision minimum wage workers eating like that.”

                  I can envision whatever you want. The facts are that that’s precisely what’s happening and it’s not rare, it’s not the blacks and it’s not a Marxist topic. On the contrary it’s a topic you’ll mostly hear about from conservatives like Peter Schiff.

                  People like him, and me, are worried that ordinary people are extremely vulnerable to financial shocks right now.

                  His solution is presumably smaller government and slashed welfare, along with abolition of the minimum wage and the Fed.

                  Mine, you already know, is rather different, but the ‘shibboleth’ itself, of working-class people living paycheck to paycheck, is not remotely Marxist or left-leaning and neither is it at all controversial.

                  Jim has accepted it as factual because it IS factual.

                • jim says:

                  > >” I really don’t envision minimum wage workers eating like that.”

                  > I can envision whatever you want. The facts are that that’s precisely what’s happening and it’s not rare,

                  The facts are that you are repetitiously lying

                  When you demonize capitalists and claim that capitalism consists of capitalists ruling, and is therefore post feudal, you are saying “ingroup me, fellow proletarian”

                  When you assert hostile false claims about the behavior of the proletariat” you reveal you in fact outgroup proletarians.

                  This one way ingrouping is classic leftism.

                  Widespread and rising financial stress is the result of degree inflation and ethnic cleansing of white people, not eating out. Capitalists are not mind controlling white people into spending money they cannot afford, rather government is driving white people out of their homes.

                  You are obsessively filling up my comments section with low value comments, wasting people’s time with untrue assertions about our words.

                • jim says:

                  > People like him, and me, are worried that ordinary people are extremely vulnerable to financial shocks right now.

                  If you were worried about ordinary people, if you did not intend to exterminate them, you would have noticed that the reason that they are vulnerable to financial shocks right now is the mass migration of a hostile outgroup.

                  Your comments are low quality, consisting of claims of superior holiness, lies about what other people say, and formulaic Marxist stuff that we have all heard before.

                  The argument that the masses are mind controlled by evil capitalists is a criticism of libertarianism to which reactionaries are sympathetic. We are considerably less sympathetic when we are told that the problem is that the masses are mind controlled to eat fast food, rather than mind controlled to refrain from violent response to ethnic cleansing.

                • peppermint says:

                  Caloric Reductionist, you keep saying people with no money eat out, a correlation, Nikolai proved that it’s a trivial cost, Jim has proposed several other factors with plausibly larget impact.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Here you are repeatedly denying that most American/European/white workers are living paycheck to paycheck, even after Jim’s acknowledged that it is in fact perfectly true and not even debatable.”

                  Not denying that they’re living paycheck to paycheck, see comment below.

                  https://blog.jim.com/party-politics/the-coalition-of-the-evil-and-unhinged/#comment-1925739

                  What I am denying is that it’s due to restaurants and I also deny that minimum wage workers regularly go out and get an appetizer, entree, extra side, soda, desert and a cocktail. I know obese men with multiple rolex watches who eat a lot and can afford to get whatever they want. And even they usually only get a main course, drink and desert and maybe half the time share an appetizer with the table.

                  It is reasonable to claim that a minimum wage worker goes out and gets a diner burger every week (although even that seems excessively frequent). Like I said, adds up to about an extra $50/month, explicitly using the menu you linked. Compare that to $5-7 for a pack of cigs, $10-12 for a case of beer and $20 for a bottle of hard liquor. I’d estimate that low wage workers spend 3-4 times as much on alcohol and tobacco as they do on sit down restaurants. Make that 5+ times as much if they’re heavy smokers.

                  There are actually some decent examples out there of the poor being victims of their own autonomy. It’s not all that uncommon that a low wage worker buys a luxury car they can’t afford, fails to make payments on time, car gets repossessed and his credit score tanks and he has no means of transportation for a while. Although even that mostly happens to blacks.

                  I don’t get your weird obsession with restaurants man, like they’re not that expensive. At least not the ones you singled out. $15 meals aren’t genocide like lmao.

                • jim says:

                  > I don’t get your weird obsession with restaurants man, like they’re not that expensive. At least not the ones you singled out. $15 meals aren’t genocide like lmao

                  Evil capitalists mind controlling workers is a critique of libertarianism, which why Carlylean Restorationist keeps calling us libertarians, because we reject this critique of libertarianism. The masses are supposedly not competent enough to make their own consumption decisions, therefore the state should make those decisions for them. It is a Cultural Marxist argument for socialism.

                  Socialists are always seeing some problem, whether it is global warming or whatever, for which the solution is socialism.

                  Since we are contemptuous of the masses, and this justification is contemptuous of the masses, theoretically we should be sympathetic to this brand of cultural Marxism. And I suppose we are, but because it denies the the role of ethnic cleansing and degree inflation, it is obvious to us as a lie, and as a lie coming from an elite hostile to our own race, religion, nationality, sex, and ethnicity.

                  He tells us we should outgroup a group composed largely of people of our own race, religion, nationality, sex, and ethnicity, and should ignore the problems that are caused by another group hostile to our own race, religion, nationality, sex, and ethnicity. It is the latter part that triggers our enemy recognition mechanism. Not so much that he is blaming capitalists, but that he is blaming capitalists for the wrong evil things done through the wrong evil mechanism. It was not mind control that forced whites to flee the inner city.

                  If he complained that George Soros was funding the Caravan, then we find it plausible that capitalists are bad. But capitalists mind controlling the proletariat to eat expensive fast food? Not bloody likely.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim sticks to the standard line:

                  “If you were worried about ordinary people, if you did not intend to exterminate them, you would have noticed that the reason that they are vulnerable to financial shocks right now is the mass migration of a hostile outgroup.”

                  An interesting theory, and normally I’d be very sympathetic to scapegoating the migrants.

                  This I find a bit of a stretch though: white workers are spending all their money (you’re insisting we don’t look at on what lol) because immigration?

                  Walk me through it.

                  “Your comments are low quality, consisting of claims of superior holiness, lies about what other people say, and formulaic Marxist stuff that we have all heard before.”

                  Pure projection.

                  “The argument that the masses are mind controlled by evil capitalists is a criticism of libertarianism to which reactionaries are sympathetic.”

                  BS. Give me one example of this phenomenon that you admit exists.
                  You deny it with the food places, you deny it with the gambling dens and you deny it with the shit culture.

                  Got an example of how capitalism’s bad for the population that you accept and recognise?

                  “We are considerably less sympathetic when we are told that the problem is that the masses are mind controlled to eat fast food, rather than mind controlled to refrain from violent response to ethnic cleansing.”

                  It’s interesting that you admit the capitalists, as opposed to the government, are involved in repressing natural self-interest. Are you warming to the idea the capitalists are part of the Cathedral after all, and not victims?

                • jim says:

                  > > “If you were worried about ordinary people, if you did not intend to exterminate them, you would have noticed that the reason that they are vulnerable to financial shocks right now is the mass migration of a hostile outgroup.”

                  > This I find a bit of a stretch though: white workers are spending all their money (you’re insisting we don’t look at on what lol) because immigration

                  The same way invasion always inflicts exorbitant financial costs on those conquered. Duh!

                  Whites are spending exorbitant amounts of money on housing. They lose their homes to conquering invaders, need to buy new homes where their kids will not be beaten up, and any home where their kids will not be beaten up is extremely expensive.

                  That is what invasion is. That is the primary cost of invasion. That is why invasion is good for the invading group and bad for the conquered group.

                  And they need to get a degree, because employers require degrees, and employers require degrees because they are not allowed to discriminate on race, so discriminate on anything that the are allowed to discriminate on that correlates with race.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Is Jim now admitting that capitalists are part of the Cathedral?

                • jim says:

                  You tediously and repetitiously lie about other people’s words.

                  Stop telling us what we said. You only say someone said something, when he did not say that thing.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The same old somersaults to let the capitalists off the hook.

                  You’ll never admit that it’s the capitalists and the economic right that’s always campaigned for the free movement of labour.
                  You’ll never admit that muds spend all their money on crap.

                  And you’ll never admit that something’s wrong with the white working class living paycheck to paycheck and taking out debt for consumption. It’s not normal and it’s not ok, and it’s the fault of capitalism.

                • jim says:

                  > You’ll never admit that it’s the capitalists and the economic right that’s always campaigned for the free movement of labour.

                  Free movement of labor is not the primary problem. It is the free movement of “refugees” who come in to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat.

                  If evil capitalists were causing the problem, we would have a enormous H1B problem. We have a small H1B problem, and an enormous “refugee” problem and an enormous section 8 housing problem.

                  The role of capitalists in this problem is approximately proportional to the role of H1Bs in this problem. To estimate the role of capitalists, take the number of H1Bs, and divide by the number of section eights and TANFs.

                  Capitalists are a miniscule part of the problem.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well to give CR a small victory on one point… On the H1B thing we DID have an enormous H1B problem though the God Emperor has reduced it to a small problem.

                • jim says:

                  It was an enormous problem for me and my fellow engineers. It was not an enormous problem for the plumber who cannot make ends meet. His problem is the section eight TANF from Somalia that moved in next door.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “It was an enormous problem for me and my fellow engineers. It was not an enormous problem for the plumber who cannot make ends meet. His problem is the section eight TANF from Somalia that moved in next door.”

                  Yeah I was an engineer too and got out of school when it became an enormous problem and hence was unemployed for a long time.

                  You are right that it wasn’t a problem to blue collar people. They had a problem with Mexican and to a lesser extent Eastern European tradespeople undercutting them and yes rapeugees being settled where they lived.

                • jim says:

                  Even for us engineers, the housing prices bite worse than the H1Bs ever did, and it is primarily illegals and refugees that are driving us into ever smaller enclaves, the section eights and the TANFs that are driving us before them, and enjoying the lamentations of our women.

                  The portion of Silicon Valley where a white engineer can live is shrinking visibly and rapidly. The housing prices are not going to kill you if you are single with no kids. If you are a single engineer and no kids, it is H1Bs that are the big problem, but if you have a girl, housing prices bite, and if you have a girl and want kids, they bite far worse than everything else put together.

                • The Cominator says:

                  >”Even for us engineers, the housing prices bite worse than the H1Bs ever did”

                  If you were entry level/out of school the H1b thing was worse. You can live in substandard housing but it is soul crushing to go through engineering school and not being able to find work…

                  Its in the past for me though now… since I don’t really have to work again.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim understates his position:

                  “Free movement of labor is not the primary problem.”

                  Is it a problem at all?

                  Logically if a skilled worker moves from Mexico to the US to fill a vacancy that’s been there for months, that’s a good thing, right?

                  After all, all men were created equal, yes?

                  So long as the economics of the situation is in order, what else is there to worry about?

                  lol

                • jim says:

                  > Logically if a skilled worker moves from Mexico to the US to fill a vacancy that’s been there for months, that’s a good thing, right?

                  If a skilled worker moves from Mexico, he does so as an H1B.

                  I have made my position on H1Bs abundantly clear, and so have most of the commentators on this blog. Ship them back. And in fact the God Emperor has shipped quite a lot of them back, though a lot more need to go.

                  If you are a skilled worker who is willing to live in substandard housing, H1Bs are the major, or at least a major problem.

                  But if you have a girl, you will swiftly discover that illegals and refugees are causing much bigger problems than H1Bs, and it is not evil capitalist overlords who are importing the illegals, the refugees, the Section Eights, and the TANFs.

                  Notice that Trump found it a whole lot easier to ship the H1Bs back than to ship the Section Eights back, which tells you who is pushing this.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Evil capitalists mind controlling workers is a critique of libertarianism, which why Carlylean Restorationist keeps calling us libertarians, because we reject this critique of libertarianism. The masses are supposedly not competent enough to make their own consumption decisions, therefore the state should make those decisions for them. It is a Cultural Marxist argument for socialism.”

                  Yeah but restaurants are the least convincing example of this imaginable.

                  If CR were to go after say Mercedes Benz for selling poor whites cars they can’t afford leading to repossession and financial ruin, he’d maybe have a point.

                  If CR were to go after Marlboro or Jack Daniels for selling expensive, addictive and harmful products to the white working class, he’d maybe have a point.

                  If CR were to go after casinos for getting poor whites addicted to gambling and ruining countless lives, he’d maybe have a point.

                  Obviously socialism isn’t the solution to any of those problems, but at least those would be more convincing examples of big business harming poor whites.

                  But no he says the white working class is barely scraping by because they get $15 double cheeseburgers on the weekends. Give me a fucking break.

                • jim says:

                  > he says the white working class is barely scraping by because they get $15 double cheeseburgers on the weekends. Give me a fucking break.

                  Google consumerism The commies always provide examples that are ridiculous, that are beyond stupid. I don’t have an adequate explanation for the excruciating absurdity of their propaganda.

                  Maybe it is point deer make horse. 指鹿為馬 Perhaps believing the ridiculous is a loyalty test for their own membership, rather than a genuine propaganda offensive. It is as if a Christian missionary was to lead with “God is three and God is one”. Good way of checking that your missionaries are reliable, not too likely to be successful as a missionary tactic.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Notice that Trump found it a whole lot easier to ship the H1Bs back than to ship the Section Eights back, which tells you who is pushing this.”

                  In what way?

                  It’s pretty obvious that the rat that employed Cristhian Rivera was benefiting from Mexican migration, which is why he lobbied for it on behalf of the GOP.

                  That town should be under martial law.

                • jim says:

                  If so obvious, the rats employing H1Bs should be doing a whole lot better.

                  That the H1B employers folded like cardboard shows that the illegals are not here to work, but to conquer.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Notice that Trump found it a whole lot easier to ship the H1Bs back than to ship the Section Eights back, which tells you who is pushing this.”

                  > In what way?

                  In that they are going, many of them are gone, and but Daca and the Somalis are not yet going.

                  This shows that foreigners are being brought here to conquer and destroy, not to work.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Interesting that the leftists at Wikipedia claim consumerism destroys the *individual*. That’s exactly backwards. Consumerism elevates the individual and destroys *society*.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The censorship here is now comparable to a Gary Younge article at the Guardian before they removed the comments section altogether.

                  I suggest you do the same James old boy.

                • jim says:

                  I just censor lies about what other people say, since rebutting lies about what other people say is a waste of space. I am not going to waste the reader’s time by explaining that spending $15 on fast food is the motte, and spending $50 is the bailey in your motte and bailey argument. When you pull that lying deceit, I am just going silently delete it. Your lies are complicated to explain, and the explanation that so and so did not say such and such, he said something subtly different, is unlikely to interest the reader.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              I linked a lot of news articles which strongly suggest the situation’s the same in the US but Jim saw fit to deny you that evidence. Google is your friend on this and only this occasion.
              Search “living paycheck to paycheck” and search “consumer debt at all-time high” and you’ll see that I’m not making this up out of some Marxist plot to bring about equality through serfdom and aristocracy, as much as Jim might continue to claim it!

              I would also like to inform you that if you’re about to ask HOW exactly poverty and welfare and third world savages (and government debt?) are good for GDP, I’ve already answered it and it was censored: that kind of wrong-think is not safe to allow a platform to.

              Do the numbers yourself but stop thinking like a Keynesian and start thinking like a Misesian: what do INDIVIDUALS do when they have insufficient money to rent, and will never have enough for a deposit?
              What do INDIVIDUALS do when they get their welfare cheque and what do INDIVIDUAL firms think when they do that?

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Art:

      “Everyone is not equal. Not everyone is smart. But it is a Marxist mistake to underestimate rationality of not smart people,
      to project onto them your own circumstances, and to assume that if they make choices different then yours they must be irrational.”

      Just to be clear, are you saying you’re intensely relaxed about “most US workers living paycheck to paycheck” and “consumer debt is at an all-time high”?

      I would provide links but (((some people))) don’t like proof. They prefer to slate me for having none.

      Google those terms if you think I’m lying to you. I suppose I just got the story from pro-government shill Peter Schiff.

      • Art says:

        Art:
        “I also think it is presumptuous of CR to think that catering to that need is abusive.”

        CR:
        I’m under no libertarian obligation to respect the right of the market to supply every need presented for auction.

        Art:
        My post was about people making regular consumption choices (meals, supermarkets…) that you disapprove of because your tastes and values are different from theirs.
        You seem to be saying that you do not recognize their right to make these choices, but for some reason in order to do so you must first label these people as “the market”.

        CR:
        “Just to be clear, are you saying you’re intensely relaxed about “most US workers living paycheck to paycheck” and “consumer debt is at an all-time high”?”

        Art:
        You must be confusing me with another poster.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I’m asking you an important question. It may become a matter of life and death in the coming decades for our people:

          Does it bother you a little bit or a lot to know that most US workers are living paycheck to paycheck and consumer debt is at an all-time high?

          Are you bothered at all? Do you anything to be done about it?

          Notice I’m not asking you to defer to any proposed solution in particular: for all I know you might be a Keynesian and might favour ramping up the interest rates and applying a universal sales tax while offering tax relief on savings and pensions, and abolishing the estate tax.
          (That might be just what the doctor ordered, though as you know I’d get a little bit more hands on personally.)

          • jim says:

            Anyone who claims to care deeply about people he has obviously never met and obviously knows nothing about is up to no good.

          • Art says:

            I don’t see how this would be directly relevant to our conversation, but since you think this question is important, I will address it.

            Obviously these days no working class people in the West, or almost everywhere else need to borrow in order to buy bare necessities. If people choose to indulge on credit, this usually means that both them and creditors feel optimistic about the future.
            If those expectations fall short – it is the creditors who will be screwed first and foremost. If this is indeed a lending bubble and if it does burst, judging by recent history, the consequences would be unpleasant but far from catastrophic.
            Efforts to prevent it are likely to cause far more damage on the long term. As imperfect as lender’s incentives may be, they are still far better than yours or anyone else’s.

            I have no idea what to do about it, and neither do you. It is a very hard problem with many uncertain variables. Not only that, but even we were put in charge of solving this supposed problem, we have no incentive to get it right. We get credit just for caring about poor strangers. Lenders on the other hand do have money in the game.

            So to answer your question, it bothers me the sense that it would be nice if we all had unlimited resources, and it is unfortunate that we don’t.

            • Art says:

              And BTW if bankers choose to give out loans that are not likely to be repaid – it doesn’t bother me. They know how to run their business better than I do.

              • jim says:

                > if bankers choose to give out loans that are not likely to be repaid – it doesn’t bother me. They know how to run their business better than I do.

                Does bother me.

                See Moldbug on this topic.

                Bankers know that if they make bad loans at the same time as lots of other bankers make bad loans, then they are going to be all bailed out by you and me, because if lots of banks go belly up at the same time, this has large externalities. So they are apt to follow fashion and the latest hot trend, without too much concern for whether fashion and the latest hot trend is sane.

                • Art says:

                  True. And I did allude to that with “as imperfect as lender’s incentives may be…”
                  In other words, I believe that even under current circumstances my point still stands.
                  Addressing the problem of bailouts in any way other than stopping bailouts is likely to only make things worse, for the reasons I already outlined.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Bankers know that if they make bad loans at the same time as lots of other bankers make bad loans, then they are going to be all bailed out by you and me, because if lots of banks go belly up at the same time, this has large externalities. So they are apt to follow fashion and the latest hot trend, without too much concern for whether fashion and the latest hot trend is sane.”

                  Best solution here is the Chinese one… the big banks have to get bailed out then the top bankers need to get executed.

  15. Mister Grumpus says:

    Can’t wait for your take on the “caravan”, Jim.

    • jim says:

      Not much to say: Enemies under an enemy flag. They come to conquer, not to join. Democrats delude themselves imagining that they will be docile democrat voters. The Democrats are about to turn brown, socialist, overtly anti American, and overtly anti white. They are about to turn into the party of Hugo Chávez, which having been freely elected by browner Venezuelans on the platform that browner Venezuelans would be able to loot the supermarkets largely owned by whiter Venezuelans, promptly lost the elections in ensuing economic catastrophe, and holds onto power by murder and intimidation.

      The caravan is looting the shops as it passes through Mexico, like the conquering army that it is, and when it arrives here, will go right on doing so.

      They are fleeing the economic disaster that they themselves caused, and are about to impose that disaster on us, their hated and reviled enemies.

      • The Cominator says:

        This was an army of barbarians that the democrats raised they aren’t really fleeing they are mercs.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        You don’t hold out any hope that Don might figure out how to pass the shit test?

        • The Cominator says:

          95% confident the God-Emperor will pass the shit test. Easy for him to frame this as an invading army raised by Democrats because it is an invading army raised by Democrats.

          Non-lethal weapons will be used to break the block up and snipers on some of the more dangerous looking men.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Just imagine the psychological effect of Americans seeing their own military defending their own border from foreign attack. No one alive has ever seen this, even in fiction.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        The conventional public wisdom is that Don can’t POSSIBLY let it get to the point where the media is videotaping Consuela and her six crying children falling over with their faces all messed up from tear gas.

        And I’m like “…Um… Really though? You sure?”

        But then again I’m an edge-case fruit who’s heard of this blog and takes it seriously.

        (And if surface winds that day are out of the south then we’re all fucked.)

  16. peppermint says:

    A hot topic in data science for the past 5 years is how to train a model to have the biases of the researchers which is plausibly related to the data it’s fed.

    This is likelier to work than a non-genetic-cluster-ist IQ test that doesn’t simply bias its results by genetic cluster (predicting performance is for ppl without an abundance mentality)

    • peppermint says:

      My point is, the amount of lying to sustain Boomerism can increase arbitrarily. No single Boomer or pre-Boomer wanted these lies. They wanted to be loved by everyone and they wanted to love everyone, they wanted to have everything and every woman and cheat everyone and also have their stuff and their woman and not be cheated.

      Since only a religion can win a holy war, we must have Christianity.

      CR is a demonstration that only a religion can win a holy war. He wants the Britain of 1995-2005 back, with more saving and less eating out, but that is already a republic of liars and sodomites.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        And religion can only win a holy war, if we threaten our opponents with hell and damnation. Hell is eternal.

        • peppermint says:

          Threatening opponents with ostracisism in this world and the next is a technique our enemies have been using.

          Valuing truth and actual virtue is the way our religion wins.

          Which is why Boomer Christians failed so hard. They wanted to win, they wanted to be Christian, but they wanted comfortable lies, fame and sluts more.

          Jesus warned them that when they showed up saying Lord, Lord, their response would be, begone, I never knew you (Mt.7,15)

        • peppermint says:

          “Cultural” Boomer Christians refuse to take the clear guidance for dealing with liars and sodomites seriously, because fundamentally they think they know better. Even when humbled by their manifest failure and looking to return to their religion, like Matt Groenig in recent Simpsons eps. Doesn’t matter how many times he draws God and Jesus and St. Peter and Heaven and Hell, he’s a Boomer and constitutionally incapable of taking anything but Boomerism seriously.

          Didn’t matter what Socrates said about truth and virtue. The Assembly wanted the lies that destroyed Athens. Against liars and sodomites, the senators and philosopher-kings of Rome strove in vain.

          Constantine couldn’t save Rome, but Constantinople stood for a thousand years and fought the Muslims for several hundred. How Constantinople failed is a question we’ll need an answer to when we start building something to last more than a century.

  17. Art says:

    Peppermint:
    “Caloric Reductionist…”
    +++

Leave a Reply