The right wins in Brazil

If we are lucky, this will be the last Brazilian election in a very long time. Bolsanaro is more Trump than Trump is.

The White House has confirmed that US president Donald Trump called  Jair Bolsonaro on Sunday night to congratulate him on his election victory.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders says that Trump congratulated the president-elect and that “both expressed a strong commitment to work side-by-side to improve the lives of the people of the United States and Brazil.

The losers looked remarkably like Hillary supporters on election night. Lots of delicious liberal tears.

His political program is on the face of it unremarkable: for gun rights, for family, against abortion, for capitalism, for God, for country, for secure property rights and in particular for secure property rights in land and houses, against crime and corruption. Is there anyone who is openly for crime and corruption?

So why the all the drama?

Because, in the eternal struggle between priests and warriors, he thinks that warriors should rule. When our priestly classes, the professoriat, the media, and the judiciary, cast God out of the high places, they sawed off the branch on which they were sitting. For priests to rule, they need to plausibly claim to represent God and be backed by God.

And, having declared themselves holier than God, proceeded to rub it in with gay rights, transexuals, and so on and so forth. There is a limit to what can be done with soft power, and they have hit that limit, and are flailing. Increasingly they are forced to use openly dictatorial methods, such as seizing the gab.com domain name.

We have non priestly rulers in the USA, in the Philippines, in Hungary, and now in Brazil, the most openly opposed to the official priesthood of them all. In the USA, the priestly classes are abandoning their pretended support for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so even if they win, they lose. In Hungary, and only in Hungary, the elected government has taken real power from the permanent government, but if it can be done in Hungary, possible in America.

The holiness spiral, the left wing singularity, inexorably leads the priesthood into self destruction. The details of the crash are different each time, as glass shatters differently each time, but the crash is inevitable. Where we go from here no one knows, but ever leftwards is looking less and less likely.

The seizure of Gab a few days before the election, and the obvious bomb fakery, reveals that they are abandoning business as usual, and are now going to try open priestly dictatorship, as in Russia in 1916

If they had just sat quiet for eight years of Trump, and waited for demographics to continue to move in their favor, they would have been fine. Business as usual would have worked for them and would have destroyed us. But the underlying force of the left wing singularity will not let them sit quiet. They have to continue becoming ever more extreme, ever faster, and it is biting them. The frog is now being fast fried instead of slow boiled.

422 Responses to “The right wins in Brazil”

  1. […] The right wins in Brazil […]

  2. Koanic says:

    The Gab.com domain is not seized. Gab.ai shows the same page. Torba took the site down to transition from Joyent to a new host. He did the same thing earlier, to back up the site, when Joyent announced they were dropping Gab.

    If the domain were seized, Torba would send out an email to his list warning not to visit the URL. No such email has been sent.

    Also, I don’t buy that Sayoc was a fake. I think he put up the Trump stickers on the windows of his permanently parked van (for homeless living) in order to make his fake bombs in privacy. He obviously does have some artistic flair for decoration, being a homo with various vanity shots. Trump has succeeded in ungrammatically appealing to the (fully enfranchised voter) insane filipino stripper crackhead demographic, digging deep into the Democratic base. Roll Red Tide.

    • Koanic says:

      http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2018/10/28/godaddy-threatens-to-pull-gabs-domain/

      Whoah, GoDaddy did give 24 hour notice to switch domain registrars. I guess this is what Jim was talking about.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Up 4.7% as of 18:15GMT, the day after they threw away a quarter million contract from Gab for political reasons.

        Seems investors are either enthusiastic or indifferent to this.

        • jim says:

          Pretty sure that investors are horrified and outraged by this, but know that if they complained they would get into big trouble fast.

          I have gotten drunk with these people. They are terrified and terrorized.

    • peppermint says:

      At this point, it doesn’t matter if he made them.

      Someone else delivered one to CNN.

      That person is probably closer to the brains of the operation.

      • Koanic says:

        More reasons to believe that Sayoc acted alone:

        He has a history of doing two things that, when combined, equal fake bomb hoax:

        1. Prolifically sending low-IQ death threats to whomever is a hate figure in the right-wing media
        2. Acquiring vitamin bottles from stores, filling them with beans, and then taking a refund.

        So what’s a death threat involving a hand-crafted object with a deceptive external appearance? A mailed fake bomb.

        I haven’t seen any reason to posit more than a one man operation from the delivery side. I assume the reason photos leaked is that he sent so many.

        • jim says:

          If someone sends death threats, and is not swiftly locked up, obvious fed and agent provocateur. They don’t tolerate loose cannons. If he has been making death threats long enough to have “a history”, federal agent provocateur.

          • Koanic says:

            Having read (to the extent they contained text) the death threats he was sending, I would not expect them to get him locked up. I would not expect most people to read them long enough to figure out that they were indeed death threats, particularly famous people, who get tons of death threats as a matter of course, and rarely do any consequences occur for the sendees, except the most egregious thereof.

            • jim says:

              Really?

              Send a death threat under your own traceable identity to someone powerful in the same jurisdiction as yourself and let us know how it turns out.

              You have been telling us how you boldly confront our enemies under you own name. Show us.

              • Koanic says:

                Sure, really.

                https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/twitter-account-linked-to-cesar-sayoc-made-death-threats-and-twitter-declined-to-suspend-him.html

                https://www.scribd.com/document/391692784/full-tweet-archive-of-the-MAGA-Bomber

                We know how it did turn out. For his most egregious threat (first link), the random minion Twitter moderator who reviewed the reported tweet didn’t manage to extract an actionable offense from the mangled sentences.

                The others didn’t even rise to that level of specificity.

                It never even got reported to the police.

                Traceable, powerful, and same jurisdiction are all gradients, not binaries. Cybercrime of all types tends to overwhelm law enforcement’s response capacity.

                • staircase of death says:

                  Like virtually all “internet tough guys,” you’ve always been nothing but a LARPer.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @staircase of death

                  Since (((Bill Kristol))) and Conservative, Inc are now obviously controlled opposition to most people… the Cathedral is recruiting new types of entryists:

                  Academic marxists posing as “my fellow reactionary” (Communist Revoluti… I mean, Carlylean Restorationists)

                  AltRight / Reactionary LARPers who deliberately use ineffective tactics… See Kessler, Richard Spencer and Koanic

                • Baphomet says:

                  That’s true, R7 Rocket. However, I do believe that Equinic learned his lesson, and will henceforward use more sophisticated tactics to manipulate “fellow right-wingers” to engage in self-destructive activism; which will not in the least avail him, but rather will entertain us better than his heretofore retard-tier output.

                  “Make yourself a Terror to your adversary, and when he goeth his way, he will possess
                  much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in
                  all the walks of life, and your spirit – your *immortal* spirit – shall live, not in an
                  intangible paradise, but in the brains and sinews of those whose respect you have
                  gained.”

                • Koanic says:

                  It is possible to be conquered politically but not personally. When Moab ruled Israel, Ehud strapped a sword to his right thigh. He was morally justified, and he created the opportune moment.

                  I can’t tell what you geldings stand for, but it doesn’t appear to involve admitting that violent resistance is morally justified, much less that there might be a time and a place for it, now or ever.

                  There’s a country full of people who think the status quo is more or less unquestionable, and I’m happy to differ from them by stating again: the USG is illegitimate, and I advocate violent revolution.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I disavow Koanic after reading this thread.

                  Koanic stop fed-posting. No good can ever come of it, whether you mean it or not.

                  Stop it.

                • Koanic says:

                  The European cringes on command. It is unseemly in an American, who learned defiance from the free Tribes of the forest, and the horse raiders of the plains.

                  An American is defined by the frontier; everything else is Euro-sodomy.

                  Now the frontier is closed, but a new vista opens – cyberspace. If you can’t speak freely here, you won’t anywhere.

                  And from the wild frontier, raiders descend upon settled slaves, to rape, pillage and burn, as it has ever been.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  “I’m happy to differ from them by stating again: the USG is illegitimate, and I advocate violent revolution.”

                  @Koanic
                  Then go build your nukes and pmc’s then.

                • jim says:

                  Again, I urge Koanic to lead the way by issuing a death threat under his own identity, an identity known to authorities in his own jurisdiction, against a powerful person in his own jurisdiction, and report to us how it turned out for him. 😉

                • Koanic says:

                  > Then go build your nukes and pmc’s then.

                  Obviously that will happen, is happening. Nuclear proliferation and mercenary militarization will increase as the USA breaks apart and Pax Americana collapses. I am interested in shortening the dark age by building technology to facilitate cooperation and trust, which is the hard problem of cohesion.

                  > Again, I urge Koanic to lead the way by issuing a death threat under his own identity, an identity known to authorities in his own jurisdiction, against a powerful person in his own jurisdiction, and report to us how it turned out for him.

                  And I urge you, Jim, to lead the way by personally impregnating a 13 year old girl who is horny and asking for it. Because that is the standard of reading comprehension you are applying to me.

                  My actual advice to the individual who will listen and follow it, is to get out of the way of the titanic historical forces and their inevitable sanguine conclusion. Secure a base of operations that won’t be overrun. Set long term objectives and see them through. It is almost impossible to change the world by doing something NOW, because many people with short time preferences always want to do so. However the competition thins to almost nothing at a 50 year time horizon.

                • Koanic says:

                  If Americans will not rebel against the manifestly evil and illegitimate USG, then either they do not exist, or they are no longer Americans.

                  Thus freed from the illusion of collective cohesion, the individual must plot a course of effective atomized action.

                  In the absence of the American myth, there is literally nothing holding the Empire together except Diversity + Proximity, which as we all know, equals War.

                • jim says:

                  Atomized action is not going to be effective. Need a source of collective cohesion that has reason to support our interests.

                • Eli says:

                  So, I may not be getting it: why is the USG illegitimate?

                  I can see how USG overstepping its jurisdiction by de facto *interfering* in local/state/municipal affairs *is* illegitimate (via things like “Violence Against Women Act” etc). Is that what you mean? It does not deligitimize the government altogether.

                • Koanic says:

                  The USG is illegitimate because it inverts its founding mythology, a mythology still alive in the conservative Christian South. Observe the rhetoric surrounding #1A and #2A.

                  Absent that context, it’s just another Empire, although one currently rather urgently destroying its native race.

                  I think the USA will break up, because there is no source of collective cohesion. But let’s follow Trump for now and hope for the best; he’s the best we’ve got.

                • alf says:

                  Advocating stuff you yourself don’t do, for whatever reason, is a bit icky. If you leave your homeland because of safety reasons, inconsistent to advocate violent revolution for those still in the homeland.

                • Koanic says:

                  I didn’t leave my homeland for safety reasons, although that is what I advise others do.

                  Jim advocates a different system of managing horny 13 year old girls, but doesn’t personally implement it. Some things need to be done as a group. Failing to understand this is a bit thicky.

                • alf says:

                  So far you have advocated:
                  – violent resistance
                  – making death threats
                  – leaving your home country
                  – securing a base of operations (presumably, outside your home country, far away from your genetic tribe, far away from the soil you are bound to)

                  Your advice is inconsistent. I will not follow it.

                  Jim’s advice regarding young girls is:
                  – reinstate ownership; she is owned by her father, later by her husband.

                  As far as I can tell, Jim has no daughters, so cannot show how to do this. But he owns his women, and so do I. Works very well. And, if I have a daughter, I will treat her exactly the way Jim advocates.

                  Jim’s advice is to prosper, to own territory, own a woman, start a family. Jim’s advice is consistent, and I follow it.

                • Koanic says:

                  You lack reading comprehension. I never advocated making death threats.

                  You also do not understand the difference between advocate and advise, group and individual, USA and Europe.

                  You are some sort of Scandinavian. I advise you to stay in your country and fight for it, if necessary. How forward you want to be in the charge, how to define the word “fight”, is your decision.

                  The fact that I have given you a perfectly symmetrical example, and you have failed to understand it, leads me to suspect that this is an IQ communication gap problem. Perhaps compounded by ESL.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Nuclear proliferation and mercenary militarization will increase as the USA breaks apart and Pax Americana collapses.

                  Questionable. Number one incentive to get nukes today is because America leaves you alone when you do.

                  >If Americans will not rebel against the manifestly evil and illegitimate USG…

                  Do you have any historical examples in mind where this sort of thing happened and wasn’t an unmitigated disaster?

                • alf says:

                  You advocate violent resistance. You also state that tons of death threats rarely have consequences, but show power, as in Cesar Mayoc’s bomb threat supposedly showing the power of the red wave. 1 + 1 seems to add up to 2.

                  You further advocate getting out of reach of the cathedral. I understand how this is a necessity for some, a very important choice even, but understand that for others it is fleeing. You atomize yourself. I am rooted where I live, and even if I have broken all contact with my family, save my mother, I have plenty of friends and allies that care for me, that I care for.

                  To cooperate with them, would be detrimental to use your tone. You want to see blood, but not everyone wants to see blood. Jim’s tone, however, works pretty good.

                • Koanic says:

                  There are a number of good violent revolutions in the Bible. The one that parallels the USA’s situation is Jehu. Specifically, when the eunuchs throw Jezebel out the window. The USA needs an anti-communist revolution. There have been a number of successful ones. The USA is too Diversified for any peaceful resolution. There is no non-disastrous outcome.

                  > 1 + 1 seems to add up to 2.

                  This is a classic example of what happens when a midwit tries to interpret a 3 SD+ position. You said, “You advocate death threats”. I never said that. So you lied, and are a liar. How’s that for “interpretation”?

                  Hey, I really enjoy this creative rephrasing. How about, you didn’t mean “Koanic advocated death threats”, but that Alf shouldn’t be permitted to read Koanic’s words, because he will incorrectly extrapolate exceedingly poor personal advice from them, and is justifiably afraid that he might helplessly act upon his misinterpretations in a sudden fit of high-time-preference impulsiveness, because he makes decisions by random selection of the handful of ideas currently floating around in his pinhead?

                  I don’t believe in making death threats, because it’s un-Biblical.

                  “You further advocate getting out of reach of the cathedral.”

                  No I didn’t. That is only necessary for men who are fleeing child support payments.

                  Your objection boils down to tone policing. I don’t care. If I want to communicate with the lower IQ, I will obviously not tell them what I actually think, any more than I would attempt to fill my coffee mug with the contents of the entire pot.

                • jim says:

                  Jehu was a leader of mighty men. He was not engaged in individual action.

                  It is possible that after the mid terms, the permanent government will attempt to arrest Trump. If they succeed, shortly thereafter will arrest Pence and three supreme court judges. If that happens, likely a Jehu will appear.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Eli:

                  “why is the USG illegitimate?”

                  Because we all know Marco Rubio’s owned

                • pdimov says:

                  >The USA needs an anti-communist revolution. There have been a number of successful ones.

                  Name three.

                • Simon says:

                  I doubt you are +3sd Koanic. Your style says otherwise.

                • alf says:

                  Just as I have no trouble acknowledging that I am, IQ wise, smarter than 97% of white men, I have no trouble acknowledging that 3% of white men are smarter, IQ wise, than I am, sometimes intimidatingly so.

                  At the same time, I have always been surprised at how stupid many of these very smart men can be. You calling me a midwit falls in this category. I do not lack reading comprehension, at least not more than you lack self-knowledge that barging in here saying stuff like ‘USG is illegitimate and we need a violent revolution’ is apt to prompt a response.

                  My objection boils down to reading your words, including ‘sea of blood’, ‘violence’ and ‘revolution’, and thinking that all that sounds mighty activistic, a bit LARPy. I prefer a restoration, not a revolution.

                  Perhaps you do not mean it that way, but going off on condescending rants does not help your case.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Jehu was a leader of mighty men. He was not engaged in individual action.

                  Yes. While there are examples of individual violent revolutionary action in the Bible, advocating violent revolution does not intrinsically entail support for solo attempts at instigating revolution ala John Brown and Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh pretty thoroughly falsified the hypothesis that Americans of that sort still exist in any numbers. I call it the Big Bang Theory.

                  > My objection boils down to reading your words, including

                  What you have described in that paragraph is exactly how midwit gammas read. Instead of actually parsing the meaning of the text, you pick out trigger words, assemble them into a false impression, and spout off about “mighty” and “seems”. I’m shocked that you thought it was a good idea to admit you do this. I was planning to prosecute you and you just volunteered a confession.

                  > going off on condescending rants does not help your case.

                  I am trying to convince you to stop reading what I write.

                  Pdimov> Name three [anti-Communist Revolutions].

                  No. I’ll give three examples I like:

                  Ehud vs Moab
                  American Revolutionary War
                  Spanish Civil War

                • alf says:

                  Idiot.

                  You say you left America because of safety reasons, then you say you didn’t leave America because of safety reasons.

                  You say you advocate violent revolution, then you say you don’t advocate violent revolution.

                  You say to leave the West, then you say not to leave the West.

                  When asked to explain these inconsistencies, instead of explaining yourself, you accuse me of lacking reading comprehension. When I insist, you accuse me of being gamma, although in your typical style you might just as well deny that you called me a gamma. Being a dimwit is an insult I can entertain, but being a gamma is an insult so obviously untrue and stupid that you seem to be going on an NPC script.

                  I’ve always liked your post on black holes a couple of years ago. But from this I sadly conclude that you’re an idiot after all.

                • peppermint says:

                  Koanic, when we win without violence like in the one sided accounts of winners or our founding mythos which liberals claim not without reason, we will need men like you to teach us manners.

                  The Spanish civil war was a lot like the Thirty Years War and WWII was partly caused by CR seething that if only the ghouls had been able to send more stuff to their kind they would have gotten their preferred outcome of no Franco and no John Charles but plenty of loose Spanish women whose men were slaves or at least slaves to heroin.

                  While we debate, the GenZ kids hide their nationalism behind talking about eating ass and random agreeing with the liberals for all the wrong reasons socialist rhetoric, because that’s all they know, not having seen the 90s even as children.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, you are an idiot.

                  When people accuse me of running away because I lacked the courage to act upon my convictions, I point out the minor abstract concern I had that by remaining in the USA I would continue to wage a futile guerrilla war that would eventually result in my capture, which parallels Moses’ reasons for leaving, albeit in less dramatic fashion.

                  When an idiot (you) later accuses me of hypocrisy for advising individual initiation of violent revolution (which I do not) while also having left the country for safety reasons, then I point out that I did not leave the country for safety reasons.

                  “Contradiction!” the gamma midwit cries. “I have caught him out!”

                  Similarly, idiots like you read the Bible, find differing details in accounts of the same events, and proudly conclude, “It’s fiction!”

                  Obviously expatriation is a major life decision, which involves the consideration of many factors. However, typically major decisionmaking boils down to a few decisive factors. In my case, a few of the primary factors were:

                  1. Inability to stand the nails-on-chalkboard US ambient CultMarx
                  2. Cuckservative betrayal
                  3. Need to retreat to digest the race red pill

                  Self-preservation was not high on the list; expatriation was part of a pattern of bold and risky behavior during my early adulthood, which is typical of young men without a proper appreciation for the long view.

                  You are a complete moron who cannot understand the concept of giving different advice to Westerners living on different continents. STOP READING WHAT I WRITE. You are too stupid to understand it, and I do not intend to waste any more time talking to you.

                • Koanic says:

                  > but being a gamma is an insult so obviously untrue and stupid that you seem to be going on an NPC script.

                  I don’t think you are a gamma in most situations, which is what gives you the confidence to behave like one here, without realizing that you are out of your depth, and unable to even read what I write, because you are accustomed to speaking in a lower form of natural language, and don’t even know that a higher form exists. Probably a delta, which can behave gamma or beta depending on the situation.

                • alf says:

                  Hope you didn’t miss this gem of a comment — https://blog.jim.com/party-politics/the-right-wins-in-brazil/#comment-1931473

                  You do not understand people, not the ones you are advising, not the ones you don’t want reading your comments.

                  Your read of me, for instance, is so completely off the mark that it’s pretty much unsalvageable.

                  Wherever I go, I stick out. Women tend to love me, the women in my romantic life love me with deep affection. My current girlfriend, a pretty girl 6 years younger than I am, does her utmost best to stay pretty for me, including going to the gym twice a week for squats and lunges.

                  In my group of friends, I am the outsider, the guy with strange tastes, strange opinions, strange ideas. Yet despite my strangeness, I rank high in the social ladder — not the leader, but 2nd rank or so.

                  Thus, according to Vox Day’s ranking system, I am as stereotypical sigma as you can get, with hints of beta. Not that I expect you to believe me. Just throwing it out there – you have horrible people skills.

                • glosoli says:

                  >Alf shouldn’t be permitted to read Koanic’s words, because he will incorrectly extrapolate.

                  @Alf, sometimes written words need to be extrapolated and interpreted for hidden meaning, they don’t mean what they actually say. Sometimes words do mean exactly what they say.

                  Only 3d geniuses know which option applies at any given point in time, they have the reading comprehension skills that 99.9% of humanity lack, so they make the rules. One could argue this means they literally use a different language than most of humanity, but they make their own rules, so play along midwits, secret Kings and all.

                  They fail to grasp that this makes them incoherent and incomprehensible sometimes, and they can get upset (and their words clearly display their anger and frustration) when normal/high IQ folk just read words as they were written. I trust my words here are not at all obtuse, but the truth can be a game-changer for some men.

                  Who is a gamma? Deep down, at one’s core, everyone knows their own rank, how they run in society and online, whilst one can only hazard a guess at others’. I wonder if DNA/ancestry is a factor in gamma characteristics? Are you truly happy and proud of your ancestors, and who you are, or do you feel a bit sick about having dodgy DNA?

                  Tis a funny old world, to be sure.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think Vox Day’s categorization is useful.

                  Roissy’s categorization is useful. Only alpha and beta matters, and in a society where women are out of control, alpha is what women think is alpha, and nothing else matters much.

                  Since the female concept of status is what one would expect of a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters, this is a problem.

                • alf says:

                  Vox Day’s personality classifications are on the same level as Jung’s MBTI personality classifications, or academic psychology’s big 5 personality classifications. They’re nice party tricks, fun if you’re into personality analysis.

                  Of course, in the big picture, alpha / beta classification is enough.

                • Koanic says:

                  AlfaNL wrote:
                  #+BEGIN_QUOTE

                  In my group of friends, I am the outsider, the guy with strange tastes, strange opinions, strange ideas. Yet despite my strangeness, I rank high in the social ladder — not the leader, but 2nd rank or so.

                  Thus, according to Vox Day’s ranking system, I am as stereotypical sigma as you can get, with hints of beta.

                  #+END_QUOTE

                  Oh man, I skipped past this the first time. You are not a sigma, you are a beta at best. Go reread the definitions. As usual, you are confusing being an outsider with being at the apex. Sigma is apex only.

                  Now, I haven’t read much of anything you write, but I suspect you are a synthetic beta – that you learned game in order to climb to beta. Which means that you are naturally probably delta, maybe with some introversion you had to overcome. Which means that my call was correct, and you do exhibit a gamma streak at times. Although that may be more culturally acceptable in the Netherlands than it would be in the American South.

                  This is yet another midwit-style cognitive error of imprecision. And you wonder why I get irritated. You smugly dismiss Vox’s hierarchy and YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT.

                • jim says:

                  This conversation tells me that Vox Day’s ranking system leads to wasted bandwidth, consistent with my belief that it is a poor fit to reality, and that assigning people rank in his system is difficult, unreliable, and uninformative.

                  Chicks generally perceive me as alpha. Which in a world of feral women, defines alpha. All ranks other than alpha and beta are distracting noise.

                  After we reinstitute patriarchy, will re-introduce the class system. Until then, forget it.

                • Simon says:

                  Koanic, alf is your intellectual superior.

                  https://web.archive.org/web/20120527165825/http://www.koanicsoul.com:80/blog/mathematical-proof-that-the-supernatural-exists/may-19th-2012-archive-of-mathematical-proof-that-the-supernatural-exists/

                  This attempt at philosophy is what I’d expect of someone with an IQ of about 120-125. Your claim of possessing +3sd intelligence is laughable. You are not very intelligent, you are not insightful, and you are obnoxious.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’d say chicks have a 3 tier ranking of men

                  Alpha – High status they want

                  Beta – Men they don’t want but will tolerate and may want in certain moods or for compensation.

                  Creepy (Delta/Gamma) – Nerds and ugly low status awkward men they find repulsive and will avoid, accuse of bullshit up to and including false rape to get rid of. Prostitutes will try to stiff them even if paid.

                  Vox Day’s ranking system is unrealistic and too complex.

                • Koanic says:

                  Vox Day’s hierarchy is the ranking *among men*. Obviously for women perception of male status is much simpler. The male hierarchy enables pack behavior. Pack behavior enables military cohesion. Military cohesion is essential to Reaction.

                  Vox Day’s hierarchy is present in Jack London’s book. Vox merely gave it a name.

                  White Fang is the story of a sigma, “the enemy of his kind”. He begins as an omega.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fang#Plot_summary

                  Call of the Wild is the story of an alpha, the leader of the pack. It features readily identifiable betas, deltas and gammas. The alphas fight to the death.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call_of_the_Wild

                  Pack rank can be confusing and messy, and this is reflected in Jack London’s fiction. Domesticated and wild genes and culture clash, the question settled by fang and club.

                • jim says:

                  > Vox Day’s hierarchy is the ranking *among men*.

                  Ranking among men only counts if you have a cohesive male hierarchy: In the army, they assign you a rank and you wear it on your shoulders. In the corporation, they assign you a rank, and everyone knows what it is. In the priesthood, they assign you a rank and you wear the corresponding priestly robes.

                  If we have a patriarchy, if female sexual choice is restrained, males will cohere.

                  Lacking a cohesive male hierarchy, women would like us to clarify their sexual choices by killing each other until only one remains. And, lacking a cohesive male hierarchy, ranking among men does not count.

                  In a world of feral women, only alphas and betas. And betas are invisible to women, which makes it easier for them to believe delusional things about women, even when they see the contrary happen right in front of their faces.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Vox’s day ranking system is not accurate for men either.

                  Rank in a male hierarchy can be either formal (which it basically never is for women) or informal.

                  If it is informal the rankings are generally

                  Alphas – Leaders

                  Betas – Not leaders but not picked on

                  Bitch/Nerd etc – Subject to orders and especially when younger to abuse.

                • Koanic says:

                  It is true, Jim. Like Buck’s dog-sled team while he contested with Spitz, no work can get done while the hierarchy is indeterminate, and globohomo prevents decisive settlement. Moreover, what hierarchy does arise, may not reflect true merit, any more than Jesus was crowned king of Jerusalem, except ironically. Nevertheless, pack dynamics are impossible to fully suppress, and explain a large part of social reality. Jim is obviously the Alpha here, and AlfaNL has been explaining why he prefers being (Voxian) Beta to Jim rather than Koanic, as if I wanted to be his Alpha.

                • alf says:

                  You’re not getting it, I’m done explaining. Gl hf in China.

                • Koanic says:

                  That is all I ask. If more midwits would do the same, I wouldn’t want to live in China.

                • Anon says:

                  >+3sd
                  >Believes humans came from pigs and bonobos fucking

                  No

                • Koanic says:

                  You are obviously not 3+ SD, or you would have learned very early that the supposed boundaries of common sense possibility are in fact the training wheels of the retarded. “For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.”

                  It is plain as day that macroevolution proceeds primarily by the shuffling of chunks of genetic information, not the accretion of atomic mutations ala Darwinian gradualism. What would be surprising is if life’s only mechanism of adaptation were lucky flipped bits from cosmic rays.

                  Your position will be considered as absurd as Ptolemaic geocentrism, once the current crop of global-warming-believing scientists stops lying in unread tomes and starts lying in unmourned tombs.

              • Koanic says:

                > You have been telling us how you boldly confront our enemies under you own name. Show us.

                Not true. I merely claimed to have done so, past tense, to demonstrate my consistency in exercising the #1A right to advocate violence, all the way back into college.

                That is public record. Anyone who does the digging can find out for himself.

                Hence how I know about death threats. The Muslims started sending them to my family, who then objected to me.

                Pseudonymity was the compromise we reached, particularly since I had doubts about my worldview, not having completed the red-pilling process.

                I now chafe at the restriction, and plan to legally change my surname. However, Koanic is the name that goes with my face, and I find it intrinsically more suitable for this sphere of activity.

                Jesus did not find itself necessary to identify himself upon demand, and neither do I.

                • staircase of death says:

                  LARPer pussy with no balls, talking trash on the internet and can’t back it up.

                • Koanic says:

                  You are complaining that I do not doxx myself, when in fact I have also been accused of doxxing myself and being a namefag, due to having my face on my website.

                • jim says:

                  So, Muslims, perhaps anonymous Muslims, can get away with sending you death threats. But Muslims are given a whole lot slack that whites are not, and death threats to someone unimportant are treated very differently to death threats against someone important.

                  Thus the capability of unidentifiable Muslims to send you death threats is not an indication that an identifiable alt righter could get away with sending death threats to anyone that mattered.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, sure. I wasn’t basing my statement about prominent figures getting lots of death threats, with a low legal retaliation rate, purely on my personal college experience. Most recently I recall Thomas Wictor talking about the deluge of death threats he’s received on Twitter. He acted as a bait goat, turning lots of them over to law enforcement. There’s many a slip between cup and lip, and obtaining LEO action against online death threats often requires proactivity and outright detective work on the part of the victim.

                  There’s a threshold at which that changes, but I don’t think Sayoc crossed that threshold, particularly since we don’t even know of any of his Twitter victims so much as making a police report.

                  Also, I’m happy to disclose my full name to Jim via email. He knows my email address from the comment form. That way he can verify my statements about my college activities. Just tell me if you email me there, because I don’t check it often, and there might be a long wait otherwise.

              • Koanic says:

                Which reality condition is objectively preferable for NRx:

                1. The Deep State has the terrifying military ability to untraceably transform random patsies into WMDs;
                2. Trump has the terrifying charismatic ability to convert crazed violent Democrats into Republican zealots.

                I think Paddock was some kind of spook (obviously), Sayoc was not, and the school shooters have not been spooks. I do not think the Deep State has magical military powers. I think they are weak, and only rule because Americans are corrupt and cucked. American conservatives lie to themselves that they are good and strong, and therefore the Deep State must have magical powers to rule them. NRx does not believe American conservatives are good and strong, so does not need to assign magical powers to the Deep State.

                • peppermint says:

                  “which is preferable” is an invitation to bias what we see by what we want to see.

                  You said that violating Bacon’s rules is a sin.

                • Koanic says:

                  I was starting to get the vibe that I was being treated as a traitor to the Right for arguing that Sayoc wasn’t a patsie, and I’ve gotten that vibe a lot in the past, for repeatedly arguing against the Deep State paranoid tinfoil crowd. Finally it all clicked and I understood why I decided to brawl my way out of Vox Populi and wound up at Jim’s Blog.

                  So I was not explained WHY I believe Sayoc isn’t a patsie, but why that belief does not make me a Fed trying to protect Fed specops MKULTRA program.

                  Maybe Sirhan Sirhan had MKULTRA handlers to make him a hypnotic zombie gunman under certain stimuli, but he was already fully willing to shoot that senator for Palestine and Allah, so his further motivations are rather moot, since one of the options in the debate is not, “Execute every Muslim male in the USA old enough to piss against the wall”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Sayoc was obviously a patsie, since obviously he did not mail the bombs since you can’t mail anything over 13 ounces at a post office.

                  His history of being a nutcase who sent threatening letters made him a good patsie and that van was obviously a fabrication.

                  You personally look more and more like a Fed all the time Koanic.

                • Koanic says:

                  You already declared me a Fed. You can’t declare me more a Fed. Unless you’re offering a promotion? I’d prefer an assignment that doesn’t involve talking to paranoid Boston spergs.

                • peppermint says:

                  Reasons to think Koanic is a fed:
                  * politeness
                  * cuckservative credulity as if he believes the eye of Soros sees and knows all
                  * while claiming everything the media expects, assertion that 1A protects the one thing courts have ruled that the 1A doesn’t protect, and that it’s unpatriotic not to do it, which is a talking point for antifags
                  * arrogant dismissal of the millennials and genzers who would be doing the fighting if he took seriously his claim that violent revolution is inevitable
                  * as bastards as if the blueblood Americans had at any point been capable of defending their Constitution which refuses to defend itself against them
                  * bizarre fetishistic fixation on “Americana” as if the feds looking over his shoulder were telling him “this is who we are, do it for baseball and apple pie”
                  * assertion to be 2σ where behavior evidences 1σ or artificial stupidity

                • Koanic says:

                  I’ve rarely been accused of politeness.
                  No idea what eye of Soros seeing all references.
                  You don’t know your #1A law. Show the precedent and my quote where I’ve said something prosecutable.
                  I’ve not claimed it’s unpatriotic to fail to advocate violent revolution. I’ve called people cucks and cowards who’ve called me Fed. I have no problem with different approaches, but if you start a fight, you’ll get one.

                  > arrogant dismissal of the millennials and genzers who would be doing the fighting if he took seriously his claim that violent revolution is inevitable

                  Again, you’re taking how I respond when personally attacked by a member of X group and taking that to be my holistic and absolute evaluation of all members of that group. Also, Civil War 1 demonstrates that softies toughen up real quick when bodies make carpets, and the same will happen again.

                  I don’t think you understood the bastard reference. I was both scorning those not brought up in American mythos, and those born of broken homes, in conversation with someone I suspected fit both of those categories, and who was exhibiting characteristic faults thereof. Someone who comes from that background, yet chooses to pursue righteousness, I’m fine with. Someone who comes from my background, and doesn’t, I’m not.

                  You shouldn’t take my criticisms of what is probably your background personally, any more than I should take personally criticisms of my cuckservative background. We were born into decline; the question is whether we rise above it.

                  Clearly, you were not raised American in that sense, since you find it strange.

                  I’m not 2 sigma, I’m 3+.

                • peppermint says:

                  if you were 3+ and not a fed or a fedposting cuck you would be able to understand how your comments fit together

                  if you’re really 3+, and incapable of understanding what you look like, try cannabis, it works, I use it

                • Koanic says:

                  I am really 3+. I have never in my life appeared as what I am to others, because they have never been smart enough to understand my native thoughts. So it’s not that I don’t know, it’s that I don’t care.

                • quotidian says:

                  [larping intensifies]

                • peppermint says:

                  well, i can’t imagine unironic 3σ syllogismposting, but assuming you’re the true king, how does saying a combination of what the media expects from its cuckservatives and threats of political violence as if we don’t care what the media thinks advance the revolution in our character that we need to become worthy of our ancestors and their saints?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The CIA has been running out of mkultra bomblets lately; the 60’s program was a long time ago at this point and they’re all getting old and/or popped off already. They’ve really had to start scraping the bottom of the barrel.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The confident technocracy that had the potestas to be able to do such things has been long gone as well.

                  Of course, it was always intended to be a temporary construction for the purpose of winning the desired fratricidal massacre anyways, being as it would be something far too white, male, and white male for the tastes of those who dislike have neighbors of virtue (competition for standing on top).

                  It’s persistence after the war for some time was more or less coasting on inertia; a foundation that would support it beyond unprincipled exceptions being undermined from the very start by their instigators.

                • Koanic says:

                  Peppermint, it’s your job to speak to your demographic. I’m not going to strike the perfect balance between your upbringing and the Jewish center-left media that used to dominate your mind. I was raised in a different background, with a different media. So my synthesis seems nonsensical and stupid to you. However, it is relevant to a large portion of the men still willing to fight for America, Southern Christian conservative men.

                  We may be from the same country, but we are not from the same religion or nation. If it’s all Welsh to you, that’s fine with me.

                • Koanic says:

                  To further answer your question, Peppermint, I have never thought of myself as stirring up a violent sentiment, but redirecting one that cannot be sublimated without causing an insanity unto death, madness, or both. The Empire sought to redirect my demographic’s fury outwards in the War on Terror; that has increasingly lost its effectiveness.

                  I take it for granted that my Southern Christian conservative Millennial audience is furious at the decline, decay and ambient betrayal that suffuses every aspect of their existence in the USA. Even the cuckservatives are acute enough to point it out.

                  My own search for the just target of wrath started far abroad in the Dar al Islam, and has inexorably been drawn homeward with the passage of time, until I found the source of decline written in lies on my own heart by my parents’ hand. A harsh awakening.

                  There must be Hell to pay. An ocean of blood from teen cherries popped, wombs pumped and dumped, diced and vacuumed. From this festering cauldron rises a fell vapor, the black rot of eternal darkness, miscegenation the extinguisher of white nations, racing like T-virus through necrotic veins of the world’s greatest nuclear superpower. All while she struggles to hold her hand aloft over the Big Red Button, balancing on her ring the enormous weight of history’s largest government debt, a glittering pyramid of fool’s gold.

                  Trump or no Trump, it’s difficult to see how anyone gets out of this alive.

                  The question then is what to do with the violence impulse? Much of it is now being sublimated into extreme conspiracy theorizing, that assigns all the powers of decline and decay to the Deep State NWO cabal. This is apt to explode in inappropriate and unproductive ways, because lies are volatile compounds.

                  I would like to defuse this bomb by pointing towards the true causes of decline and decay, which NRx identifies. Along with James Lafond, I advocate that one should, insofar as possible, keep one’s powder dry for the opportune moment. Volley fire is more devastating because it is coordinated.

                  Some men will choose the suicidal Japanese lone tree-sniper strategy. Every man has that right; I just want him to have the best possible depiction of reality on which to base his decision. Jews deserve to die, but no number of dead Jews will fix this problem.

                  We have had a few heroes, but we have no functioning white Alt-Right patriarchal alternative communities to which one can emigrate, that I am aware of. Everyone here knows why. Building the infrastructure to change that is my current focus.

                  The empire, long united, must divide. There will be enough fighting to oversate the bloodthirstiest before the end.

                  I would like the heroes among the damned to understand that all are guilty; that even if you can convince your brother, you’ll have to leave your sister, wife and mother behind. That it is time to leave Sodom for neighborhoods worth defending. And, if necessary, build them from scratch.

                  Would the synagogue shooter have bothered shooting Jews if he knew that women’s lib had damned the USA either way? I doubt it.

                  The accelerated irritation provided by proximity to subhuman sub-Saharans must surely shave years, if not decades or centuries, off of matriarchy’s misrule. It is customary to thank the Jews by parallel reciprocity – the hatred, persecution and expulsions that prevent the Tribe from diffusing into the Gentile majority.

                  As for my advice to someone who lacks this zealot’s fury, which renders him susceptible to being misled into an Afghan IED, I don’t know. I think the Daily Stormer does a good job of speaking to that type, so I don’t need to. *shrugs*

                  Unfortunately, there are still a huge number of conservatards stuck on basics such as whether the USG’s USA (muh ‘Merica) is legitimate. I am often skewering their sacred cow, with a red hot poker, up the rectum. Those guys are very angry, and apt to explode in the wrong direction. Again.

                • alf says:

                  An ocean of blood of teen cherries popped… cX

                  I, for one, welcome your comments here. My only question is what the hell took you so long.

                • alf says:

                  (I am merely a 2sd simpleton but I figured out this was the place to be a while ago)

                • Koanic says:

                  My recent increased participation has more to do with Gab being shut down. I have a certain amount of daily output that has to go somewhere. But I hear Gab will be back up this weekend!

                • Sam J. says:

                  “…I’ve gotten that vibe a lot in the past, for repeatedly arguing against the Deep State paranoid tinfoil crowd…”

                  I’m with the tinfoil hat crowd but not because I think the Deep State is smart or omnipotent. They just have a shit load of money. What’s the odds with shit loads of money you can find some brain damaged person to shoot someone else. I suspect it’s fairly high. There’s a lot of fucked up people out there.

              • alf says:

                I’ll let you in a little secret, Koanic.

                See, while I know I’m pretty smart, I know I’m not the smartest guy around. Some people here doubt whether you’re as smart as you say, I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

                But I know people, so I’ll tell you something about ‘gamma’.

                Gamma, as popularized by Vox Day, is a real personality trait, one that can be recognized in people, sometimes hilariously so. It is characterized by consistently re-interpreting reality to make others, including friends and family, seem more stupid than they are, and to make the gamma smarter than he actually is.

                However, contrary to what Vox Day says, being gamma cannot really be outgrown. It is an ingrained trait, an evolutionary strategy to impress women and intimidate men. From a distance it is easy to make fun of, up close it works well enough. A gamma may learn to relate and make fun of his own gamma traits, but it is part of who he is.

                That is all there is to it. It is like autism — some people are more autistic than others, they learn to deal with it. That is all.

                But you don’t see autists going around calling everyone disagreeing with them an autist, because they know it’s just 1 word, 1 insult, out of many. To dogmatically stick with 1 insult shows poor character development.

                I don’t think you’re a fed, but I do think that your lack of ability to discern friend from foe, to extend a hand to potential allies, warrants me treating you as if you were a fed anyway.

                • sulfuric says:

                  >Some people here doubt whether you’re as smart as you say, I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

                  Why? He’s been posting here, actually all over the place, for well over a decade now, and everything’s he’s written so far has been either trivial, nutty, fed-post-y, or a combination thereof. Literally nothing he ever said indicates that his IQ is anywhere above 120. He’s your intellectual inferior, LaidNYC, as is the rest of the lot associated with VD. But the real issue is not the banality of his output, but the fact that he’s only in it for “muh oceans of blood.” Ideology is incidental for such people; he could as well be a raging Maoist. He should heed his own advice, and transform his own self into cannon fodder.

              • Koanic says:

                Alf> I’m a sigma

                I hope your self-evaluation is correct. Plenty of sigmas have intellectual deficiencies. There are nigger sigmas who are illiterate. When it comes to reading what I write, you are illiterate. If you are indeed as virtuous as you claim, then you will have no problem discovering that there is a higher standard of reading comprehension, which objectively exists, and can be measured by graduate standardized tests.

                It is not like the language of animals, which consists of wordless emotive grunting. In between, there is a spectrum, which proceeds from fudgy to crystalline sharp. Your problem is that you are reading me as if I were speaking imprecisely, in the language of the midwit, using repetition to evoke feelings, with words and phrases being rather interchangeable and ineptly chosen to evoke a culturally-shared constellation of hackneyed concepts. But I am not.

                Glosoli, you are objectively a stupid gamma. You appealed to Jehovah for judgment between yourself and Jim when Jim called out your idiotic obnoxious behavior and heretical beliefs, and attached a curse to it. Thus you cursed yourself. You would not accept this fact when I explained it to you, and now you are back to do your little gamma grudge dance, just as I predicted you would.

                • glosoli says:

                  >heretical beliefs

                  Your opinion of me is irrelevant Koanic, you’re the worst judge of people in the world, for obvious reasons, and men here, and elsewhere, know your form, hence so many mock you. How many forum attempts before you finally realised you were wrong about people?

                  However, if you want to prove I’ve said anything heretical here at Jim’s, I challenge you to produce the quotes to prove your slander.

                  I predict nothing will be forthcoming, but let’s wait and see. Jehovah hates liars, and you’ve just lied, I guess you’ve cursed yourself, doubling down, gamma-style. Sad, many such cases.

                • Koanic says:

                  You hypocrite. You would not so much as identify your affiliation to Jim, and now you demand a debate. Out of your own mouth, you have your answer: “It’s too late.”

                • glosoli says:

                  Knowing you’re the world champion at reading comprehension, I’m surprised that you are unable to comprehend that I was not requesting a debate.

                  No, I request proof, to back up your slanderous comment.

                  Here you go, read it carefully, then go see what you can find:

                  >However, if you want to prove I’ve said anything heretical here at Jim’s, I challenge you to produce the quotes to prove your slander.

                  We both know there’s nothing, and that you’re a liar. Facts matter. Jehovah hates liars. Do you fear Him?

                  I await your response.

                • Koanic says:

                  This idiot is now debating whether he’s an argumentative idiot, without realizing it. Here’s your quote:

                  “You’ll know you’re cursed when bad things start happening to you.”

                • glosoli says:

                  Ah, you understood me this time, well done. But you found nothing.

                  You’re a sad pathetic man, and you found no heresy.

                  I know what heresy you accused me of privately (my entirely biblical version of theonomy). You know that too, but you chose to follow Jim’s tack, following your heathen hero by lying.

                  You found nothing, but you can’t be a man and admit your error. More importantly, you condemn yourself in God’s eyes by lying, and by lying about someone who advocates His laws, and nothing else. You enjoy risk-taking.

                  Like every gamma, you have to double down.
                  Why not change your surname to Cohen, given your proud heritage? You debate just like them, in a cowardly female fashion, and you ban as fearlessly as Twitter, heh.

                  Clearly no fear of Jehovah, aligned with the enemy, aiming for the stars. I’m glad I discovered your true nature now, before it really mattered.

                  No more replies from me, if you want the last-gamma-word, go for it.

                • jim says:

                  Gnon commanded us to fill the earth and subdue it. In this era, that means the stars.

                • peppermint says:

                  Are you aware of the chain of events that lead you to scrounge around in the Old Testament for advice?

                  Do you approve of those events on the grounds that they led you to this holy work of yours?

                  Does it discourage you that you’re unable to convince anyone of the necessity of abandoning industrial civilization?

                • Koanic says:

                  By the way, one of the ways one can tell that the Bible is authentic is that Jehovah and Jesus speak the hyperlanguage of the high IQ. Perhaps the most extreme example thereof is the Writing on the Wall:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar's_feast

                  This is why no arrogant midwit can understand the Bible, but only a (repeatedly) humble(d) one like Peter.

        • peppermint says:

          > 2. Acquiring vitamin bottles from stores, filling them with beans, and then taking a refund

          He pulled a boner worthy of our intelligence level, a real 2σ caper, implying he really is the brains of the operation

        • 12345 says:

          I heard a theory that the mispelling on one of the envelopes hinted at a secret message of some kind. These kinds of theories can get out there in the weeds, but if you were to send a coded message then something would need to indicate signal vs. noise.

          • peppermint says:

            a coded message, if it exists, is from the team that put the retarded hoax show on, and another team, neither of which we really care that much about

            coded messages from Q occur because Q needs to look like a hoax

  3. Calvin says:

    Doesn’t Bolsonaro’s win prove that demographics alone aren’t a total guarantee of our destruction? He’s harder right than Trump and Brazil is twice as mutt as the US and he still claimed a landslide victory. Even after an assassination attempt.

    • Koanic says:

      We are a race, not an idea.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*Deleted*]

      • Calvin says:

        Yes, and Bolsonaro is also white, along with much of the south of Brazil. The point is that he still won with an even more hardcore platform in a shittier demographic situation.

        • The Cominator says:

          Which is why I always say stubborn white shitlibs who keep insisting that the horse is a deer even when they don’t have to anymore are the biggest problem.

          Blacks and hispanics won’t keep saying the horse is a deer unless they are getting regular payments to do so, white shitlibs are far far worse.

        • peppermint says:

          Does Brazil have Boomers?

          • The Cominator says:

            Plenty of millenials who are even worse then Boomers.

            Their own career prospects improve under Trump immensely yet they still hate him.

        • Koanic says:

          And my point is that Portugal never rose again, is no longer white, due to miscegenation, and Brazil is no better.

    • jim says:

      Notice Trump moving in on the black male vote. Black males are troubled by prog hostility to males, masculinity, and male headed families.

      It is not something I would have tried, but he is better at this than I am.

      • The Cominator says:

        “It is not something I would have tried, but he is better at this than I am.”

        It IS something I would have tried. Blacks almost never really believe in the progressive religion (some half breeds do) and given how bad they did under Obama it should be easy to pick off 20-30% of the black vote.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        Black males are troubled by prog hostility to males, masculinity, and male headed families.

        +1. My black former neighbor is a pretty mild-mannered fellow, from a white-collar background, worked as a financial analyst. One day his nine year old son came home from school wearing green nail polish as part of some “questioning gender roles” nonsense. You could hear the hollering from next door: “I don’t care what they tell you at school, boys don’t wear nail polish!” I’m willing to be that few of the middle-class white dads here near the epicenter of Globalhomo would have taken exception to the nail polish, and even fewer so emphatically.

        • The Cominator says:

          I’m from the same area, so so fucking glad to be leaving in December… the weather sucks, the politics suck, the vast majority of the people suck. They somehow manage to combine bluntness most of the time with a streak of dishonesty…

          • Eli says:

            It’s not so much dishonesty as a combination of stupidity and an air of sanctimony. Even imbeciles somehow manage to convince themselves of their intellectual and moral superiority — resulting from a unique combo of Irish trashiness and prevailing Leftist holiness signaling. And the women , many, are insufferable feminists/man-haters. This makes it into a strange situation: the ratio of women to men is favorable to latter, but the dating just sucks.

            Also the concentration of PhDs, who just cannot bear to leave their shitty overpriced shared apartments in Camberville, manifests in noticeable degree inflation, adding to the delusion, misery and confusion (where someone with a doctorate degree in faggot victimhood studies believes herself to be on par with — or higher than — a software engineer; or a chick with a theater degree and not much talent thinks she ought to be supported by the government as an artist, dare to disagree).

            @jim: I posted in “Optics of Noticing” a few hours back, but still don’t see my post…

            • jim says:

              Because of the many informative links in your comment, it went into spam. Rescued it from Spam

              Also made the image link local to my blog. Do you want me to put it back? (I reflexively suspect all free services as about to censor stuff)

              • Eli says:

                Thanks, Jim.

                Yes, I’m completely fine with the fact that you keep the image of the table locally.

                • The Cominator says:

                  From what I understand is that wives couldn’t divorce against their husband’s wish in Orthodox Judiasm.

                  Their used to quite literally be a mafia that kidnap and beat up (and progress to torture) husband’s who would refuse to sign permission for a divorce, but the Fed’s busted them.

                • Eli says:

                  @The Cominator: your understanding is correct, other than a very limited set of explicit reasons (explicated in Talmud). The Talmud is generally mistrusting of women’s subjective reasons, rightfully understanding females to be fickle and prone to adultery.

                  An accessible explanation of how Jewish cum manu marriage devolved into the de facto sine manu of many communities of today, in post-Exile Judaism, outside Israel/Palestine, can be found here:

                  https://www.jewishideas.org/article/unilateral-divorce-against-husband%E2%80%99s-will

                  Rabbenu Tam was the medieval rabbi who stood up against coercion of Jewish husbands to divorce (this was post the edict of Rabbenu Gershom about monogamy). In essence, this disagreement: R. Tam vs Maimonides et al still stands today.

                  This is a very serious problem, because, according to some batei din (Jewish courts) a husband can be either coerced or, even, his whole marriage annulled without him even issuing a bill of divorce. According to other batei din, coercion and, especially, annulments are invalid. I consider the latter to be much more firmly rooted in Talmud than the former.

                  In the latter case, any woman who “remarries” and procreates with another man, her offspring will be declared, by those who follow R. Tam, as mamzers, which is very bad for them, if they want to live as Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox in communities that follow R. Tam’s understanding of the Law.

                  This is a complex issue. Jews need a Sanhedrin to finally put this matter to rest.

                • jim says:

                  > Jews need a Sanhedrin

                  A Sanhedrin is a committee, and committees tend to produce delusion. The first and second temples were not built under the governance of committees. Jews need a genuinely Jewish Israel, an Israel whose state religion is Judaism, rather than progressivism. A genuinely Jewish Israel needs a temple. A really impressive temple, built like a Cathedral, only bigger and more beautiful, will heal the envy and covetousness that drives Jews like Soros, who worship exile and want to exile the whole world, want to make everyone into rootless aliens like themselves. Also a genuinely Jewish Israel needs universal conscription to incorporate the Orthodox at gunpoint into that genuinely Jewish state.

                  And that temple needs to point to heaven, as Cathedrals do, to help Jews hear what Elijah heard on the mountain. Those ugly synagogues are bad for their souls.

                  Jews will stop attacking other people’s roots when they have roots.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Look how our host talks to Jews, as opposed to how he talks to white nationalists.

                  I call bullshit on this whole thing.

                  This is a controlled resistance designed to keep all you fuckers either passive or captive on the reservation.

                • jim says:

                  Some Jews are on our side. Some Jews, most Jews, are not. In particular, Soros is not. Soros wants to destroy our America, and he wants to destroy Eli’s Israel. And his reasons for destroying our America are similar to his reasons for destroying Eli’s Israel.

                  The people who did not want the US Embassy to move to Jerusalem are people who don’t want Israel to be Jewish. And the (disproportionately Jewish) people who boycotted the opening of the Jerusalem embassy are all, by an interesting coincidence, people who do not want America to be American.

                  A reasonable person will oppose Jewish domination of American and Americans. But if he opposes Jewish domination of Israel, not our friend, but a friend of Soros.

                  At the opening ceremony of Jerusalem Embassy, we saw that the enemies of America being American, are the enemies of Israel being Jewish.

                • Eli says:

                  One more thing. The author of the JewishIdeas.org article, for which I provided the link above, is obviously pro sine manu marriage.

                  He did provide provide a good reason in the Talmud, in the extant copy called the Leningrad Codex.

                  However, I don’t trust that stipulation. It’s likely a revision/addition that happened later, to justify post-factum practices that were happening at that time among the Exile Jews of various communities.

                  I’m not inventing it out of thin air. For example, there is a general disagreement regarding “pilegesh” (tran. “concubine”) among the rabbis.

                  Apparently, very important medieval rabbis (like Rashi) had a different definition of “pilegesh” than what today’s extant Babylonian Talmud says, which is based on a redacted copy, like the the Leningrad-Firkovich. Rashi’s definition was based on an older variation of Babylonian Talmud (a copy that we don’t have today) that said that a concubine had *same* betrothal as wife.

                  The relevant passage in the variant of Babylonian Talmud that Maimonides (and we) have today says that a concubine doesn’t have betrothal to her owner (i.e. is akin to a prostitute). This is a very significant inconsistency.

                  So, I how do I resolve it? I look at the Palestinian Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi). What does it say? It pretty clearly stipulates that a concubine *does* have same betrothal/consecration as a regular wife! Hence, I wouldn’t trust Maimonides on the issue of concubinage, but would trust Rashi.

                  Similarly, I wouldn’t trust Leningrad-Firkovich variation on the matter of permissibility of coercion of husband when wife divorces on her caprice.

                  Going back to the question of divorce coercion, I rely on Palestinian Talmud/tradition, on questions such as this. Again, see section 4 in:
                  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6612/a1cb2c56e134cfa0f50177fcde9e8a783067.pdf

                  The 10th-11th century marriage contracts from Cairo Geniza, based on post-Exile Palestinian tradition, are clear. The marriage documents from that period and place explicitly delineate a proviso that a wife has the right for unilateral divorce. The possibility of such a prenuptial proviso is explicitly acknowledged in Palestinian Talmud (by a Babylonian rabbi from 4th century) to allow divorce by woman capriciously — which means that the husband might be compelled if he accedes to the proviso (note: the woman forfeits her dowry!). These Cairo documents show that a wife was given the right for unilateral divorce (and, hence, for her husband to be coerced to give her the divorce), but the point is that this was an explicit proviso in the prenuptial contract.

                  Yes, it is, effectively, sinu manu marriage, but at least it’s an honest approach, coming from the prenuptial agreement, and it does not presume that the right for a woman to divorce at her whim is coming from Heaven. Also, it is only given in the 4th century, when Exile is well underway.

                  In modern times, Conservative branch of Judaism attempted to do something very similar, along the lines of post-Exile Palestinian tradition, via the so-called Lieberman clause. However, it is not generally accepted in the Orthodox and especially ultra-Orthodox worlds.

                  One, of course, can argue that if a certain community habitually permits divorce according to a certain criteria, then said criteria are *implicitly* stipulated in marriage contract. However, while it might be so in a case of a Haredi man living, marrying and divorcing in the same community, it is not the case more generally. And at stake is the status of post-divorce children as mamzers…

                  Thus, the pro-coercion-on-wife’s-demand vs anti-coercion-on-wife’s-demand debate, expressed in the Maimonides (Rambam) vs R. Tam stances, remains unresolved. Again, ideologically and history-wise, I’m in the latter camp regarding this issue, albeit can see the other side’s argument also.

                • Eli says:

                  @jim:
                  The architectural considerations of how the Temple ought to look are beyond my expertise, I must admit. However, I also admit that cathedrals can be very impressive. In particular, I was very impressed with Sagrada Familia.

                  As to the Temple unifying Jews… I’d like to hope so, but knowing what I know, I’m not so certain. Witness, for example, the sharp divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Or, even earlier, the adherents of the House of Shammai vs adherents of the House of Hillel. And all that while the Temple was *still* standing.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai

                  Jews are prone to disagreements, especially, when it comes to religion and ideology. Priestly matters of power. We’re not Chinese.

                  I’m still strongly pro-Temple though.

                • jim says:

                  What destroyed Israel was the pharisee holiness spiral. The pharisees picked a wholly unnecessary fight with Rome. They should have just paid the fine and shut up about it – they were guilty of public disorder, and the Romans were just doing their job of upholding public order.

                  Moses closed off open entry into the priesthood. Trouble was that the Maccabbees introduced priest kings, and Kings have to do stuff that undermines their religious authority as moral arbiters, so you got rabbis competing with the Sadducees, and there is open entry into being rabbi, so holiness spiral. Which eventually led Israel into a stupid and unnecessary war with Rome.

                  In a Jewish Israel, religion must have state power, must replace Progressivism as the state religion. But if you have open entry into the priesthood (rabbinate) you tend to get a holiness spiral, and if you have open entry into the priesthood of a state religion, you will get a really bad holiness spiral that makes the state religion a pain for ordinary people (“For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”) and which leads the state and the state religion into crazy and self destructive acts. (As for example, picking a fight with the Roman Empire). And I strongly suspect that progressives are going to take the US into nuclear war with China.

                  If Judaism replaces progressivism as the state religion of Israel, you have to close off open entry into the priesthood of the state religion, and if you fail to close off open entry, you will get the same problems as progressivism suffers from now, and which destroyed second temple Israel.

                  Orthodox Christianity handles this problem correctly. We Christians got on the wrong track with the first great schism of 1054 and the ensuing papal heresies. State backed Russian Orthodoxy continues to handle it well today.

                  Trump believes that China should pursue Chinese interests, and America should pursue American interests, so we get a trade war, but trade wars do not kill people. Progressives want China to be part of a “rules based international order” – and rules based international orders do kill people. Trump will eventually make a trade deal with China, but the Chinese government is never going to accept a “rules based international order”.

                  The solution for Israel is a closed and hereditary or semi hereditary set of Cohen in charge of the temple, with a sufficient upper hand over the rabbis, or at least over those rabbis with state backing, state salaries, and state approval, to stop them from holiness signalling. Copy Putin. (And say you are copying Moses.)

                • Eli says:

                  @jim: In terms of Judaism replacing Progressivism, agree. As for the rest, please hear me out.

                  It’s not so much the Pharisees who picked up the fight the Romans, but the Zealots and the Sicarii.

                  There were Pharisees who were very much pro-King and quite subdued about their dislike of Romans. Your own book, the New Testament, in fact, seems to equate Pharisees with the Herodians (which is also not correct). Of course, someone like R. Johanan ben Zakkai is a famous example of a realpolitik Pharisee.

                  Most Sadducees, indeed seem to have been on the friendly side with regard to Rome.

                  Also, please: do account for the fact that, at some point, the Romans made a big mistake. Instead of appointing military men of honor to oversee Judaea (like Pontius Pilate, a prefect), they allowed greedy evil civilians to buy sinecures for themselves and rape the locals for fun and profit (like Gessius Florus, a procurator), almost Hokuto No Ken bandit style. See:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurator_(Ancient_Rome)#Provincial_governors

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_administration_of_Judaea_(AD_6–135)

                  So, I agree that it was tragic that the revolt was started. But it was started because Romans became too comfortable in their Pax Romana and started selling politically important appointments for profit. The rest is explained by absence of strong, locally respected authority in Judea (eg a native King or, at least, a Roman Prefect).

                  With regard the Hasmoneans being priest-kings thus opening the door to holiness spiraling, I am yet to be convinced, though I’m not strongly arguing for the opposite.

                  I can see that the tension between between priests and the Davidic Dynasty Kings has existed for centuries. You can read about it in the Pentateuch.

                  The story of King Uzziah is a great illustration of this long term conflict between Kings and Priests:

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

                  That is just one example.

                  Furthermore, some historians, among whom is my father, speculate that, in fact, the very downfall of the Davidic Dynasty was brought about by scheming members of Priesthood, likely headed by Gedaliah:

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

                  So, honestly, we, Jews no longer have the Davidic line. We will have to anoint a King someday, but it is really hard to answer who deserves to be anointed as one. (In theory, we might find some bones of Judean kings buried in Temple Mount, and use the tissue to get the Y-DNA. But there is a lot of ifs and buts here.)

                  My theory is that the holiness spiral began earlier than the Hasmonean dynasty. It is likely that it began even earlier than the Hasidæans:

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

                  My guess is that there were groups of extremely pious Judeans that arose as far back as Ezra and Nehemiah. In the void left open by absence of a native, mostly autonomous Jewish King, a void not properly filled by the presence of Persian governors, the priesthood — possibly, helped by elite overproduction — started to compete with each other for prestige. Observe their repelling of Samaritan efforts to contribute to rebuilding of the Second Temple. Observe Ezra’s insistence that Jewish men in Jerusalem divorce and expel their non-Judean wives *together with their own children * (Ezra 9-10)

                  So, to me, it is not so much the absence of Temple that is the problem per se. To me, the main instigator of holiness spiraling is the absence of King. The absence of Temple is rather an epiphenomenon.

                  In the presence of King, even a Priest-King like Alexander Yannai, those who get too uppity or sanctimonious vs the King, get the blade up their ass.

                  I have recently began to maintain that what the Jewish people lack is not so much scholars or priests, of which we have an excess, but truly mighty men and heroes.

                  Like this guy:

                  https://youtu.be/zLsp6pBP_7c

                • jim says:

                  > So, to me, it is not so much the absence of Temple that is the problem per se. To me, the main instigator of holiness spiraling is the absence of King. The absence of Temple is rather an epiphenomenon.

                  Well, yes, of course.

                  But the immediate cause of holiness spiraling is excessive this worldly rewards for holiness, and if the sovereign is weak, neglectful, or absent, the priesthood is apt to step into the gap and get their hands on goodies. And if you have too many people pushing their way into lucrative priesthood, and holiness gets you inside, and gets you advancement once inside, people are apt to find alarmingly creative ways to be holier than each other.

                • Eli says:

                  Just posted another lengthy, full of links reply that got never published. Please check your Spam folder.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  “What destroyed Israel was the pharisee holiness spiral…”

                  Thanks for this guys. I’ve never understood the first thing about what the heck went down between Rome and Judea back in the day. Now I at least understand a little bit.

                  Could anyone give me the NRX-ish for-dummies review of who the “Sadducees” and “Maccabees” were and what they were about?

                • jim says:

                  High priest founds second temple. (Can’t have a King, because supposed to be ruled by a foreign emperor) Judea winds up ruled by Greeks as a result of the conquests of Alexander. Alexander drinks himself to death, his generals fight each other, and the Judean priesthood grabs power and independence and establishes a line of Priest Kings, viewed by Jews as legitimate, and Christians as illegitimate, since Priest Kings were supposed to end in the time of the Patriarchs.

                  After a while the priest Kings lose power to Kings, but the priesthood (Sadducees) remain powerful

                  The Sadducees are the aristocratic priesthood descended from a long line of ruling priests. The pharisees are rabbis, who notice that the priesting business is mighty lucrative, and get into it. Holiness spiral ensues, which holiness spiral Jesus rants about frequently and vehemently.

                  Eli will tell you that the Romans ruled corruptly and oppressively, and the New Testament will tell you the same thing, and it is true, but the Jews, rapidly becoming ever more fanatical, gave the Romans no end of trouble, largely over obscure, and to the Romans incomprehensible, religious issues.

                  The war began over some chickens sacrificed by a pagan on his own land, which the Jews considered too close to a synagogue. The Jews rioted and things rapidly went downhill from there.

                  This stuff about the Sanhedrin is in large part the Pharisees adjusting history and writing themselves into history, much as the whigs have, to claim that they always had power. The Sanhedrin first appears in Roman times, and immediately failed disastrously. (I expect Eli will disagree with this account). The Sanhedrin self destructed the first time, and if the Jews have another, will likely self destruct again in much the same way for much the same reasons.

                • Eli says:

                  > (I expect Eli will disagree with this account).

                  I neither agree nor disagree. B certainly would have disagreed, but I am not B.

                  In fact, relatively recently, a few rabbis made an attempt to form the Sanhedrin again.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_attempt_to_revive_the_Sanhedrin

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

                  So far, failure.

                  I am honest enough to admit that I do not know the realistically proper course of action.

                  Priests (and B is of that lineage, btw) are completely submersed in Rabbinical ideals and thinking, prepared to even sacrifice themselves for the holiness points. I recently found out, via 23andMe, that I also have a Cohen modal haplotypr, J-P58. (My last name is not a Priestly one though.)

                  Upon mentioning it, my “Priestly Privilege” got checked by someone referring me to this:
                  https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Horayot.3.8?lang=bi

                  In other words, a learned mamzer is more preferable for the position of High Priest to an unlearned man of Priestly heritage. All Priestly descended Jews have to adopt rabbinical frame.

                  This is from the Mishna, which means that this thinking was most likely prevalent, or at least accepted, among the Pharisees themselves.

                  Until mighty men and Priests are restored back to their prestige, nothing will change.

                • jim says:

                  > In other words, a learned mamzer is more preferable for the position of High Priest to an unlearned man of Priestly heritage. All Priestly descended Jews have to adopt rabbinical frame.
                  >
                  > This is from the Mishna, which means that this thinking was most likely prevalent, or at least accepted, among the Pharisees themselves.
                  >
                  > Until mighty men and Priests are restored back to their prestige, nothing will change.

                  Right. Need to fix the problem that blew things up two thousand years ago. We have records of Israel being stable over long historical time with a hereditary priesthood. We have records of Israel being stable over historical time with Kings and and hereditary priesthood. We do not have records of it being stable for very long with a non hereditary religious leadership.

                  Dark Enlightenment: Learn from the past. When it comes to learning religion from the past look to religious institutions that managed to survive for long periods.

                • Eli says:

                  I do want to qualify what I said above: it is agreeable, in principle, that a completely lax individual of Priestly heritage should not be able to occupy a position of High Priest.

                  However, the problem is that Jews keep coming up with new ways to keep purity. For example, in some communities, it no longer suffices to eat kosher, you have to eat glatt kosher.

                  In other words, I agree that whatever purity laws existed in the times of Mishna need to be kept, for the High Priest to qualify.

                  However, I don’t believe that the law ought to be put this way. It should instead say:

                  “If one of of Priestly Heritage is lax in keeping tithes and purity laws, we admonish him and teach him until he changes his ways”

                  Or something like that. IMO, Mishna is not directly to blame. It is the fact that things like that had to be put in writing (things that are considered to be Oral Torah). It’s supposed to give a certain ethics of how appointments were ought to be made, but I am certain that many rabbis would take it too literally. And due to the fact that each rabbinical community might have its set of purity laws, there would be no end to disagreements and infighting, and no High Priest candidate would be good enough, due to all the minute differences and politicking.

                  High Priests are supposed to be appointed/approved and, potentially, removable by the King. No King — hard to restart the tradition of Priesthood.

            • peppermint says:

              Blaming Irishness is, of course, what the degreed personnel of Cambridge are taught.

              That and blaming Puritans, not latter-day sex-positive puritans, but the older puritans who were English in ethnicity.

              The problems Cambridge faces aren’t unique and while Cambridge can ban plastic bags, other cities can ban plastic straws, while Cambridge can be overrun by mystery meat, other cities can be overrun by Asians.

              There’s still a working class Irish colony in South Boston that hasn’t been broken. It is hated by every Brahmin in the entire world, which is why people insult Cambridge as drunken Irishmen.

              • The Cominator says:

                Jesus how many of us are here in the belly of the beast… the only reason I haven’t fled is I didn’t have the chance until recently.

                The shanty micks didn’t help very much either, they made the puritans somehow more clannish is all. It all adds up into making Boston the a**hole capital of the planet (I’m still in MA for another month but I at least got as far away from Boston as possible).

                There is nothing sex positive about the frigid shrewish and yet flakey women of Massachusetts. The sex positive Puritans went to Plymouth and Cape Cod (women there seem to be nicer, also New Hampshire and Maine) the frigid lesbians and man haters went to Boston.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Your defence of the Irish is my defence of the East Germans.

                There is nothing at all wrong with those people genetically and the people who claim there IS are cucking for capitalism.

                Ireland suffered ‘laissez-faire’ anarchy before England did, and as a result, they’re more fucked up.

                Go back to the middle ages and Ireland is suddenly THE bastion of anarcho-capitalist sentiment: THERE is the model for how the whole world should work.

                Don’t get me wrong, I’m not giving the Fenians carte blanche. I’m just saying there’s more to all of this than genetics.

                • jim says:

                  East Germans are degenerate because of communism, not capitalism, and you are shilling for Communism.

                  Irish are degenerate because of foreign conquest by a hostile outgroup, not capitalism, and you are shilling for foreign conquest by a hostile outgroup.

                • The Cominator says:

                  We were more talking about the Boston and MA Irish (since it seems an awful lot of us are from the center of the Cathedral… I guess living near it makes you really really hate it) then the Irish Irish.

                  It seems like at least 4 posters here now live in Massachusetts, I’m glad to be leaving in a month…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re a capitalist shill.

                  “East Germans are degenerate because of communism, not capitalism, and you are shilling for Communism.”

                  Not true: East Germans are white people in good standing. They survived the attack of the Poz that took place in Western Europe by virtue of being oppressed by the economic J-left.
                  This was hell for them but it had that one single upside.

                  It’s that one single upside that wankers like you seek to denigrate while demonising the people themselves.

                  The evidence is against you James: is Peter Schreier your idea of a ‘degenerate’? LOL you’re a joke.

                  “Irish are degenerate because of foreign conquest by a hostile outgroup, not capitalism, and you are shilling for foreign conquest by a hostile outgroup.”

                  This is very unclear. You’re saying the English were bad for Ireland PER SE but not on account of their economic impact?

                  lol o.k…..

                • jim says:

                  East Germans have markedly higher rates of theft, disinclination to work, hostile antisocial behavior, and failure to cooperate than West Germans. Communism turned them into wiggers.

                  Also, communism gave them bad teeth.

                  With unification the differences are fading, and the teeth are now OK, but the differences are still substantial.

                  > > “Irish are degenerate because of foreign conquest by a hostile outgroup, not capitalism, and you are shilling for foreign conquest by a hostile outgroup.”

                  > This is very unclear. You’re saying the English were bad for Ireland PER SE but not on account of their economic impact?

                  Domination by hostile alien outsiders has many harmful effects. Its economic effect is the least of the damage.

                  I silently censored your other comments, because you repetitiously attribute to other people views that are the opposite of their plainly stated views. This will provoke them to restate their actual views, which is a waste of bandwidth. Whenever I see you say “What you are saying is …” I hit the trash button without reading further. It is never what those people are saying. It is what you said, and said over and over again. You put your own beliefs into the mouths of your opponents.

                • peppermint says:

                  People get more freedom by being closer to the regime or by being irrelevant, like in 1984. Irrelevant means non-White, the govt doesn’t care what they think. It wasn’t that long ago that Moldbug and a lot of others were insiders, the freedom of insiders is how a lot of people ended up here.

                  The point of Unite the Right was to connect the Alt-Right to the Paleocons like viking. By now it seems like that was inevitable. But the Alt-Right lost a lot by uncritically accepting idiots who claimed to be paleocons but were actually degenerate larpers, and Trump attached the Alt-Right and the Paleocons into His base anyway.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Jim

                  When Communist Revolutionary says, “What you’re saying is…”

                  That’s a gamma male tell. So is, “It seems what you’re saying…”

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Could you elaborate on the long term harmful and degenerative effects of domination by hostile outsiders?

                  It is good for the superior to rule the inferior, thus white colonialism was beneficial, not harmful, to blacks.

                • jim says:

                  It depends. Colonialism was good for blacks to the extent that the white colonialists had careers and all that in one colony for an extended period, because whites are markedly superior.

                  Where whites are carpetbaggers, for example the NGOs ruling Haiti after earthquake, apt to be disastrous. Haitians were far better off being ruled by local low IQ mulatto thugs than by disproportionately Jewish PhDs from Harvard dispensing billions in aid. The NGOs after earthquake were only there for months, and so acted like mobile bandits.

                  Where the ruling group is approximately equal, the ruled tend to take on the characteristics appropriate to a lower class person that the rulers do not much like – thus communism tended to be harmful, because the elites tended to be aliens.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Haitians were far better off being ruled by local low IQ mulatto thugs than by disproportionately Jewish PhDs from Harvard dispensing billions in aid. The NGOs after earthquake were only there for months, and so acted like mobile bandits.

                  Jews seem apt to rule as mobile bandits whenever they have power – they’ll even say so themselves as long as it’s phrased in terms of “needing to be ready to flee persecution”.

                • jim says:

                  While Jews were over represented in the looting of Haiti, you cannot blame the Jews for that one.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Go Daddy NYSE: GDDY

                  +3.6% today.

                  Yesterday they unilaterally silenced Gab after it emerged that Torba had secured alternate hosting for the domain name he paid $250k for.

                  These people don’t care about profit. Not the hosting servers, not the domain name registrars and not the investor class.

                  Capitalism is part of the coalition against us.

                • jim says:

                  These people care about profit, but are terrorized.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  While Jews were over represented in the looting of Haiti, you cannot blame the Jews for that one.

                  Not exactly what I’m claiming – sure you can get whites to act as mobile bandits (although having a significant Jewish presence in the group sure seems to help in getting them to act this way) but I can’t recall an example of Jews not acting as mobile bandits.

                • jim says:

                  That is not because Jews are Jews, but because Jews are mobile – the looting of Haiti happened because carpetbaggers have no incentive to behave well, irrespective of ethnicity, and the looting by non Jews was not distinguishable from the looting by Jews.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Predictably Jim believes the people who bought GoDaddy today had guns to their heads – more specifically government guns.

                • jim says:

                  I know that when Disney destroyed Star Wars, they had quasi governmental guns to their heads. Human Resources threatened to Kavanaugh them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  And every single investor who bought on the news they were pozzing Star Wars?

                  It’s tenuous, to say the very least. At what point does a tenuous speculative defence become partisan shilling?

                • jim says:

                  No one bought on the news that they were pozzing star wars. It has been a disaster for them.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  That is not because Jews are Jews, but because Jews are mobile

                  If Jews are always mobile then they’ll always act as mobile bandits if they have power, no?

                  Of course this ends up looping back to genes because if the incentives are always lined up a certain way in their selective environment then the behaviors that best lead to success in those environments are going to be favored.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Where global free trade is legal, everything’s mobile banditry. The threat of giving the contract to foreigners is ever-present, which is why in an age of increasing productivity, wages have stagnated even further after the initial shock of turning women into de facto men.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  Cannot be a bandit, except one exercises coercion, normally in the form of political power. Global free trade has problems, but coercion is not one of them.

                • @Jim and CR:

                  After Germany was reunified, many East Germans, 2M out of 16M, moved West. This means any stat that only tracking the current inhabitants of those territories, instead of everybody born there or their parents did, is going to not say much. If we can assume it was the best and the brightest, then getting brain drained, losing the smart fraction will wreck any territory, as the average folks will not have the kind of people around who would be useful as role models, mid-managers, teachers and suchlike.

                  Granted I am assuming the best moved, not the worst. That is equally possible – welfare tourism.

                  One of the big unknowns is if mass migration tends to select for the best, worst or middle. One thing it surely does not do is to provide a perfect random sample.

                  And this matters, because both smart fractions and troublemaker fractions are disproportionally important.

                  So for any population that experienced large scale emigration, including Ireland, without knowing if it was the best, worst or middle moving we cannot really say much.

                  Mostly we have just anecdotes. I think the West is getting better Indians than the average Indians as they come on working visas into the IT industry, not as refugees or whatever. Morocco and other North African countries have a history of more or less pushing troublemaker groups to emigrate, so the opposite. I suspect Mexico and Turkey having clandestine policies of pushing the least useful members of their societies to move out. So it can be different on a case by case basis.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted for explaining to Dividualist what he supposedly believes*]

                • jim says:

                  Your responses are unresponsive

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s a ‘bottom line’ here.

                  If you think Bernie Sanders is to the left of Tom Woods then you’re a libertarian.

                  It’s really as simple as that.

                • jim says:

                  So according to you, de-regulation, capitalism, and gun rights, the issues on which Tom Woods campaigns are left wing – on which issues he takes the same stand as was very publicly taken by Trump in the US and Bolsonaro in Brazil.

                  So, according to you, not only are we leftists, but Trump and Bolsonaro leftists also – but Bernie Sanders is considerably less left than supporters of globohomo like myself, Trump, and Bolsonaro.

                  Right wing socialism was never very right wing, and it died disastrously when Germany went hungry, in much the same way and for much the same reasons as Venezuela is going hungry.

                  You are a commie, and just as progressives tell Christians that the real Christianity is progressive, you are telling us that the real reaction is Bernie Sanders.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “I think the West is getting better Indians than the average Indians as they come on working visas into the IT industry, not as refugees or whatever.”

                  India’s average IQ is 82- on par with the arab world. Indian Americans have the highest household income of all ethnic groups.

                  Yeah, we are skimming the cream.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Burrhus Bullshit writes:

                  “Indian Americans have the highest household income of all ethnic groups.
                  Yeah, we are skimming the cream.”

                  Nope. Pajit’s are idiots, period. The pharmacist ones are just scammers and pen-pushers, while the I.T. ones are just script-following monkeys. Anyone can be a software tester or a pharmacist/optician. They’re just diversity hires costing white people cushy jobs.

                • jim says:

                  Indian engineers are generally not as smart as white engineers, but they can write software, indicating north of IQ 125. Software testing is north of 110. Some types of software testing are IQ 100, but you need IQ 110 leading those testers.

                • peppermint says:

                  It is cold comfort to destroy their best genetics, especially considering that’s our genetics.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Where I grew up there were a ton of indians. Advanced classes in high school were usually 2/3 asian/indian while normal classes were around ~70% white or so.

                  The smartest person in a class, if it wasn’t me, was almost always an indian guy, though every now and then it’d be an asian girl. From my experience, the pajits coming here to live in oven middle class suburbs are having kids with average iqs around 125 and the best and brightest are 140+. I don’t see them getting affirmative actioned into high positions, if anything I see affirmative action tossing their resume’s in the trash to make room for blacks, latinos and white women, just like what happens to asians.

                  That’s just my experience, I’m sure other parts of the US or other white countries are getting a ton of useless 80iq pajits.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Indians can be smart but they are also supremely arrogant, dishonest, believe socialism can work etc. Almost all their other qualities besides their intelligence are very undesirable.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  deleted

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Indians don’t write software, they test UIs.

                  Actually in 2018 virtually no-one writes software. A few people ‘code’, which basically means using various types of pre-made architecture, from APIs to ‘engines’ to virtual machines of all kinds.

                  But of those who ‘code’, almost none are Indians. That’s a white profession.

                  Indians are tasked with the bug-fixing, which is why UIs are worse now than they were ten years ago.

                  Computer science is in sharp decline and has been for some considerable time.

                  The days of “Ant Attack” and “Jet Set Willy II” are long gone. Innovation today means finding novel ways of creating mindless bloat while doing basic number-crunching that could have been done three times as quickly and efficiently a decade earlier on half the equipment.

                  Whig history doesn’t magically apply to ‘tech’.

                • jim says:

                  I have worked with Indians who did write software. True, they were not as good as the whites with whom they were working, but nonetheless clearly IQ 125 or over.

                  As a general rule, Indians engineers do the part of the job that requires less smarts, and they do not do it well, but almost all of them are a standard deviation smarter than the average white, even though on average less smart than the average white engineer.

                • pdimov says:

                  Indian-American average IQ was 110-115 before the H-1B IT influx. Now it’s probably ~100.

        • peppermint says:

          Being at the center means lax enforcement. We haven’t hosted a BLM riot and no one goes to the bathroom on the sidewalks.

  4. Steve Johnson says:

    If they had just sat quiet for eight years of Trump, and waited for demographics to continue to move in their favor, they would have been fine. Business as usual would have worked for them and would have destroyed us. But the underlying force of the left wing singularity will not let them sit quiet.

    Poor Scott Alexander – the Cassandra of the left.

    • jim says:

      > Poor Scott Alexander – the Cassandra of the left.

      Heh.

      Chances are he gets taken to the guillotine or the gulag before they come for us.

  5. Dave says:

    The youngest synagogue victim was 54, and the oldest was 97. That sounds like Unitarian demographics to me. Is Judaism dying of old age and rainbow-flag liberal politics?

    They hate Trump because he has Jewish grandchildren and they do not.

    • The Cominator says:

      “The youngest synagogue victim was 54, and the oldest was 97. That sounds like Unitarian demographics to me. Is Judaism dying of old age and rainbow-flag liberal politics?”

      Among reform Jews it is dying out. They have few kids and the kids tend to leave Judiasm or at least marry gentiles.

      • calov says:

        The synagogue was not reform though. It was conservative. I think Reform Jews always refer to their houses of worship as “temples” not “synagogues”.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Conservative” Judaism isn’t that much better off, in practice its more like “cuckservative” Judaism.

          • pyrrhus says:

            Yes, in my experience with Jews, which is plentiful because I coached a Jewish chess team, serious Jews are Orthodox or, more likely, Ultra-Orthodox.

          • calov says:

            You’re right. I figured that it had to be an Orthodox congregation if it was called “synagogue,” but apparently the conservative Jews do it too. I think the difference is for reform Jews, eating kosher, etc. is totally optional, whereas conservative Jews observe a little more than reform Jews. For instance I heard a kid from the synagogue saying that his mother doesn’t like it when he looks at his phone on Sabbath, whereas for an orthodox Jew I’m pretty sure that would just be forbidden.

            • The Cominator says:

              Even for Orthodox Jews how much they obey the rules depends on whether other Orthodox Jews from their home congregation are around. Ie if they leave town most of them don’t care about the rules all that much. An Orthodox Jewish girl who leaves town for school is likely to carry on like spring break in Cancun.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Yes.

      http://nleresources.com/2013/01/the-jewish-birth-rate-crisis/#.W9cXJuJReUk

      Conservative and Reform Jewish TFR is 1.4; that puts Reform TFR below the liberal average.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Ultra-Orthodox Jews retain the Yiddish language for daily purposes, while retaining a strong command of Hebrew by studying Talmud. This creates a one-way language barrier against the rest of Israeli society.

      • Dave says:

        Is it true that the Israeli government exempts the Orthodox from military service and pays them to engage in full-time religious study? What sort of economy and military will Israel have when the Orthodox are 90% of its Jewish population?

        You need the right amount of God in your life — enough to motivate you to be a fertile, productive citizen, but not so much that you can think of nothing else.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Yes to the first part; not certain on the second. The Jewish Israelis are in a bit of a pickle demographically no matter what they do. Ehud Barak spoke at my university not long ago, praising Obama and deriding Trump (which was particularly funny given the audience) and as he rambled on, he casually mentioned that they shot down a PLO/Fatah initiative to let in 3 family groups of Palestinians because those three groups combined were ~800,000 people.

  6. Alrenous says:

    If they had just sat quiet for eight years of Trump, and waited for demographics to continue to move in their favor, they would have been fine. Business as usual would have worked for them

    Saddest words of tongue or pen, /pol/ was right again? Even sadder: I was right again.

    Let him build his Wall. It can easily be later punched full of holes. However, some proggies would have gotten a haircut in the meantime, and they had become too sclerotic and interlocked to tolerate such a thing.

    • jim says:

      It is a step.

      I have something more forceful in mind. For warriors to actually get the upper hand over priests, some priests are going to need a thumping.

  7. Andre says:

    As a brazilian I would like to comment on this. I’ll try not to dwell on my own personal feelings because I’m on the extreme far right end of the spectrum and would have half the country in chains to be auctioned off as slaves if I could. Anyway, I have never seen such widespread and so deeply entrenched disgust, on both “the left” and “the right”, in both the leadership and the base. The level of civility currently observed in Brazil is a facade. I’m not just talking about hatred, people disagreeing and getting angry, dehumanization between strangers on opposite sides of the spectrum and etc. I’m talking about visceral disgust between close family members. Even I am getting more radical as the last shreds of doubt that these people truly hate me go out the window, but it amazes me to see so many other people openly display these feelings.

    • The Cominator says:

      Same in America. Leftists are insane, can’t accept that their policies failed and don’t work. They always figure its because they didn’t quite go left enough.

      Slavery imposes externalities on free workers who must compete with slaves, the solution to low agency people who become dependents of the state on a long term basis is sterilization. The solution to stubborn leftists is extermination.

      • Andre says:

        > Slavery imposes externalities on free workers who must compete with slaves

        I don’t care. I’m not talking about enslaving “low agency people who become dependent on the state”, I’m talking about enslaving my enemies.

        • The Cominator says:

          And I’m telling you that if the opportunity presents itself its a mistake to leave them above ground.

          • Andre says:

            Perhaps, it’s a case by case thing. What I absolutely will not tolerate however, is my enemies continuing to own land and wealth and enjoying the status they acquired when in power. Peace and reconciliation is nonsense. Punish your enemies, reward your friends.

            • info says:

              Dan Carlin did a podcast on slavery in youtube. He observed slavery at least labor slavery held by human progress by disincentivizing innovation. Middle age ban on labor slavery led to reinventions like using waterwheels and windmills to drive machines to do work. And other machines to do other repetitive work.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                The price of labor is set by supply and demand.

                When someone is looking to pay for some labor to do some work it doesn’t matter to him if he’s paying the owner of a slave for the slave’s labor or if he’s paying a day laborer who collects his own pay. The other people bidding on labor are in the same position – which accounts for the entire demand side.

                As far as the supply side goes the day laborer has to get paid enough to afford food and shelter at a minimum. The slave owner is in the same position – he needs to feed and shelter his slave. Both also have an incentive to try to collect as much as possible for labor.

                This is simplifying because it doesn’t look at the incentives and negotiating between the slave and the slave owner – which as far as incentives go – look remarkably like employee / employer relations. The same problems have to be solved.

                The theory that banning slave labor somehow changes the price of labor is economically impossible unless you’re smuggling in Marxist economic theory – which is (of course) utter nonsense.

                A much better explanation of why mechanical work began to be cheaper than manual labor is that the price of manual labor went up due to massively reduced supply (the black plague killing 30-60% of the population), improved legal structures due to governance recovering from the collapse of the Roman empire and increasing cooperativeness and longer time horizons due to downward social mobility (the survivors of famines and plagues were descended from nobility and the wealthy and those are people with those traits).

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Why does capitalism seem to select for non slave societies/economic regions in terms of long term success?

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Because if you say you have slavery it’s hard to be “economically successful” when religious fanatic Puritans burn your country to the ground.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Point taken, but there are international examples as well. Indeed, they are not without their own externalities. I guess I was wondering if there was a technical reason. I’m not very economics savvy, but your response sounds similar to when socialists blame capitalist intervention for the failings of centralized economies.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “The theory that banning slave labor somehow changes the price of labor is economically impossible unless you’re smuggling in Marxist economic theory – which is (of course) utter nonsense.”

                  You’re being swayed by dogma.

                  Engelhardt is very clear on this: in a perfectly rotating market economy, which is what you’re describing, in which profit is basically eradicated in favour of full optimisation, the price of outputs really IS determined by the price of inputs.

                  The marginal revolution addresses the fact that in the real world, the market is lumpy and randomised, and market actors are irrational and retarded.

                  It does a pretty good job of producing usable catallactics for consumer’s goods but to apply it to labour is immoral on its face.

                • jim says:

                  Lumpyness and randomness does not change the prediction. Importation of slaves will lower the price of labor for tasks that can be done by slaves, but only by about the same amount as unskilled immigration.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Easy to keep a slave at subsistence level and slavery also causes slaveowners to want to import slaves.

                  Bad for innovation and bad for free labor, and history backs me up.

                  Abraham Lincoln and the free soilers did literally nothing wrong.

                • peppermint says:

                  Lincoln destroyed the Union, which is why no one calls the American Army “Union Regulars” anymore.

                  Lincoln called the freesoilers Russians in the same way that today’s centrist statist globohomo elite call the alt-right Russians.

                  The freesoilers failed because making a movement of agreeing with the liberals for all the wrong reasons means the liberals win.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Lincoln called the freesoilers Russians in the same way that today’s centrist statist globohomo elite call the alt-right Russians.”

                  I don’t quite understand you here.

                  Russia was pro-Union during the Civil War it was England and France which almost came into the war on the Confederate side.

                  Woodrow Wilson is far far more to blame for things going bad then Lincoln was.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Why does capitalism seem to select for non slave societies/economic regions in terms of long term success?”

                  Because success is correlated with Hagnal whites and slavery and serfdom are associated with Hagnal whites ruling over other ethnics (hence a lower portion of the population being hagnal, hence lower wealth).

                  @TC
                  “Easy to keep a slave at subsistence level and slavery also causes slaveowners to want to import slaves.”

                  The United States is the only slave society in history that had a slave birth rate above the rest of society. The reason was abundant land so cheap food- it isn’t going to be replicated again.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR-style tl;dr appeals to congeniality, to a cuckservative:
                  > You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I received your very agreeable letter of the 22nd. of May I have been intending to write you in answer to it. You suggest that in political action now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as much, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of difference.

                  Lincoln can’t even:
                  > But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave — especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you to yield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union.

                  A moderate liberal:
                  > I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say if you were President, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave state, she must be admitted, or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a slave State unfairly — that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union be dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would differ about the Nebraska-law.

                  Antifa on violence:
                  > I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as violence from the beginning. It was conceived in violence, passed in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members in violence of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in violence because the elections since, clearly demand it’s repeal, and this demand is openly disregarded. You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing that law; and I say the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. It is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first; else why does no Nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? Poor Reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that any thing like fairness was ever intended; and he has been bravely undeceived.

                  Dispassionate liberal-minded professor provides context:
                  > That Kansas will form a Slave Constitution, and, with it, will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take to be an already settled question; and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle of law, ever held by any court, North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet, in utter disregard of this — in the spirit of violence merely — that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang men who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the substance, and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners for their fate.

                  More moderate liberalism:
                  > In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, so long as Kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a Slave-state, I shall oppose it. I am very loth, in any case, to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired, or located, in good faith; but I do not admit that good faith, in taking a negro to Kansas, to be held in slavery, is a possibility with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property, has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of this whole Nebraska business. But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company; but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not, on that account, attempt to dissolve the Union. On the contrary, if we succeed, there will be enough of us to take care of the Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit among yourselves, you can, directly, and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day — as you could on an open proposition to establish monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North, whose position and ability is such, that he can make the support of your measure — whatever it may be — a democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. Appropos [sic] of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in January. In February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats. These latter held a caucus, in which the Nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. In a day of two Dougla’s [sic] orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!! The truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. The masses too, democratic as well as whig, were even, nearer unanamous [sic] against it; but as soon as the party necessity of supporting it, became apparent, the way the democracy began to see the wisdom and justice of it, was perfectly astonishing.

                  Appeal to Christcuckoldry:
                  > You say if Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a Christian you will rather rejoice at it. All decent slaveholders talk that way; and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any district in a slave-state. You think Stringfellow & Co. ought to be hung; and yet, at the next presidential election you will vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes. You inquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point — I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery.

                  Accusing the opposition of being stupid Russians who don’t share Our Values:
                  > I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

                  > back to the oleaginous congeniality
                  Mary will probably pass a day to two in Louisville in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this letter, I have more of her sympathy that I have of yours. And yet let me say I am

                  > Yours friend forever
                  > A. Lincoln

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “Lumpyness and randomness does not change the prediction. Importation of slaves will lower the price of labor for tasks that can be done by slaves, but only by about the same amount as unskilled immigration.”

                  The ECONOMIC (I am NOT talking about the Cathedral’s religious and moral poz bullshit just the economics) arguments for unskilled immigration (the crops will all rot and we’ll all starve) are VERY similar to the economic arguments the South used to use to say why they had to have slavery.

                  In both cases they were 100% lies and in both cases they were bad for free labor.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, bringing up economic theories no one but you has ever heard of makes you sound more like a leftist plant, not less.

                  “you’re being swayed by dogma… immoral on the face of it” is one of your leftest comments to date.

                  Even if you were more knowledgeable and morally superior, you’re still one of the faggier fags of fag island and probably hate people who get pizza for dinner because you have to eat spotted dick.

                • peppermint says:

                  Cominator, that ship has sailed. We’re not going to have a pure human country without slaughtering everyone’s pets. I agree that dogs are disgusting creatures that no one should bring into the cities. Maybe they can be phased out by 2220, but right now our centeal objective is that we’re gonna make women property again, and extend that to every other animal that’s incapable of managing its own affairs.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint writes:

                  “CR, bringing up economic theories no one but you has ever heard of makes you sound more like a leftist plant, not less.”

                  This is how I know you’re libertarians. You pay lipservice to Austrian economics but have no indepth knowledge of the literature. You basically think that since the conclusion of “Human Action” is libertarianism, you can ‘read’ it the way people ‘read’ Dickens.

                  Actually Mises doesn’t prescribe the libertarian programme at all. He was what you types would call a ‘minarchist’, but those personal prejudices aren’t logical extensions of his theory, which is why he never claims they are. He’s actually rather responsible and careful in that regard.

                  Lucas Engelhardt is a senior fellow at the Mises Institute and he departs from libertarian dogma in a variety of ways. His claim, that a fully optimised rotating market economy would end up delivering the resource theory of value is perhaps his most controversial claim: far more controversial than anything Roger Garrison’s said about so-called Austrian macro.

                  My point wasn’t actually that slavery didn’t depress worker wages, only that the fully subjective theory of value is often over-applied by people with a libertarian agenda.

                  Labour should not even BE a commodity.

                  Yes I’m against the historical institution of slavery in America: it brought thousands of negroes and Irish to the country and we’re only now paying the ‘negative externality’ of that.

                  But the institution of slavery in and of itself is not a bad thing. Many people in the ‘gig economy’ are far worse off than a slave, and more to the point there’s no actual limit to the improvements that can be made to the conditions of slaves. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t be very comfortable indeed, with plenty of leisure time and disposable income.

                  I’d recommend Nehemiah Adams’ “A South-Side View Of Slavery”. He’s not particularly ‘race realist’, but that’s his Universalist Christianity speaking. What he does observe is the civilising influence of guidance and duty on the negro population.
                  I’m not necessarily saying reinstituting slavery would rehabilitate the populations of places like Detroit and Chicago, just that the institution of slavery itself is not a terrible wicked thing.

                  Walter Block famously argued that the problem with slavery was not the conditions – the songs, the cotton picking, etc. – but the fact that they couldn’t quit.
                  My argument is basically the exact opposite of that: the fact they couldn’t quit was the main good thing about the institution of slavery and it’s exactly what many unskilled workers NEED. The bad thing was precisely the cotton picking. A slave employed to proof-read documents or load plastic moulding machines, working a 25 hour week for bed, board and personal pocket-money would not have a bad life at all.

                  The tyranny of laissez-faire is the idea that labour IS a commodity to be traded in ‘the labour market’. That’s what gives us heightened time preference, cynical pessimism and self-destructive behaviour.

                  Carlyle knew this right from the offing. ‘The vagabond principle’ is pure poison and the solution he had differed from the socialists: he said put them to work on a stable, permanent basis and give them positive rights to education, good housing and adequate resources. The socialists wanted to preserve ‘the labour market’ but provide those positive benefits by spreading the cost between every actor in society. The poisonous consequences of THAT idea need no exposition in these circles.

                  Carlyle was right: we don’t need patches over liberalism, we need its abolition.

                • jim says:

                  You don’t understand the stuff you name drop. As you use reactionary shibboleths inappropriately without understanding the context and theory that gives them meaning, you use libertarian shibboleths inappropriately without understanding the context and theory that gives them meaning.

                  You sound like Derrida talking about “The Einsteinian constant.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator opposes American slavery for all the wrong reasons:

                  “In both cases they were 100% lies and in both cases they were bad for free labor.”

                  Free labour shouldn’t exist, simple as that. The institution of slavery was morally flawless: even the conditions, in their contemporary context, were not remarkable.
                  The world would greatly benefit from something very similar, except with 2018 working conditions *and then some*.

                  Libertarians have it exactly backwards. We don’t need negative rights, we need positive rights, but freedom isn’t one of them. Neither’s equality and neither’s an assumption of brotherhood. The Enlightenment (including libertarianism and socialism) is completely wrong-headed.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Free labour shouldn’t exist, simple as that. The institution of slavery was morally flawless: ”

                  And like I’ve said in practice you are a Stalinist.

                  Now that is better then any other kind of leftist, but its still leftist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s just libertarian unfalsifiability: if everything that isn’t libertarian is left, then libertarianism’s invincible.

                  I hadn’t actually encountered the idea that the world of Henry VIII was *SOCIALIST* until I came here. It’s rather interesting, how ‘all history is now’.

                  But fine, if you want to dismiss any&all solutions to the problems facing us today as ‘left’, well fine I guess I’m left. I’m not afraid of that label, so long as nobody’s misled into believing it carries with it all the usual crap about equality etc.

                  (On the contrary, ending ‘labour is a commodity’ is precisely in service of getting RID of the idea of human equality.)

                • jim says:

                  We are obviously not libertarian, and obviously not left, and to deny this is absurd. Further repetition of this nonsense is a waste of space.

                  Nazis are 1930s leftists, but leftism has moved on, so they are now far right relative to 2016 Hillary.

                  Whether they are right wing relative to Mises institute is depends on what criteria one uses for right wingery. Most Nazis are not Venezuelan style socialists, therefore are obviously to the right of the Mises institute. Some of them are Venezuelan type socialists, and are unambiguously leftist who hate Jews. Trots are usually Jews who hate Jews as much if not more than Nazis. Does anyone claim that Trotskyists are rightists because they hate Jews?

                • Andre says:

                  I see way too much talk on the right about “lowering the price of labor” by increasing its supply. People seem to forget that labor creates demand for labor by producing/supplying the things that pay for it. Slaves are not a burden, unless they are being mismanaged, which is usually the slave owner’s problem. I mean we are often talking about the same people that defend mechanization. Are we going to outlaw tractors? It’s really the same thing.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You name drop economic theory in ways that cause me to doubt that you know what the names refer to.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I see way too much talk on the right about “lowering the price of labor” by increasing its supply.”

                  This is the Paul Ryan open borders wing of Republicans… we are not they. And in fact we generally hate them.

                  We stand solidly with the God-Emperor who wants to RAISE the price of labor by limiting its supply.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re altogether too hung up on ‘left and right’.

                  I don’t CARE what point on the curve pre-Whig economics falls. What matters is that it’s pre-Whig.

                  Whiggery was a mistake – all of it. We emphatically do not need ‘just the right amount of Whiggery’. We don’t need any.

                • jim says:

                  And then you proceed to define every concept and every person that does not accept the truth of progressivism and Maxism as whigs.

                • Andre says:

                  Then you are a moron. The problem with the “open borders” crowd, and with slavery as well, is political, not economic. In a nutshell, the problem is that slaves can rebel.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR you are a renegade Stalinist brahmin who somehow got the idea that NRx is a good vehicle to restore the old left.

                  The problem is we are dedicated to restoring the old right and we recognize you because we’ve studied the left more then most leftists have (especially non Stalinist leftist who generally think history began five minutes ago).

                  Don’t get us wrong we recognize that Stalin created a semi sane form of leftism and that his leftism is way better then modern leftism… but we still don’t want it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Entirely accurately, unlike your accusations of ’18th century Marxism [sic]’.

                  What you’re defending is the right of every man to determine his own destiny: choose his own job, trade whatever he wants to without impediment, go wherever he likes.

                  Logically you ought to be for open borders. I suspect you probably are on some level.

                • jim says:

                  The latter logic presupposes the progressive account of nation and nationality. If you actually believed what you say you believe such “logic” would never occur to you, nor would you attribute such a silly idea to us.

                  With great regularity you tell us X follows from Y, which it does, if one presupposes that Marxism and/or progressivism is true.

                  The citizenship as a service model is Dubai, and many reactionaries advocate it, and all are at least somewhat sympathetic to it – but it is pretty much the opposite of the Progressive model of nation as the progressive idea, that a nation has a equal obligation to everyone in the world. The reactionary model of citizenship as a service is more like the nation as a cruise ship.

                  In contrast, the reactionary model of the nation as tribe and faith is more like the crusader Kingdoms. Dubai encompasses both models – Dubai is a big hotel, and anyone can go there and get a job, but a hotel with the King as CEO, with his tribe as shareholders and the aristocracy as the board. Those who go to Dubai are guests or staff, but not citizens. The citizens of Dubai are citizens by blood and faith, as in the crusader kingdoms.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                  [*We have heard the Marxist version of history far too many times already*]

                • peppermint says:

                  When have slaves ever rebelled? The Haiti thing wasn’t started by slaves. Maybe you mean the Greek prizefighters who rebelled and gathered an army of commies 2000 years ago?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  CR: do you believe that nationalities exist as more than an assumed moniker?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Peppermint: multiple slave rebellions have occurred in Haiti, DR, Honduras, Brazil, Iraq, Turkey, Kenya, India, and a few other places. They are always led by mulattos or mixed breeds, but they have occurred. I am not near my library ATM so I apologise for the dearth of sources.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*censored*]

                • jim says:

                  Any comment by you that says “so and so is saying such and such” is going to be deleted, because it is never what so and so is saying.

                  None of us are saying the things you attribute to us, and if I let you post this stuff we would wind up repeating what we have already said repeatedly, clarifying our positions to someone whose crimestop means he refuses to understand our positions.

                  If you want your comments to get through, please make an effort to respond to what people actually say, rather than what they would have said had they not been committing thought crimes.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  For those of you (all of you basically) who are rusty on Austrian micro, here’s Engelhardt:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8nZDhFIjps

                  If you want to play this video in hard mode, substitute “a wage earner’s life” for “a box of chocolates” and see where it leads in this beautiful anarchy he describes.

                  Then, later on, consider the submission of consumers and locus of control with the vendor and reflect on what that means for the theory of equal actors in the market.

                  Finally, consider the case of the catallactic power of free-floating factors of production. Engelhardt generalises this to anything acting (in the moment) as a factor of production (remember analogue radios, after the end of FM/AM radio broadcasting will largely become ‘factors of production’, either as cavity wall insulation or out-house bricks, or some other creative use) but is this claim justified, or is it just the assumption that the world runs on universal principles?
                  It seems to me the wood, oil, sand and copper are a special category of highly flexible materials with multiple uses. Uranium not so much and houses not so much. (Remember a house can, in a given moment, be a factor of production – if you’re building a military base, say.)

                  Anyway this is a pretty good summary of the subjective theory of value.

                  I can’t find the Q&A where someone asks him whether prices would be largely determined by labour in an optimal market economy. It’s one of the Mises Panels, I think 2017 but I’m not going to do hours of ‘homework’ only to have it be strategically censored.

                  You’ll have to take my word, because you guys don’t praxeology, that if subjective preferences were fully met and had stabilised as a result (arguably this is pretty much the case today in America), and if market friction were somehow eradicated, and if government had completely stepped back, then prices would in fact depend on how hard it is to obtain the commodity in question, which superficially has to do with its rarity but this (and all other considerations) is ultimately a function of human effort.

                  So you see, Marxist value theory is not only wrong because it ignores the role of subjective preference but it’s also wrong because it’s an extreme, Utopian version of libertarianism!

                  There’s one very simple solution to the ‘economy’ question: stop treating labour as a commodity and stop treating life’s necessities as optional consumer choices. These are not appropriate domains for markets and the masses are not appropriate/competent market determinants even if it were appropriate for them to try.

                  Laissez-faire is basically stage one communism.

                • jim says:

                  > Laissez-faire is basically stage one communism.

                  Nonsense. You don’t understand markets and capitalism, and even less do you understand Englehardt.

                  You attribute to him not what he says, but what he would say if he accepted the truth of progressivism and Marxism, just as no matter what we say, you attribute to us what we would say if we accepted the truth of progressivism and Marxism.

                  Any time you tell me what prominent libertarians say, it will probably be deleted. Any time you tell me what I say, or what commenters on this blog say, it will be deleted, because it is always wrong.

                  If you don’t think my interpretation of your words is fair, then retell me what you say. Don’t retell me what I say, because if I disagree with your account of what I say, which I invariably do, I am going to delete you telling me what I am saying, rather than restate my position yet again.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Autism is a key indicator of the presence of libertarians.

                  You’re literally saying that it’s wrong to read between the lines of what someone says: one must stick only to specific utterances, and if something’s implied or left out, that’s not worth noticing.

                  Bullshit, sperg.

                  Engelhardt believes that labour is a factor of production.
                  Engelhardt believes in the dual inequality of trade: both get a good deal or they wouldn’t trade.

                  That’s pretty Utopian, to be honest. It’s also incredibly Whiggish. In fact if you challenged him on the Enlightenment, he’d say it was a mixed bag: Rousseau mostly wrong, Hume mostly right but sometimes badly wrong, Locke mostly right but sometimes understandably wrong.

                  Carlyle would say they were all retards. Of course your LIFE isn’t a market commodity. Of course your CIRCUMSTANCES determine your choices. And of course a healthy society depends on long-term planning, not on contingent transactions.

                  Libertarians like to slip under the rug the idea of conservative values, because they know their core audience is conservatives.
                  They never justify it, because they can’t. A libertarian society is a high time preference society.

                  That’s the reddest pill of all.

                  Hans-Hermann Hoppe is simply suffering the same cognitive dissonance as Christopher Cantwell. Both want to remain libertarians in spite of their findings. For Cantwell it’s race and trannies; for Hoppe it’s the difference between monarchy and democracy.

                  Hoppe wants to claim that even though monarchy gives you future-orientation and democracy gives you present-orientation, if you simply privatise the lot and have competing overlapping security agencies and cabals of insurance providers, it’ll magically produce future-orientation.

                  It won’t: it’ll produce even strong present-orientation than parliamentary democracy, because under market ‘democracy’ every ‘vote’ happens immediately.

                  The red pill that you can’t swallow is that vendors would rather you spend than not spend.

                  It’s obvious when you think about it, which is why you won’t allow yourself to think about it.

                • jim says:

                  > You’re literally saying that it’s wrong to read between the lines of what someone says

                  Not what I am saying.

                  I am saying that you are wrong when you attempt to read between the lines, that your interpretation is always wildly wrong and flatly contrary to the clear and plainly expressed meaning, is invariably painfully absurd and ridiculous, and is invariably premised on the presupposition that everyone agrees with progressivism and Marxism, that no one could possibly think the thought crimes that are regularly found on this blog and regularly stated in the plainest and clearest possible way.

                  I am saying that because you do such a bad job of reading between the lines, either deliberately, or because of incapacity to commit thoughtcrime, your invariably incorrect accounts of what other people say are a waste of space, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated that you are totally unresponsive to anyone attempting to explain their entirely plain and clear meaning yet again.

                  Therefore, to avoid pointless and unfruitful repetition, I am going to silently delete any comment by you that contains the words “you are saying”, or “so and so is saying”, or equivalent words.

                  Because it is absolutely never what they are saying, and they would only say it if progressivism and Marxism was true, and everyone entirely agreed that it was true.

                  I am also going to silently delete any lectures by you on what libertarian economists supposedly say, because it is never what they say either. It is what they would say if Marx was right, everyone knew he was right, and they agreed that he was right.

                • Andre says:

                  CR said: “Your role in the fake resistance is keeping people who started to see through Lew Rockwell from noticing that the capitalists are up to their necks in the genocide of white people.”

                  Solution number 1: Name those capitalists, confiscate their property and send them in chains to the plantation.

                  Solution number 2: Socialism. Which won’t necessarily solve the issue of people wanting white genocide but at least they will no longer be known as “capitalists”.

                  If you favor solution #1 you are on the right. If you favor solution #2 you are on the left.

                • Howard J. Harrison says:

                  > The price of labor is set by supply and demand.

                  The demand for labor is set by supply.

                • jim says:

                  Both propositions are true, in slightly different senses.

              • peppermint says:

                A namefag is of the opinion that standard liberaltarian line?

                And you had to distract us from discussing why Ganga Zumba failed and that capoeira is dancing to bring us some thoughts from youtube because we need to know restoring the quilombos to slavery would make the Brazilian economy less capable of producing airplanes?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Why do you want airplanes?

                  That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s one in seek of an answer.

                • jim says:

                  Duh

                  I like to be able to travel all over the world.

                  I want my children to have the stars.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Right!

                  See you can do honesty when you try.

                  Well that’s incompatible with a healthy society. It means the nation has no way to know how many resources will leak into other nations at any given moment.
                  It could be that, if you’re especially keen on travelling, almost all of your disposable income will go on that.
                  It’s quite possible for someone to work all year round, forego the holiness that is Franky&Benny’s £12 chilli burger with £5 starter, £3 side and £5 pudding, with a few small colas at £2.60 a shot……. and instead save up, then, at the right moment, take £5000 to a different country, stay in luxury hotels there, see all the sights and soak up the glory of cosmopolitan living, the enrichment of other cultures, etc. etc.

                  That shit will destroy your nation surer than anything else.
                  It’s actually worse than wasting it all at Franky&Benny’s.

                • jim says:

                  The King is not capable of keeping track of such an enormous number of resources in such minute detail, and should he attempt to do so, power will slip from his hands into the hands of a vast and faceless bureaucracy, resulting in the mobile banditry characteristic of socialism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Agreed, which is why simpler, more sweeping measures are better.
                  Prior to the 19th century, foreign travel was the preserve of a tiny tiny minority. It was difficult and generally justified by legitimate claims of trade and cultural exchange (examples would be boat trips for trade in resources not available domestically, as well as cultural trips like Mozart going to London).

                  Blanket access to the entire world for the purposes of personal gratification is toxic and destructive.

                  I used to think a tax of $1/mile for all air travel would create self-correcting incentives, but even that is a compromise in the direction of democracy and the equality of all equal-created men.

                  Far better to simply ban it outright.

                • jim says:

                  As a world traveller, I can tell you you are full of crap.

                • peppermint says:

                  Two of the last countries to abolish slavery have two of the best claims to the first airplanes, which is bizarre because 1884 to 1906, being about as long as Mario 64 has been out, is surely not long enough to create true equality in habit as well as law, and slavery is known to libertarians to make slavedrivers incapable of technological advancement.

                  Which is why CR asks why we want airplanes, he knows slavery is bad for our tech but wants it anyway.

                  Countries with slaves routinely lose wars to countries without slaves, but CR is on a moral mission here.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint you conflate slavery an sich and slavery in the American context and then draw false sweeping conclusions about its effects.

                  All nations have always had slavery. It’s just modernity prefers to euphemise it.

                  Random access air travel is fungibly equivalent to ‘remittances’, where an alien squatting on your soil sends the resources you give him back to his real family back home rather than circulating them in the economy that gives him nourishment.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  By the way Peppermint, your love of tech is not reciprocated.
                  None of the productivity gains of the past forty years have translated into better or easier lives. People are working harder than ever before and less likely to be able to afford to raise a family than ever before.

                  Sure there are little poxy 1981-style games you can play on your phones, and sure everyone’s a professional photographer now, but beyond that nothing’s really improved.

                  Do you receive less paperwork now that demands your full attention, than say forty years ago?
                  Or is it in fact an order of magnitude greater? If so, how come? Well, consider paying a manual typist to type your latest bumf from your favourite insurance company or bank. Not practical at all, but to run it all off on a printer? Piece of cake.

                  Are offices paperless, or do they in fact still have rooms full of boxes full of ‘auditable paper trail’ documents? More than in 1985 or less?

                  How about computerising the small business? Is that profitable? How much do you spend on the equipment, the software rental, the website design, the anti-malware, the anti-virus, the DDOS-protection, the hosting, the payment processing, the hardware maintenance, the backup processes, the inevitable hard copies?

                  I bet it’s negative.

                  What about your TV? Does it work better or worse than before? My Samsung flat screen TV insists it’s not connected to the internet even after streaming for hours. I find myself typing in the same eight digit passcode, which of course I’m now obliged to memorise, along with ten million other pieces of bullshit.

                  How many secure passwords do you have now, compared to 1978? Heck, even compared to 1998!!

                  What about the wonders of modern banking? Don’t you just love having to type in random characters from yet another memorised secret code, then having your bank tell you you need to validate new payees by telephone, but if someone gets hold of your card (or you give it to them over the phone?) they can empty you out without any validation at all!

                  No, you’re worshipping at the wrong shrine.

                  Technology became a means to accelerate the exploitation of natural resources in pursuit of higher GDP around the 18th century. The upside of that deal with the devil is coming to a close in 2018.

                  From now on, you get the mental stress, the filth, the tackiness and the cheapness, but you no longer get the increased wealth. In fact, the little guy hasn’t had any increased wealth for some considerable time.

                  So what, we should go back to the Stone Age?

                  No, some of it’s genuinely useful. YouTube as an alternative to the university system is excellent. eBay as an alternative to car boot sales is equally excellent.
                  Mobile phones make car breakdowns far less traumatic and inconvenient.

                  Beyond that though it’s all innovation for innovation’s sake: finding ways to employ all the hands made idle by the sucking up of natural resources to serve the ruling élites at the top.
                  It’s no coincidence that Jack Dorsey is now surpassing Rothschild. Where oil boosted the élite in the 19th century, tech monopolies are boosting the same élite in the 21st.

                  The little guy has been hoodwinked all along, thrown the odd scrap, given the odd socialised welfare programme to protect him from dying of chronic contractlessness.

                  It all has to go: socialism, welfarism, liberalism, libertarianism.

                  We need to start growing up and recognising that nations are families writ large, and just as we wouldn’t put a random stranger before our brother, we mustn’t put abstract principles and the interests of ‘productivity’ before the health of our nation and EVERYONE in it.

                • peppermint says:

                  A healthy society is one where resources don’t leak out like North Korea?

                  I think a healthy society is determined by rate of capital accumulation, minus λ, the rate at which capital is handed to homosexuals for their aids drugs in exchange for “art” to be displayed prominently in your office building so the hr department can let you know that they hate you.

                  Capital accumulation was fast enough in the 90s that λ wasn’t that relevant to how people felt. Now λ dominates public opinion, and of capitalism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Do you mean capital accumulation though or do you mean consumption spending?

                  If you mean capital accumulation then something along the lines of Juche is actually positive. Your grandmother accumulated capital in the form of silverware, paintings and fine ornaments.
                  Your mother sold it all at auction so she could dine out whilst on holiday abroad.

                  Detach Juche from Whig ideas about equality and so on, and you have something rather healthy, yes.
                  Put the nation at the heart of every decision.

                  What’s not to like about that?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Come and get your productivity, goyim: Wix dot com will build your website for you! You don’t need to learn all that PHP crap – I mean who understands that shit anyway right?
                  Just pay us…. monthly… forever……

                  Come and get your productivity!

                  Paypal and Go Daddy were ‘punished’ by the market yesterday for behaving like part of the state. Paypal was up 4% and Go Daddy 3.7% at the half-day close. That’s just one day after screwing Gab. Investors either don’t care, or approve. Capitalism is either incapable of assisting in the fight against globohomo, or else unwilling. In fact by rewarding them with more capital, capitalism basically strengthened globohomo.

                • peppermint says:

                  Name one person capable of punishing a company for acting like part of the state.

                • peppermint says:

                  North Korea has observably accumulated very little capital.

                  I’m not sure why this is a contentious point.

                  Regardless of what you think about capitalism, capital is good, except to anarchoprimitivists like Glosoli and the Unibomber.

                • Andre says:

                  “Two of the last countries to abolish slavery have two of the best claims to the first airplanes,”

                  Indeed. Santos-Dumont was born before the abolition of slavery. He was the son of one of the biggest coffee barons in Brazil, meaning his father likely employed, and certainly competed with those that employed, slave labor. That didn’t prevent him from innovating in the agriculture business and outcompeting the other coffee barons. Truth be told, most anti-slavery arguments are pure bs masking things like low IQ in the free population. There is no meaningful economic difference between buying a tractor and buying a slave and no libertarian would argue that tractors are bad for the economy. I won’t waste my time demolishing all anti-slavery arguments, believe what you will, but consider the possibility that they are simply wrong.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If you mean capital accumulation then something along the lines of Juche is actually positive. Your grandmother accumulated capital in the form of silverware, paintings and fine ornaments.
                  Your mother sold it all at auction so she could dine out whilst on holiday abroad.”

                  And you betray again a leftist’s TOTAL ignorance of economics. In fact I take back the part about you being a Stalinist because Stalin would have shot you so he could install a technocrat in your economic planning ministry so that it would SOMEWHAT work.

                • jim says:

                  Carlylean Restorationist is arguing what Stalin called “left communism” when he was debating them. Later, when Stalin was shooting them, Stalin called it “Objective fascism”.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Don’t tell me what Peppermint is saying. I just read what he was saying, and he is saying the direct opposite.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Cominator tells you he disagrees with Marxist economics, and you tell us what he would be saying if Marxist economics was obviously and observably true, and he just conceded that it was true.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  André is so close to the truth:

                  “Truth be told, most anti-slavery arguments are pure bs masking things like low IQ in the free population.”

                  Not even just IQ. Large numbers of people just don’t do well selling their labour on the open market as if they were a movie rental service.
                  It leads them to a position in which their income’s so sporadic and unpredictable that long-term planning is actually impossible. Given that these are high time preference people to start with, it’s little wonder that large numbers end up in debt and engaging in self-destructive behaviours.
                  Slavery is a way for those people to be guaranteed the basic essentials of life without instituting a smeared-over welfare scheme that ends up just out-sourcing the costs of capitalism so they can reap better profits while society falls apart.

                  “There is no meaningful economic difference between buying a tractor and buying a slave and no libertarian would argue that tractors are bad for the economy.”

                  If you’re still sympathetic to libertarianism there are two questions you need to ask yourself right there:

                  1. Is there any other kind of difference between a human being and a tractor? (Don’t worry I’m not anti-slavery: slavery will always exist, no matter how hard the liberals find ever new names for it.)

                  2. What does ‘good for the economy’ actually mean and what’s it for? For whose good does ‘the economy’ exist and why?

                  “I won’t waste my time demolishing all anti-slavery arguments, believe what you will, but consider the possibility that they are simply wrong.”

                  They really ARE simply wrong. If you haven’t already, read Nehemiah Adams’ “South Side View Of Slavery”. It’s available online for free and it’s easy to read in spite of its age.
                  He was a northern preacher – a shitlib as it were. He went to the south on business and fully expected to have lots of delicious outrage to report back to his friends back in Massachusetts or wherever he was from.

                  Instead he completely changed his mind.

                  The history of ideas is mostly written by people like that who completely change their minds.

                • jim says:

                  The next comment by you that uses this tactic will be silently deleted:

                  You failed to respond to Andre’s points, instead responding to the opposite of his points, thereby violating the Gricean Maxims, by implying words in his mouth and thoughts in his mind that were the direct opposite of his actual thoughts expressed, in the most extreme and forceful possible way. You did not tell us he had conceded the Marxist and progressive frame in so many words, but you proceeded to argue as if he had done so. Instead of rebutting his disagreement with Marxism and progressivism, you proceeded to argue by presupposing he concedes to progressive frame.

                  Asking “If you’re still sympathetic to libertarianism” is unresponsive to an argument in favor of slavery, and asking “For whose good does the economy exist” is unresponsive to a point about the development of airplanes.

                  You did not say “Andre says”, but you are arguing with him as though he was a libertarian making libertarian points, as though he was presenting libertarian arguments, and he was arguing from libertarian premises

                  Andre says “we live in a matriarchy. All matriarchal societies end up conquered, often without much resistance.” to which you respond with a program intended to save us from oppression by the Capitalist class, presupposing he already agrees we are being oppressed by the capitalist class, instead of presenting an actual argument that female power is not the problem, the power of the capitalist class is the problem.

                  Andre argues for the mass enslavement of nonwhites by whites and urges the mass enslavement of low IQ people by high IQ people, that low IQ people be made into chattel slaves and bought and sold, to which you unresponsively respond:

                  > If you’re still sympathetic to libertarianism there are two questions you need to ask yourself right there:”

                  and then you rebut those supposed premises, which in context it is not likely that he is arguing, but rebut them from a Marxist frame, rather than a reactionary frame. So though you are supposedly debating a nonexistent libertarian about libertarianism, you are actually telling us that Marxism is the truest form of reaction. Or in this case, telling us that Marxism is the truest form of libertarianism, an argument unlikely to persuade people you will find on this blog.

                  Andre is not telling us there is a universal right to property and freedom, but that he likes property, wealth, and freedom for himself, his family, his descendants, his friends and allies, and wants to be able to get it. To which you respond by telling us that the Proletariat is most free and most wealthy when Andre does not get these things.

                  You ask:

                  > What does ‘good for the economy’ actually mean and what’s it for? For whose good does ‘the economy’ exist and why?

                  which presupposes, in place of arguing, the progressive frame that there is a fixed amount of wealth falling from the sky, and the question is who gets it, presupposes that Andre has conceded this progressive frame and is arguing from the libertarian frame of the greatest good for the greatest number, that Andre is attempting to argue that libertarianism benefits the proletarian masses, when in the comment to which you reply Andre talks about the development of planes, and is, in context, presumably looking forward to the development of starships and the conquest of the stars by slave owning trillionaires.

                  In the context that he is talking about the development of planes by a wealthy man whose father owned large numbers of slaves, obvious what he means by “the economy” and obvious whom it is good for.

                  From here on I will not only delete every comment by you that says “So and so is saying”, but also every comment that violates the Gricean Maxims. You are not allowed to respond to a comment in favor of slavery by arguing against libertarianism, nor a comment on the development of planes by the son of a rich man by arguing “for whom is it good for”. If he had told us that the development of planes was good for the slaves, then you could make that argument.

                  Libertarians do not care whom the economy is good for, and reactionaries do not care what “the economy” means. We don’t like Venezuelan economics not because it is bad for the economy, but because it is people like you kicking down my door, taking my stuff, and destroying it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Violates Gricean Maxims, by assuming that I agree with what I have just explicitly disagreed with.

                  You don’t accurately represent Andre’s arguments by correctly quoting him, but then responding to an argument completely different to the argument that he in fact made. And you don’t accurately represent my arguments by assuming that I agree that that you have accurately represented Andre’s arguments.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Full comment quoted:

                  ““Two of the last countries to abolish slavery have two of the best claims to the first airplanes,”

                  Indeed. Santos-Dumont was born before the abolition of slavery. He was the son of one of the biggest coffee barons in Brazil, meaning his father likely employed, and certainly competed with those that employed, slave labor. That didn’t prevent him from innovating in the agriculture business and outcompeting the other coffee barons. Truth be told, most anti-slavery arguments are pure bs masking things like low IQ in the free population. There is no meaningful economic difference between buying a tractor and buying a slave and no libertarian would argue that tractors are bad for the economy. I won’t waste my time demolishing all anti-slavery arguments, believe what you will, but consider the possibility that they are simply wrong.”

                  Nothing there contradicts what I said this guy said in any way. You’re the one being tactical, Jim.

                  I just skimmed all his previous comments on this article and the previous interaction I had with him was in response to his claim that Say’s Law applies to labour: no matter how much you increase the supply of labour in the context of a ‘labour market’ it does not depress wages because the additional supply creates its own demand.

                  I believe I said I don’t believe in Say’s Law, but it’s hard to be sure because you deleted the comment.

                  Either way, my response that you’re calling ‘tactical’ was not in any way tactical but was in fact an entirely appropriate response to what the guy said and indeed intended.

                  Furthermore I reiterate what I actually said, regardless of its context. Every word of that was true and just, and if you have no interest in answering it that’s your business.

                  You simply won’t because you don’t have an argument, so your response is to accuse ME of ‘tactical’ misrepresentation when in fact that’s what you’re doing.

                  I wasn’t 100% sure until now but I’m naming the fucking Jew you piece of shit.

                • jim says:

                  You contradicted him implicitly by violating the Gricean Maxims

                  “What does ‘good for the economy’ actually mean and what’s it for? For whose good does ‘the economy’ exist and why?” is unresponsive to his arguments. By responding unresponsively, you imply and presuppose shared facts and values that contradict the facts and values he expressed.

                  He tells us that enslaving low IQ people makes it easier to advance technologically. Advancing technologically is good for Andre. He is not discussing whether total GDP including that portion of the GDP received by slaves is higher. Rather, the point at issue is he wants to fly, and to respond you would have to argue that an economy like that of Venezuela or North Korea is going to make it easier for him to fly, or that he is a wicked person for wanting to fly because him flying oppresses low IQ people, or impairs the military capability of the Sovereign, or some such argument. Absent such an argument, your response violates the Gricean Maxims, and thus implicitly deceives.

                  You responded to Andre with arguments that deduce Marxism from a supposed shared agreement on libertarianism, which arguments presupposes and take for granted shared agreement on facts and values that is not in evidence.

                  When arguing with libertarians, you assume that they cannot state crimethoughts, and then you correctly and validly deduce Marxism from some official progressive truth that they dare not contradict, correctly pointing out that their libertarianism is incoherent and inconsistent, because in order to make it consistent, they would have to openly state some crimethought.

                  When arguing with libertarians, that is a valid and reasonable argument.

                  Here, however, making that argument is incoherent, deceptive, and a waste of bandwidth and reader attention.

                  The argument that Andre makes for enslaving low IQ people does not support the conclusion that it is a good idea to enslave Andre. If you want to make the argument that it is a good idea to enslave Andre, need to dispute his argument. By presenting an argument that it is a good idea to enslave Andre, without disputing his argument, you misrepresent his argument.

                • Andre says:

                  “Not even just IQ. Large numbers of people just don’t do well selling their labour on the open market as if they were a movie rental service.”

                  I’m not arguing in favor of slavery because it benefits the slave, although sometimes, it most certainly does. I’m arguing against the claim that slavery is bad for the free. I’m not a sadist but the fact I think some human beings should be regarded as slaves should provide the hint that I’m not particularly concerned with their well being. Slavery is the alternative you provide someone you would otherwise have to kill. It is widely practiced today. I’m not even talking about the “subtle” human slavery, just stop to think for a moment what farm animals are. The anti-slavery argument would have us believe that raising chickens and cows is bad because it prevents agricultural innovation and the rise of soy milk.

                • jack says:

                  CR,
                  Neo-Reaction doesn’t care about low IQ people.
                  Bye.

                • Andre says:

                  “in response to his claim that Say’s Law applies to labour: no matter how much you increase the supply of labour in the context of a ‘labour market’ it does not depress wages because the additional supply creates its own demand.”

                  I can see why you would interpret what I said that way, but it’s not exactly accurate. The rule of thumb is that yes, supply creates its own demand. That is obvious to anyone with a brain. However, I’m perfectly aware that limited capital and limited “imagination” can make available labor superfluous. That is, there might simply not be anyone with capital that knows how to employ the available supply of labor well enough to sustain past wages, resulting in a fall in price, possibly all the way down to zero. But this is not just something that can happen due to “migration” and “slavery”, mechanization has the same effect, because it literally is “additional supply of labor”. And for that matter, so are highly productive employees, or improvements in production techniques. The idea that we must keep a careful watch over “the supply of labor” is just a manifestation of the office attitude of policing fellow employees to make sure nobody works too hard and makes them look bad. I understand the concerns of the capital-poor white middle class, the sense that they are being marginalized, but perhaps they should start their war on “the additional supply of labor” by getting women out of the workforce and shutting down the welfare state. The problem isn’t actually the “additional supply of labor”, it’s the additional demand for wages without a corresponding increase in productivity.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The host should apologise.

                  André knows I was replying to him in good faith. Anyone with a brain knows that Jim’s allegation of ‘tactical misunderstanding’ was projection: literally crying out as he strikes you.

                  André:

                  “I can see why you would interpret what I said that way, but it’s not exactly accurate. The rule of thumb is that yes, supply creates its own demand.”

                  I was suspicious of Say’s Law even when I was an anarcho-capitalist reading everything from Rose Wilder Lane to Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk.

                  Capitalist fundamentalists are quick to cite the example of a statue made out of snot and dandruff to disprove the labour theory of value, and they’re right: just because you sank ten thousand hours’ labour into something doesn’t make it worth your labour’s market price times ten thousand.

                  This generalises in my opinion. I’ve seen far too many new products tank, and this is intuitive common sense.
                  The old “build it and they will come” should not be something that anyone takes as axiomatic if they’re serious about subjectivism and methodological individualism.

                  At best, Say’s Law can be diluted to read thus:

                  Expanding the supply of a known good, or very close stand-in to it, will tend, ceteris paribus, to address a potential demand, subject to market clearing price flexibility.

                  That’s MUCH milder than “immigrants will always have something to do”.

                  What it means, in practice, is that immigrants will always drive down wages, ceteris paribus, because the niches they’ll fill will not be innovative but rather they’ll compete as a stand-in for a known good and improve the negotiating position of the buyer of that good (labour).

                  It’s a shame this is controversial. Any old-school union member knows wogs drive down wages and any new-school racist knows the same. Only spergy libertarians need to walk through it from first principles as a matter of universal natural law.

                  “I’m perfectly aware that limited capital and limited ‘imagination’ can make available labor superfluous. That is, there might simply not be anyone with capital that knows how to employ the available supply of labor well enough to sustain past wages, resulting in a fall in price, possibly all the way down to zero. But this is not just something that can happen due to ‘migration’ and ‘slavery’, mechanization has the same effect, because it literally is “additional supply of labor”.”

                  I think you and I can lay aside the canard of slavery. Others here, including Jim sometimes, might take issue with that fine institution but you and I know it’s always going to be with us, like poverty.

                  I agree with you that mechanisation, in a highly developed country, creates similar effects to immigration. Where I draw the distinction is that in principle mechanisation COULD benefit society, under certain conditions, whereas bringing niggers into your neighbourhood is always a net negative for everyone concerned.
                  Call me an aprioristic spergy libertarian if you want but that’s one universal law I can get behind.

                  “And for that matter, so are highly productive employees, or improvements in production techniques. The idea that we must keep a careful watch over ‘the supply of labor’ is just a manifestation of the office attitude of policing fellow employees to make sure nobody works too hard and makes them look bad.”

                  We should be clear at this point: was I unreasonable to suggest that your way of thinking tends to be broadly open-minded when it comes to open borders?
                  Jim claims I was misrepresenting you but what you just said right there suggests you don’t think anyone should be overly worried.

                  I’m asking sincerely, not ‘tactically’.

                  I agree with you that the phenomenon you describe exists: envy and unhealthy competitiveness will always be with us – very much part of the human condition no matter how many healthy correctives we implement, as indeed we should. (I have to say these things because some people have a proven track record of calling me a Marxist egalitarian so I have to close off all possible openings. Of course he’ll just call me a Marxist when he censors the comment!)

                  I also agree with you in your partial agreement with envious workers: highly productive workers DO have effects on the rest of the team. Generally speaking, a balance can be found in which the highly productive worker gets to stay true to his nature without getting into fights. It’s called social adeptness. Highly productive people often excel in that also, and it correlates with ‘G’ (general intelligence).

                  Side note: JACK – I agree. We wouldn’t want to import a billion Chinese into relatively low IQ Scotland. There is such a thing as loyalty to one’s tribe. (I use that word to ‘ingroup’ the civ-nats and filthy kikes among us but in practice you and I know exactly what it does and does not mean.)

                  “I understand the concerns of the capital-poor white middle class, the sense that they are being marginalized, but perhaps they should start their war on ‘the additional supply of labor’ by getting women out of the workforce and shutting down the welfare state.”

                  Again it sounds to me as though you’re putting the woman question ahead of the nigger question. If you want to elaborate on or correct that interpretation, it could make for interesting and useful content.
                  I of course agree with you that when women entered the workforce, much as many of them thought they’d benefit, the prices ‘corrected’ to match the increased supply and we ended up having to have two wages to (just about, sometimes, possibly) buy a home.
                  I of course entirely agree with you that if women understood their true nature, they’d openly admit (as some brave ones already do) that they’d be much happier as mothers and wives (hopefully not in that order!).

                  I don’t frankly see it as an either-or. Do I want a world with obedient women and muds everywhere, or a world with thots&slags but only white men banging them….. no. Get rid of the muds first, then interfere with the labour market. As many already know, I’d outright abolish it and extend the institution of slavery much further than it was in ancient Rome, albeit with far, far better conditions (and that, I suspect, is where you would lean more towards Roberto’s position than my own. I have no wish at all to get rid of the welfare state. Quite the contrary. It just needs to RADICALLY change. Basically replace it with noblesse oblige and widespread slavery.)

                  “The problem isn’t actually the ‘additional supply of labor’, it’s the additional demand for wages without a corresponding increase in productivity.”

                  Again this sounds like you’re saying lazy whites have only themselves to blame and they should just work harder.

                  I used this example here before and will again. I’m close friends with a couple who have just started renting their first home together, but are nowhere near able to afford to have a baby in the foreseeable future. One works the night shift at a gas station, the other works rotating shifts in a care home wiping arses. There are complications in their lifestyle that harm their finances and I would (notoriously) intervene to assist at a societal level whereas most here would not, to put it mildly, but ultimately I see no role at all for ‘laziness’ in their predicament.

                  I do however see a role for immigration. It’s not THE cause. We touched on many of the causes, but immigration is one we have a moral duty to solve so it should arguably be solved straight away before addressing the knottier problems.

                  I’m willing to entertain a different task-list for strategic purposes but immigration has to be not only on the table but taken bitterly seriously.

                  We need our country BACK.

                • jim says:

                  > We need our country BACK.

                  You are adjusting your position to the winds, pretending to beliefs that you do not share, and a little while ago were unable to comprehend.

                  A little while ago you could not understand why mass migration of a hostile outgroup could possibly cause economic problems. You found the suggestion self evidently absurd

                  You are posing as adherent of beliefs that you did not understand until a very short time ago, and displayed no interest in learning about.

                  Indeed, until I started censoring unresponsive responses, you showed no interest in comprehending your enemy’s belief system well enough to craft responses that sound responsive.

                  Initially you ignored anything anyone said, and simulated being an ingroup member by sprinkling your posts with our shibboleths, used randomly, inappropriately and incorrectly.

                  Now, finally, you are making a sufficient effort to notice what we are saying to sound responsive – while not in fact being very responsive.

                  If you actually believed what say you believe, you would have already known and understood the reasons for believing these things.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  André:

                  “I can see why you would interpret what I said that way, but it’s not exactly accurate.”

                  The host is not allowing my response to your agreement with me that I was NOT misrepresenting you.

                  He’s selectively censoring in order to make it look as if I was indeed misrepresenting you as a ‘tactical’ move.

                  You must take from that deliberate, calculated, strategic, tactical and dishonest behaviour what you will.

                  I’m out.

                  I want nothing to do with this son of a bitch.

                  Everything I say is deliberately distorted and misrepresented.

                  I can find that kind of ‘intellectual discourse’ on any J-left outlet on the internet.

                • peppermint says:

                  > It leads them to a position in which their income’s so sporadic and unpredictable that long-term planning is actually impossible.

                  CR, ghouls like you created that situation precisely so ordinary men can’t get ahead on their own merits so that you can feel superior to them.

                  The men of the fronteir did fine selling labor as a service or products.

                  That’s why we hate you.

                  You have no future. Either the left wins and tortures you to death for insufficient leftism, or our licensed priests torture you to death for “insufficient leftism”, being your failure to torture yourself to death.

                • jack says:

                  Me:

                  >Neo-Reaction doesn’t care about low IQ people.

                  CR:

                  >JACK – I agree. We wouldn’t want to import a billion Chinese into relatively low IQ Scotland. There is such a thing as loyalty to one’s tribe. (I use that word to ‘ingroup’ the civ-nats and filthy kikes among us but in practice you and I know exactly what it does and does not mean.)

                  What do you agree with, faggot? You misrepresent a single simple sentence I made to mean the exact opposite of its meaning. (No, not that Scotland needs a billion gooks, a proposition none here supports, but that low IQ people are irrelevant, which is what we believe and you deny)

                • peppermint says:

                  Communist Revolutionary fetishizes low IQ ppl and workers to steal from the successful purely so that they won’t be more successful than him.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I am not going to let you defend yourself against the accusation that you were unfamiliar with our belief system, because it involves revisiting a whole lot of old boring threads that were already excessively lengthy and a waste of space, and there will be no end to this off topic discussion.

                  Rather than explaining away old comments where you appeared unfamiliar with the ideas that you supposedly support, try writing new comments that are responsive and display understanding of the ideas to which you are responding.

                  Think about what the person you are responding to is saying, and interpret what he is saying in the context of reaction, neoreaction, and the Dark Enlightenment, rather than interpreting him in the context of progressivism and cultural Marxism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Any comment by you telling people what they are saying, or what they believe, will be deleted, because it is never what they are saying, nor what they believe.

                  It usually what you believe. You are unresponsive, and flagrantly unresponsive than when you claim to be paraphrasing someone’s words or reading their minds.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR your first steps towards understanding economics.

                  Stop obsessing about resteraunts and heirlooms.

                  Heirlooms went generally only to the eldest son as did all property.

                  The working class does not generally speaking spend too much of their scant surplus income on eating out (drinking out yes and they ALWAYS have drunk for a penny dead drunk for tuppence).

                  Juche is obviously not good for capital formation as North Korea despite massive mineral wealth is a very poor country and South Korea is a very rich one.

                • Andre says:

                  “André knows I was replying to him in good faith. Anyone with a brain knows that Jim’s allegation of ‘tactical misunderstanding’ was projection: literally crying out as he strikes you.”

                  I don’t know about that…

                  “What it means, in practice, is that immigrants will always drive down wages,”

                  No.

                  “I agree with you that mechanisation, in a highly developed country, creates similar effects to immigration.”

                  No, mechanization EVERYWHERE AND AT ALL TIMES creates similar effects to immigration. There are differences of course, such as the one I already mentioned, “slaves” can rebel, machines can’t (yet!). They also fit differently into the economic infra-structure, a tractor doesn’t buy food, it buys fuel. But at the root, economically speaking, it is the same mechanism operating.

                  “Where I draw the distinction is that in principle mechanisation COULD benefit society, under certain conditions, whereas bringing niggers into your neighbourhood is always a net negative for everyone concerned.”

                  A whole lot of people throughout history have disagreed with you. Not just intellectually. They took out their wallets and paid good money for those niggers. It seemed to work out for them too.

                  “We should be clear at this point: was I unreasonable to suggest that your way of thinking tends to be broadly open-minded when it comes to open borders? Jim claims I was misrepresenting you but what you just said right there suggests you don’t think anyone should be overly worried.”

                  Well it is complicated. As I said, there are issues that go beyond plain economics. There is a big difference between importing slaves into a society that will defend your status as master and having your domestic enemies import a rebel army to overthrow you. There is also a difference between letting everyone come “in brotherhood” and letting them come “in servitude”, and maybe, if they prove themselves, letting them join the “brotherhood” one by one. Reality is composed of a complex web of systems, countless layers, it’s not just “open borders good” or “open borders bad”. You have to ask which borders. The borders of my bedroom, the borders of my home, the borders of my business, there are many different borders with different levels of flexibility. Should Trump allow the migrant caravan in? He would be wise to simply bomb them before they get anywhere close to the border. Should Brazil keep accepting venezuelan “refugees”? Sure, if the men join the army (which should prepare to confiscate the venezuelan oil fields), and the women marry a citizen (without the possibility of divorce). Neither of these things can be done because modern nation-states are broken. You cannot seriously control the borders because that requires shooting people and “our people” will not stand for that. Or maybe they will… some things do seem to be changing.

                  “Generally speaking, a balance can be found in which the highly productive worker gets to stay true to his nature without getting into fights. It’s called social adeptness.”

                  So what you are saying is that with some social adeptness, economic migrants will be awesome. Right? Or maybe you just completely ignored my point and went on a virtue signalling tangent?

                  “Side note: JACK – I agree. We wouldn’t want to import a billion Chinese into relatively low IQ Scotland. There is such a thing as loyalty to one’s tribe.”

                  Indeed there is. Are those low IQ scots my friends and allies? Or are they my enemies? What about those billion chinese?

                  “Again it sounds to me as though you’re putting the woman question ahead of the nigger question. If you want to elaborate on or correct that interpretation, it could make for interesting and useful content.”

                  The woman question is ahead of the nigger question. Just ponder for a moment how degenerate a society has to be in order to be threatened in any way by niggers.

                  “Get rid of the muds first, then interfere with the labour market.”

                  You cannot get rid of the muds without settling the woman question. The muds are more likely to get rid of you.

                  “I have no wish at all to get rid of the welfare state. Quite the contrary. It just needs to RADICALLY change. Basically replace it with noblesse oblige and widespread slavery.”

                  Sounds remarkably like socialism to me.

                  “the prices ‘corrected’ to match the increased supply and we ended up having to have two wages to (just about, sometimes, possibly) buy a home.”

                  “Again this sounds like you’re saying lazy whites have only themselves to blame and they should just work harder.”

                  I did not phrase it well so let me try again. When women entered the workforce, that did not result in a doubling of the products of labor, because as anyone that has ever worked with a woman knows, they are basically useless. But you cannot pay a woman less. And you can’t refuse to hire women. So, what do you do? You pay men less to average down the wages. Add to this all tax money being used to “empower women” and the higher expectations of women regarding what a husband should earn and the social blindness produced by all the propaganda and a bunch of other stuff and you just basically fucked your society to death.

                • Andre says:

                  jim said: “Rather than explaining away old comments where you appeared unfamiliar with the ideas that you supposedly support, try writing new comments that are responsive and display understanding of the ideas to which you are responding.”

                  You are such a patient teacher.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  André I’m making a conscious effort to stay tf AWAY from this toxic place, and that means a conscious break with NRx as a whole. The things I’ve learned here, from and about various people – yourself included – have really put me off the whole thing.
                  It’s helped me rethink my previous admiration for Moldbug and re-visit a lot of the subjects raised at places like Social Matter.

                  I will answer some of what you wrote though because some of it’s quite relevant and may spur others to think more clearly and come to some realisations about the implications of NRx.

                  André first of all denies that
                  “immigrants will always drive down wages,”

                  and then insists strongly that mechanisation has similar effects to immigration.

                  “No, mechanization EVERYWHERE AND AT ALL TIMES creates similar effects to immigration.”

                  What are these effects if NOT to drive down wages?

                  “A whole lot of people throughout history … took out their wallets and paid good money for those niggers. It seemed to work out for them too.”

                  This is a debatable point but for the sake of honing my precision, I’ll concede it ad arguendo.
                  Let’s just assume that slavery was economically optimal – not just viable: optimal.

                  1) I still don’t accept the justification of all the negative externalities for people other than the slave owners.

                  2) I don’t care: this is OUR country and that’s all there is to it. They’re not coming in, period. Economics be fucked.

                  André answers the open borders question that Jim claimed I was inventing out of whole cloth. Let us see where he actually stands:

                  “Well it is complicated. As I said, there are issues that go beyond plain economics. There is a big difference between importing slaves into a society that will defend your status as master and having your domestic enemies import a rebel army to overthrow you. There is also a difference between letting everyone come “in brotherhood” and letting them come “in servitude”, and maybe, if they prove themselves, letting them join the “brotherhood” one by one. Reality is composed of a complex web of systems, countless layers, it’s not just “open borders good” or “open borders bad”. You have to ask which borders. The borders of my bedroom, the borders of my home, the borders of my business, there are many different borders with different levels of flexibility. Should Trump allow the migrant caravan in? He would be wise to simply bomb them before they get anywhere close to the border. Should Brazil keep accepting venezuelan “refugees”? Sure, if the men join the army (which should prepare to confiscate the venezuelan oil fields), and the women marry a citizen (without the possibility of divorce). Neither of these things can be done because modern nation-states are broken. You cannot seriously control the borders because that requires shooting people and “our people” will not stand for that. Or maybe they will… some things do seem to be changing.”

                  This is the absolute bog standard Lew Rockwell line.

                  Q.E. Fucking D.

                  André will fit in here just fine. He goes on to take me deliberately out of context:

                  >CR:“Generally speaking, a balance can be found
                  > in which the highly productive worker gets to
                  >stay true to his nature without getting into
                  >fights. It’s called social adeptness.”

                  André: “So what you are saying is that with some social adeptness, economic migrants will be awesome. Right? Or maybe you just completely ignored my point and went on a virtue signalling tangent?”

                  No, that is absolutely not what I was saying and I fully expect you’re entirely aware of this.

                  What I was saying was that in a normal workplace where white co-workers differ in productivity, I entirely accept the reality of the envy of the less productive for the more productive, and was describing the way in which more productive workers will often find ways to still BE highly productive without needlessly provoking resentment and resistance from co-workers. I characterised this as them being socially adept.

                  I’m pretty sure you KNOW THIS and were just deliberately misrepresenting me. As I said, you will fit in here very well.

                  I have no idea why these idiots waste time the way they do. I imagine they’re just inherently disagreeable bastards who love to pick fights with potential allies because they’re frustrated that they can’t do the same with the enemies who want them DEAD.

                  André equivocates on tribal loyalty in order to try to muddy the waters as if these concepts are ill-defined.
                  They’re not.

                  “Are those low IQ scots my friends and allies? Or are they my enemies? What about those billion chinese?”

                  The billion Chinese are perfectly capable of being allies in good standing: *from afar*. There’s no reason to regard all members of the out-group as enemies. They’re just not members of the in-group.

                  I recommend Kipling’s poem “The Stranger”:

                  https://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/rudyard-kipling/the-stranger/

                  The opening two stanzas:

                  “The Stranger within my gate,
                  He may be true or kind,
                  But he does not talk my talk–
                  I cannot feel his mind.
                  I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
                  But not the soul behind.

                  The men of my own stock,
                  They may do ill or well,
                  But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
                  They are used to the lies I tell;
                  And we do not need interpreters
                  When we go to buy or sell. ”

                  André continues and helpfully clarifies:

                  “The woman question is ahead of the nigger question. Just ponder for a moment how degenerate a society has to be in order to be threatened in any way by niggers.”

                  You thought you were clarifying one thing but you were in fact clarifying another. When you say “slavery” you do not refer to the institution of slavery which persists in all societies regardless of the names people use for it.
                  You were referring to the deliberate importation of Africans into America by the largely Jewish bourgeois class.

                  I utterly condemn that view. American slavery was a terrible mistake and immoral on its face.

                  “[Noblesse oblige plus slavery] Sounds remarkably like socialism to me.”

                  Yes I’m sure it does. I’m sure that, like many here, you believe Hitler was a man of the left. You’re not with Moldbug on this but I’m not an NRx and have no interest in debating any of this.
                  It’s perfectly obvious to anyone except a libertarian that Hitler was a man of the right, and that the right is not defined by low taxes, privatisation and deregulation.

                  André clarifies his economic analysis of female emancipation:

                  “When women entered the workforce, that did not result in a doubling of the products of labor, because as anyone that has ever worked with a woman knows, they are basically useless. But you cannot pay a woman less. And you can’t refuse to hire women. So, what do you do? You pay men less to average down the wages. Add to this all tax money being used to “empower women” and the higher expectations of women regarding what a husband should earn and the social blindness produced by all the propaganda and a bunch of other stuff and you just basically fucked your society to death.”

                  This is historically illiterate. It would be entirely true if the whole thing were implemented overnight but it wasn’t, to put it rather mildly.

                  Ultimately I really don’t care. The emancipation of some women to choose a life of toil for someone other than their husband carries a strong negative externality effect on every other woman in the society, and a knock-on effect on every man in the society.
                  It’s a deeply anti-social move that’s been mostly harmful to women and entirely harmful to men.
                  Since men determine most of the important things in the culture of any society, it’s entirely harmful to society.

                  That’s why it must be reversed and rectified, not the economics of it.

                  Again, you’re a libertarian with some edgy beliefs that make it hard for you to get along with Sheldon Richman and Lawrence Reed, so you call yourself something else.

                  On everything that makes a difference, you’re just Lew Rockwell.

                  That makes you the same as everyone else here: you’re intellectually disingenuous, you believe the right is basically libertarian economics and you’re relaxed about betraying your race.

                  That makes you completely useless to me and to your nation.

                  I have absolutely nothing more to gain from any of you.

                • jim says:

                  > I have absolutely nothing more to gain from any of you.

                  And yet, you keep coming here to give us the benefits of your immense wisdom, while obstinately failing to pay attention to what other people say. Your responses are apt to be unresponsive.

                  If you are here to preach to the benighted without listening, you should start your own blog with the comments turned off.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If I set up a blog simply to document your dishonesty, it’d be immensely popular right up until the moment you set the ADL on me.

                  I’m not fooled by you, fellow white man.

                  Your role in the fake resistance is keeping people who started to see through Lew Rockwell from noticing that the capitalists are up to their necks in the genocide of white people.

                • Andre says:

                  CR said: “No, that is absolutely not what I was saying and I fully expect you’re entirely aware of this.”

                  Oh I sure was entirely aware that you ignored my actual point to go on a virtue signaling tangent.

                  CR said: “I imagine they’re just inherently disagreeable bastards who love to pick fights with potential allies because they’re frustrated that they can’t do the same with the enemies who want them DEAD.”

                  My reply to that is what Sun Tzu says: “The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.”

                  CR said: “The billion Chinese are perfectly capable of being allies in good standing: *from afar*. There’s no reason to regard all members of the out-group as enemies. They’re just not members of the in-group.”

                  What I was saying is that scots are not my in-group, at least not automatically. Scots are not “men of my own stock”. They can just barely get along with the english, who I have more sympathy for, and seem to be actively undermining them.

                  CR said: “I utterly condemn that view. American slavery was a terrible mistake and immoral on its face.”

                  Wait, weren’t you asking me to read a pro-american slavery book just a minute ago?

                  CR said: “I’m sure that, like many here, you believe Hitler was a man of the left.” … “that the right is not defined by low taxes, privatisation and deregulation.”

                  You are right about that. The right is defined by exclusivity of power, while the left is defined by inclusivity of power. That is to say, on the right individuals have sovereignty and on the left, collectives have sovereignty. “Libertarian economics” simply flows from that core. This being a spectrum, national socialism can be to your right, or to your left, as at least they specify WHICH collective should be sovereign, unlike international socialism that basically imagines the sovereignty of Humankind. This collectivist inclusivity is mostly imaginary, rethorical, and while Hitler is on the right, in a sense, he was also very much involved in the fantasy of “The People” being sovereign and clearly on the left. He was a reaction, no doubt. The world would probably be a better place had he won.

                  CR said: “This is historically illiterate. It would be entirely true if the whole thing were implemented overnight but it wasn’t, to put it rather mildly.”

                  What the fuck does that matter? The effects did not happen overnight.

                  CR said: “That’s why it must be reversed and rectified, not the economics of it.”

                  Did I say it was just the economics of it? No. I was simply describing the disastrous economic effects. To be fair, on the short term, there is the potential for it generating economic growth. While women are basically worthless in the workforce, they are not ENTIRELY worthless. If you amp up the competition among men, that might force them to become more productive. But if you just keep pushing them into this hopeless position, eventually they give up, society begins to disintegrate. Also, without children your society will slowly die, which is kind of an economic problem.

                  CR said: “you believe the right is basically libertarian economics and you’re relaxed about betraying your race. That makes you completely useless to me and to your nation.”

                  I have no reason to be loyal to “my race” when “my race” is not loyal to me. Perhaps I just have a much narrower definition of what “my race” is than you do. I was very glad when Ryan (is that his name?) from Alternative Hyphotesis realized that his race isn’t “white people” but “civilized people” and that, effectively speaking, his nation is not America but Conservative America. Yes, that does cluster on whites, but if you give everyone with white skin a pass and shun civilized blacks, you are just being stupid. Most black men are my enemies but a black man COULD be a friend and ally. On the other hand, my white maternal brother is a commie vegan in favor of feminism and racial quotas for non-whites.

                  CR said: “I have absolutely nothing more to gain from any of you.”

                  I’m sure we can find some use for you though. Maybe you can’t pick cotton but how good is your liver?

                • Andre says:

                  CR said: “What are these effects if NOT to drive down wages?”

                  To enable a more complex economic infra-structure by increasing the amount of work that can be done, thus effectively driving UP wages.

                  CR said: “I still don’t accept the justification of all the negative externalities for people other than the slave owners.”

                  Such as? Besides “driving down wages” that is.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Communist Revolutionary’s anti-tech rant…

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA

                  The progressives and their entryist spawn such as CR are the enemies of mankind.

    • jim says:

      Same problem in the US. The left is filled with rage at normies for electing Trump.

      As the left goes ever holier, then normal people get defined as ever more unholy. Lefties fail to notice that Trump’s actions are far to the left of 2008 Obama, the lightbringer.

      • Niiiidriveevof says:

        left of bill clinton, sure, but which acts are to the left of 2008 obama?

        • The Cominator says:

          I would agree, Trump is at heart one of us. A reactionary (though I’m not sure he wants the true election). Other then on gay stuff he certainly never says or anything progressive that he doesn’t have to.

          • Niiiidriveevof says:

            if he’s one of us, it’s not because of the difference between clinton and obama. he says many progressive things that he doesn’t have to – talk about returning power to the people, about freedom and about rights.

        • jim says:

          2008 Obama opposed gay marriage and all that.

          • The Cominator says:

            Yes everyone did before about I’d say 2010 or so… that was one of the first examples of the NPC script striking…

            People were all the sudden fanatically for gay marriage when everyone was against it before, as if someone flipped a switch.

            • peppermint says:

              Millennials were raised by parents who divorced, and sometimes remarried many times, and sometimes didn’t divorce but, divorce always being on the table, parents who were incapable of working out their differences.

              Marriage was looking like something you did to give your gf health insurance now and alimony later.

              A woman who said she was waiting for marriage would never get anyone’s attention and sounded old-fashioned and stuck up.

              Millennials hated marriage and didn’t see what the difference was between gay marriage and Boomer marriage.

              But everyone knew that as long as the Boomers’ parents lived, we would have to pretend to oppose gay marriage and desire Boomer marriage.

              Then the Boomers assumed control of the situation.

              They will shortly be relieved of duty.

              • Andre says:

                That is one layer. I think it’s so ridiculous when people try to defend the sanctity of marriage from the gay menace when they already destroyed marriage by turning adultery into a human right and outlawing any and all forms of male authority in the relationship. We don’t actually have “divorce”, what we have is the right of the woman to throw the husband out of the house so she can enjoy his support as husband without even having to look at his face. Gay marriage is ridiculous but I’m not going to waste my energy defending the corpse of a dead institution.

  8. […] only righty who’s giving his win any prominent mention is Jim, here: https://blog.jim.com/party-politics/the-right-wins-in-brazil/ Vox Day hasn’t mentioned it at all (WTF?). Instapundit and Ace of Spades have each given it only […]

  9. Doug Smythe says:

    Re: divorce: The idea of a woman divorcing her husband is contrary to the Nature of things, self-contradictory and illogical on its face. Woman stands in relation Man as subject to Sovereign. Whatever consent she gives, if any, is of necessity irreversible, since it is consent to be subjected to the will of another, and to merge her personality as an actor who can consent into the person of her husband, who thereafter acts on behalf of both of them. There is thus obviously no way the woman can possibly release herself from this subjection without the consent of the man whose subject she is.

    • Niiiidriveevof says:

      agreed. further, not even the man can release her: for the sake of the rearing of children, a man divorcing his wife is also contrary to nature. in grave cases like adultery, he may put her away, but neither can remarry while either lives, again because of the strife that comes from having several wives, hindering the rearing of children. polygamy is a relatively small error, but it is still an error.

      • Andre says:

        Regaring polygamy being an error, that may, perhaps, be true in a state of peace, where there are about as many men you consider allies as there are women. This is not the state we live in.

        • peppermint says:

          The problem with polyganlmy is spending all your time pursuing additional pussy and trying to avoid helping other men advance so they won’t be able to compete with you.

        • peppermint says:

          PS once we have the situation under control there will be vastly more good men 20-40 than there are good women 20-30. So a lot of good men will need to take substandard war brides and use donor eggs.

        • jim says:

          When we win, we propertize all the unowned women.

    • Andre says:

      We don’t actually have “divorce”, what we have is the right of the woman to throw the husband out of the house so she can enjoy his support as husband without even having to look at his face. And adultery? Obviously a sacred human right. We have outlawed all forms of male authority and given supreme authority to the female; in effect, western civilization has devolved into polyandry, which is another way to say that we live in a matriarchy. All matriarchal societies end up conquered, often without much resistance.

      • The Cominator says:

        Why would men fight to defend such societies?

        • Andre says:

          Exactly. There is only so much that rethoric and inertia can do. Nukes won’t save America. This I believe is the main reason crime has spinned out of control in Brazil. Young men have no hope for status and even a mediocre life by following the system, especially lower IQ men. So they are in rebellion, and they are right. Bolsonaro’s talk of being tough on crime is meaningless and harmful if he does not address the civilizational crisis that is causing it. If all he does is be the matriachy’s strong man, then fuck him.

  10. Mister Grumpus says:

    (OT)

    I remember your statement earlier that Obama demonstrated his power by pretty much decreeing Obamacare into being, without really needing to work out whether it was legal, or how to pay for it.

    DACA too.

    Well. This business with DJT executive-countermanding birthright citizenship — or even talking about doing so in public — sure does remind me of that, only ~10 years later. Incredible.

    • jim says:

      If he gets away with ending birthright citizenship, will likely get away with exposing Democratic complicity in the fake bombs. In which case, King Trump the First.

      If, on the other hand, does not get away with exposing Democratic complicity in the fake bombs, probably will not get away with ending birthright citizenship.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        And then on the DAY that the chan’s are cracking the fake bomb case… somebody shoots up a synagogue. Goddammit. Of the radar like a Klingon starship.

        “THAT escalated quickly.”

        Tell me this:

        To what — as your best guess I mean — do you attribute Trump’s ability to just not freak the heck out during these things and just hide under the couch?

        The best I can do is that he’s been street-fighting with billion-dollar scumbags for like 50 years now, and in so doing he’s built up his 10,000 hours of understanding high-stakes skullduggery like the Beatles understood music.

        That and he came up in the 50’s and 60’s, when boys could call each other’s challenges and shit tests with going to juvenile hall.

        What do you think? What’s your first answer?

        • The Cominator says:

          Hard to guess at the mind of a man like Trump who obviously hides a highly complex and intelligent mind under the guise of being a very simple man (what I never understood is why he didn’t fire Rosenstein very early).

          He also has an alliance with the red deep state of military intelligence against the main civilian deep state. He knows a lot of things we don’t know.

          • jim says:

            He just tweeted three election ads: jobs, patriotism, crime, invasion.

            Democratic ads are healthcare. Hang on guys, remember Obamacare?\\

            Should be a red wave. But electoral politics have become increasingly irrelevant.

            It is now insider politics all the way, and thus unpredictable.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “To what — as your best guess I mean — do you attribute Trump’s ability to just not freak the heck out during these things and just hide under the couch?”

          People love power, fame, immortality and displaying their skills and virtues. Donald Trump is going up against the largest conspiracy in human history and winning. He probably is having the time of his life.

  11. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Latest from Google:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46054202

    This is what you get when you hire a politicised workforce.

    This is not the government, it’s the people. The management of Google are incapable of doing anything about it because they believe they’re in agreement with the people. It’s the same people they deliberately hired BECAUSE they were in agreement.

    • jim says:

      I know that the bosses at google are being threatened with the Kavanaugh treatment, and that they fired Damore because HR created a memo that would have resulted in them losing a hostile environment lawsuit had they not fired Damore.

      This is leftists devouring leftists of course – but they are being devoured.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Assuming for the sake of argument that your analysis is right and the people at the top of Google are just pretending, even so their strategy was very bad: hire leftists and pretend to be leftists so that you’ll not only be left alone but make a lot of money.

        Yeah that works until it doesn’t.

        (And I only agreed for the sake of argument. Frankly if it walks like a duck, it’s got an eight-inch cock like a duck (yep!) and it eats duck food, it’s probably a duck. No offence to ducks because I rather like them, whereas the senior management at Google would burn me alive in the public square given half a chance.)

        • jim says:

          The people at the top of Google are indeed genuine leftists, but they are also being terrorized by those even further left.

          At other companies, notably Disney, the people at the top are not leftists, but are being terrorized by those to their left. “Duck Tales” reflects their politics, Soy Wars does not.

          Soy Wars at Disney is a result of hard state power being used to force the hand of conservative capitalists.

        • Dave says:

          A woman who looks like Rachel Dolezal just wrote an article at The Atlantic, “How to Write Consent in Romance Novels”. Great idea, if you want readers to give up after a few chapters and toss your book in the trash or return it for a refund.

          Maybe we could trick leftist publishers into sinking their own ships by going on Twitter as angry feminists and demanding 100% explicit consent in all romance novels, and a world tour of E.L. James apologizing to rape victims everywhere and giving all her royalties to anti-trafficking NGOs.

          • The Cominator says:

            LOL cat ladies with rape fantasies BTFO.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            If you haven’t shilled this idea on /pol/ already you should probably do so.

            • Dave says:

              Just did. Best reply so far:

              “That bullshit does not work on things already made for women, because all women know that you must give women what they want. It’s stupid fucking beta men who think they can improve their product gear[ed] to men if they just stopped giving men what they want and start giving men what women want.”

              • Steve Johnson says:

                That’s pretty insightful. Really reveals that the motivation is to destroy what the hated enemy enjoys.

              • The Cominator says:

                Since it is right before the election /pol has (more then usual) an infestation of shills right now.

                They are more clever then to be openly shitlib Democrats, these shills are left wing Natsocs or ethnonationalists (like that moron who shot up the synagogue) who claim “that the Trump delusion” is the only barrier to the rise of REAL ethnonationalism and antisemitism. Therefore they should vote Democrat or not vote.

          • peppermint says:

            The womyn who care about consent will move to forms of reluctance to consent that it is legal to rape past: race, faggotry, stds.

            This will make romance and romcoms completely unrelatable to normal women.

            Suddenly being the playboy’s fwb until he realizes he loves you won’t be as appealing.

            It already isn’t, though. It only seemed like a good idea when CR and the ghouls had removed all disincentives for failure at trying it.

  12. alt-right academic jew says:

    > there is open entry … so holiness spiral.

    That’s a very clarifying (and convincing) way to put it. Open selection for limited number of positions begets selection spiral begets holiness spiral as a side effect.

    This seems like a general mechanism that would work in almost any long-term institutional resource competition if there is not some counter-mechanism built in to keep the selection criteria from wandering, in particular that previous selectees should not choose their successors. And in many institutions not originally holiness-related the extremization would end up holiness-correlated, so a holiness spiral.

    Have you written about this before? I’ve seen a lot of your blog posts and this is the first I’ve seen it framed as a side effect of selection processes rather than some human psychological tendency to gravitate toward more holiness.

    • alt-right academic jew says:

      Searching earlier posts I see the “open entry into priesthood” formulation has been used. But the mechanism looks like a far more general thing that can also naturally produce holiness in selection for (ostensibly) non-priestly positions as well. All you need is for some selections to be on things that, even if they don’t directly resemble holiness, correlate with it, and then evolution-by-selection will in many such cases increase and increase those traits and in some cases also their correlation with the holiness (i.e., the selection does start to look for things that directly resemble holiness) . Sometimes all the way to an asymptotic holiness spiral and sometimes producing an equilibrium with significant levels of holiness in institutions where it does not belong. This does resemble the world we see.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I never saw it before. Only a year ago I’d have used Jim’s article on Holocaustianity as a prime example of grown-up thinking.

          Once you start to interact with him, you see a certain caricature emerge.

          It’s unbelievable how accurate these stereotypes are in practice.

          • jack says:

            Some hate the wealthy because they’re disproportionately jewish. That’s retarded.

            Some hate the jews because they’re disproportionately wealthy. That’s very retarded.

            You are useless, and may as well screw my optics and go in.

            • The Cominator says:

              “and may as well screw my optics and go in”

              Jesus Christ don’t encourage any loser to do that until AFTER the f***ing midterms.

    • Neurotoxin says:

      Academic,

      Yes, game-theory explains holiness spirals. Of course, game theory and psychological explanations are not mutually exclusive.

      A spiral is a prisoner’s dilemma with a large number of players. A leftist can’t attack people to his left because they’re holier than him. So it’s in each player’s interest to signal at least the average level of leftness (“holiness”). The incentives about which direction to signal in are radically asymmetric.

      Of course, this behavior soon spirals to insane leftism, like “Open borders and abolish ICE!” But each leftist knows that he individually has no measurable effect on the aggregate outcome, so there’s no measurable damage done by his yelling insanity. And the benefit to him, personally, from yelling insanity *is* measurable; it keeps him well-positioned on the holiness spectrum.

      A couple of links for Jim’s posts on holiness spirals/Left Singularity. I didn’t get much when I searched on “holiness spiral.” The term “left singularity” does better:
      https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-left-singularity-continues/
      https://blog.jim.com/culture/review-of-left-singularities/

      • Neurotoxin says:

        An example of the “open entry” problem:

        Degree inflation. That has been significant, and that’s with open but costly entry, i.e., the time and financial costs of attaining a degree.

        And signalling, in the sense of just *speaking* lefty opinions, has zero cost, which is why the spiral problem is so, so much worse.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Neuro:
        “Of course, this behavior soon spirals to insane leftism, like “Open borders and abolish ICE!” But each leftist knows that he individually has no measurable effect on the aggregate outcome, so there’s no measurable damage done by his yelling insanity. And the benefit to him, personally, from yelling insanity *is* measurable; it keeps him well-positioned on the holiness spectrum.”

        That’s sharp. Thanks for that.

  13. peppermint says:

    Q: how to cut down to size the man who advances through fortitude, prudence, temperance and justice?
    A: by telling him his hard work and sacrifice weren’t necessary
    Q: how can we make that claim?
    A: by removing the consequences for failure while redistributing rewards based on anything but merit so no one can say hard work is necessary or close to sufficient.

    Thus were the Boomers tempted.

    Half of them, the Democrats, gave up and wanted to preserve civilization at any cost. They were right about GWB and McCain and are wrong about Trump. The nazis of them, the Republicans, understood that in the time to come they would need every advantage they could get their hands on.

    CR hates pizza because the White working class merits pizza. Instead of giving it to the underclass like a Boomer ghoul, CR wants to take it away from the White working class.

    CR hates swimming pools and travel for the same reason.

    Who was the first of your kind, CR? How long did you sulk and plot before Cromwell?

    The Boomers can be forgiven when they stand up to the ghouls and repent the sins the ghouls tempted them into.

    CR, if you want to know whence globohomo, look at your own vainglorious, envious malice towards working men who enjoy the fruits of their merit.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      There’s no justification whatsoever for you accusing me of those things. You’re only doing it because you know Jim’s been cultivating that particular slanderous image of me through selective censorship and deliberate misrepresentation.

      I’ve learnt a lot about human nature here.

      Jim’s easy to explain – he’s a paradigm case of his kind and no further explanation’s necessary.

      You however, aren’t just some shabbos goy, you’re something fouler, more despicable. You LIKE that there are people like Jim in society. You don’t initiate deception (for the most part) but when you see it going on, you’re happy to stick the knife in.

      Well we’re living in a historical cycle and it’s getting to the point where I wouldn’t take that path if I were you. That’s just free advice. People like me appear at this point in the cycle, but other types of people appear also, of which Trump is a fore-shadow.

      • jim says:

        With the utmost regularity you were telling us that we were saying things that were the opposite of what we were saying.

        To which I responded that I would censor any post by you that said “what you are saying is”

        And you stopped doing that, and immediately started violating the Gricean Maxims – responding to an argument different from the argument that was made.

        So I censored that.

        And then you stopped doing that.

      • Nikolai says:

        You should really stop listening to TRS man. They’re generally right about race, though even on that issue they massively overstate their case, and they’re completely wrong on everything else. The shoah guys are good for memes and parody songs, but taking their political philosophy seriously ends up rotting one’s mind.

        You’re pulling the natsoc tactic of accusing those far far to your right of being jews/feds far to your left. It’s nonsensical.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Nikolai:
          “You should really stop listening to TRS man. They’re generally right about race, though even on that issue they massively overstate their case, and they’re completely wrong on everything else. The shoah guys are good for memes and parody songs, but taking their political philosophy seriously ends up rotting one’s mind.

          You’re pulling the natsoc tactic of accusing those far far to your right of being jews/feds far to your left. It’s nonsensical.”

          Please elaborate.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Not interested in reading you tell us what we believe. You do not know what we believe and have shown exasperating resistance to having our beliefs explained to you.

          • Nikolai says:

            Over the past few months CR has been talking about how he’s ditching the Jimian worldview for the TRS worldview because Jim is insufficiently anti-capitalist.

            I listened to the shoah religiously for a couple years, I started back when it was the only podcast on their network and the site still had blog posts. I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of the shoah and ftn, so I can speak from experience.

            TRS is generally right about the differences between races and the effect multiculturalism and diversity has on communities. The problem is they single-mindedly view every issue through the lens of racial conflict/diversity even when it has little to do with race. Ex: “oh white women aren’t having any children? That’s just because they don’t want to raise kids around blacks and muslims. Once we have an ethnostate it won’t be a problem.” But the reason why white women aren’t having kids is because of female emancipation, not diversity. Austria, Hungary, Poland, Russia and the Czech Republic all have rightist governments and are 90+% white and they’re all below replacement fertility. That’s what I mean when I say they overstate their case.

            If you listen to a reactionary podcast or read a reactionary blog, they’ll talk about a variety of concepts. Sexual dynamics, class, power structures, religion and yes race. You regularly read Jim, you know what I mean. But if you listen to TRS it’s just non-stop race narratives applied to whatever thing happens to be in the news cycle that week. It’s the exact same narrative every time, endlessly repeating.

            As far as them being wrong on everything else. Mike has said Moldbug doesn’t like democracy because he’s a jew afraid of a goyim uprising. Spencer, Striker and Enoch more or less believe in socialism for white people only. I think Striker went as far as to say that Venezuela-style economics are fine and Venezuela is only in ruin because of the incompetence of brown people. They do make the same anti-capitalist talking points that CR makes (albeit not as fervently as Caloric Restrictionist) about how mass immigration is actually good for global capitalism and such. Jazzhands has said that he’d be a democrat if the country was all white.

            Their frequent spergy marches show that they genuinely believe in the liberal myth that mass action and protest can create political change. When the truth is that people in power organize marches so they have an excuse to do what they already wanted to do and pretend that they’re giving in to the will of the people.

            You get the point, they’re just racist liberals. And liberals are wrong about everything. Being wrong about almost everything and obsessing over Jews as though they have some type of mind control powers will end up rotting your brain. Hence CR accusing Jim of being a Jew.

            I always thought it was kind of funny how Enoch’s dad is a protestant ivy-league humanities professor and his mom is a retired college president and he thinks Jews run the world. He doesn’t recognize that Jews take orders from the cathedral, not the other way around.

            It’s common for lumpenprole natsocs to criticize people far to their right as evil jews. People have written articles about Jim calling him a pedo jew who hates white women because he thinks women need to be restrained. Natsocs are surprisingly feminist because they think race is the only thing that matters so white women can do no evil.

            Hope that’s a decent elaboration Mr. Grumpus

            • Nikolai says:

              Though I will give the shoah credit for popularizing standard fuckparty and redpilling countless young men on the repulsive nature of the sodomite lifestyle.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted for repetition*]

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted for repetition*]

            • jim says:

              Fact is, German socialism was as disastrous as Venezuelan socialism. They could not feed everyone, and most of their crimes are the result of prioritizing who got to eat. Their crimes were the crimes of leftism, not rightism.

              It was the usual sequence – ruler gives an ad hoc order, capitalism routes around it – chaos ensues. Ruler gives more and more ad hoc orders in an effort to sort out the chaos, resulting in more chaos. After a while, other people’s money starts to run out.

              You will notice that the supposedly right wing socialists are apt to be at best unenthusiastic about Trump, and at worst vehemently hostile.

              For Americans, Trump is the litmus test of who is a leftist. If you are against Trump, enemy leftist.

              The fact that the left has more factions that you can shake a stick at, and some of these factions are out of power, and that some of the out of power factions are hated by other leftists is not particularly interesting.

              Capitalists in Brazil were all leftists. If Bolsonaro succeeds in taking power, will soon be all rightists. We saw that transformation in Hungary.

              Socialism is based on envy and covetousness, leftism is based on envy and covetousness. Leftists promise to knock over the apple cart so that you can grab some apples. When all the apple carts are knocked over, are mystified by the ensuing apple shortage. “We are trying to make apples available to everyone! Why are you guys denying people apples?”

              Stalin made socialism sort of work by regressing to feudalism, and by tolerating an illegal underground economy that the official state economy predated on, but it still sucked really badly for comsumers, and only terror was able to get the bureaucracy moving. When the terror eased up, the lights went out. And even with terror, socialism is visible in photos of the earth at night from space. The border between socialism and capitalism is visible in the lack of lights.

              • The Cominator says:

                Profound post Jim.

                Holocaust followed from German projected food shortages (the hunger plan) basically the 3rd Reich’s government insisted on buying all the food (any private sale was technically black market) the German government though wasn’t paying the farmers a fair price and in the occupied territories (especially in the East) the farmer’s got stiffed even worse.

                As a result food production fell terribly Hitler decided when he got the “Hunger Plan” projections that he didn’t want any food wasted on Jews who weren’t essential to armaments production and decided since Jews were adept at black marketeering the only way to achieve this was to kill them directly.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              Nicolai:
              OK now we’re talking. Thanks for that. Good points and right on.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                Another thing:

                I think I just noticed something:

                Analogy:

                Recall how before we knew about Newtonian/elliptical orbits, planets and moons were “supposed to” move in circles. Around the earth. But Mars would retrograde, and various other planets would sped up and slow down, etc. So not circles.

                But it HAD to be circles, right? So then it was little circles on TOP of bigger circles, etc.

                But then Newton hit the game, and put down a much more accurate model that expressed/explained reality/observation much more consisely.

                So the more accurate the model, the less words/explanation/elaboration required to use and apply it.

                Here’s my point:

                WHAT two-hour weekly NrX podcasts? (As opposed to TRS I mean.) Feel me? Jim here expresses/explains what we see very succinctly, but also well. These blog posts aren’t short because they’re the For Dummies version. They’re the real thing. But the model behind them works so much better that hour upon hour of elaboration and application isn’t even needed.

                Like if the NrX model works so well, well how COULD someone be a professor in it? How COULD someone publish a new book every three years that applies it to current events? A Tesla just doesn’t need as much maintenance as a Ferrari.

                (Meanwhile, if you think TRS is bad, conventional leftism needs how many millions of words and hundreds of video hours PER DAY to prop up? Lots.)

                • Alrenous says:

                  Measuring intellectual output via quantity is a merchant-caste thing, not a scholar-caste thing. It’s merchants playing the scholar game.

                • peppermint says:

                  Once a thing has been said, it has been said. Repeating themselves is what namefags are for. Namefags who spend all day doing that can occasionally have NRxers on as guests.

                  We do need researchers. At some point we will need a legion of men who will read and understand what historical records of 20th century exist (commies have been cynically falsifying records since commies became aware of their place in history). These men will need to report to other men who report to the primate who reports to the king.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “These blog posts aren’t short because they’re the For Dummies version. They’re the real thing. But the model behind them works so much better that hour upon hour of elaboration and application isn’t even needed.”

                  That’s not true at all. How many hours would it take to read these posts? How many points are repeated and/or applied to new situations and examples from the news?

                  There’s no difference at all in terms of the amount of information or even the amount of redundancy.

                  As for being so simple as to not require cartwheels, there are very simple, true statements that, if I typed them, would see this post instantly censored.

                  That’s neither simplicity, clarity nor effectiveness: it’s Talmudic.

                  The point of NRx is to protect one part of globohomo, which I can’t name because it would see me instantly censored.
                  The point of modern progressive socialism is to protect one part of globohomo – academic ‘experts’, while the point of modern conservatism is to protect another part of globohomo – the strong defence state, from the police to the military to the various regulators.

                  You’re just another part of the smoke and mirrors campaign that’s stopping our people taking their own side.

                • jim says:

                  So, anyone who is not sufficiently commie must be part of the evil Zionist conspiracy to rule the world. (Through capitalism) The fake right always names Mossad, Israel, “Zionists”.

                  And yes, there is an evil Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, but its major enemy is Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu who would like to rule Israel but are not allowed to, just as Trump is not allowed to rule America, and its major supporters are those Jews who boycotted the opening of American embassy in Jerusalem.

                  The fake right is always talking about Mossad and Israel – their enemies. The real right talks about Soros, Victoria Nuland, and the State Department – our enemies. Victor Nuland continued to illegally fund the Palestinian Authority when Congress forbade it and when Israel was trying to get funding cut of. The enemies of Victoria Nuland and George Soros are our enemies – and one of their enemies is Israel.

                  You say I cannot name the Jew – but you cannot name some Jews. Can you name Victoria Nuland? Tell us what she has been up to. You are always complaining about Bill Gates. Tell us what Victoria Nuland has been up to. Come to think of it, somehow we mention Soros all the time, and yet I don’t recall you ever mentioning him.

                • peppermint says:

                  (the primate, being a bishop, liaises with all the other bishops, including the Holy Father of the Holy See. The primate crowns the king and subsequently is under the authority of the king. Despite replacing the cabinet frequently, the America has problems with a permanent government that has contempt for the the formal power. The king should replace the primate and other archbishops frequently enough to maintain his authority. Ordinary bishops and priests should be encouraged to stay where they are for life for continuity purposes, so the same priest can baptize and marry the children and then give last rites)

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, your current lie, I can post a short post that would be censored, is belied by your history of longposts dating back to august. This is a fundamentally new problem for Jews: coming back and repeating old points as if they hadn’t been refuted the day before doesn’t work where there’s a searchable record.

                • peppermint says:

                  (1) the next king of Italy leaves the Holy Father alone and gets an Italian bishop to crown him, because he’s a nationalist and doesn’t want any input from Austria or Spain
                  (2) Trump picks some American bishop to crown him, raising that bishop’s status to primate. The rest of the American churches fall in line, maybe after a national synod. Bishops who don’t want to report to the primate are probably gay heretics or gaily defending gay heretics
                  (3) it’s been a difficult millennium, but the church is one, holy, catholic, apostolic again

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim dodges the question of an alleged pedo Jew declaring himself to be no goddamn pedo, and throws mud instead:

                  “Can you name Victoria Nuland? Tell us what she has been up to. You are always complaining about Bill Gates. Tell us what Victoria Nuland has been up to. Come to think of it, somehow we mention Soros all the time, and yet I don’t recall you ever mentioning him.”

                  Nuland’s atrocious conduct in Ukraine is as nothing compared to Bill Gates’s conduct in sub-Saharan Africa but that doesn’t make it ok.

                  I just assumed ‘neo-cons’ were low hanging fruit and anyone here would automatically despise the likes of that creature.

                  Same goes (on steroids) for Soros. You think anyone who doesn’t bang on about Soros and the Open Society therefore thinks they’re doing sterling work? lol

                  My point’s been made plenty of times: the likes of the Open Society aren’t just funded by Soros (obvious scum that he is); they’re funded by pretty much the whole gamut of venture capitalists, investment bankers and billionaires of all stripes.
                  Furthermore, ordinary non-billionaire capitalists bought shares in Go Daddy *the day after* they deplatformed Gab.

                  Soros and Nuland are just low-hanging fruit. I shine the light on seemingly respectable capitalists and you just can’t cope with it.

                  (((I wonder why that might be)))

                • jim says:

                  Aapologies, rationalizations, and excuses for George Soros and Victoria Nuland noted.

                  I asked you to tell us what they have been up to, and you failed to do so – revealing who you are working for. Complaining about their activities would make those who wrote your script unhappy. You theoretically disapprove their conduct, but will not tell us what they have done.

                  Bill Gates piously pretending to help black Africans does no real harm. George Soros and Victoria Nuland go around overthrowing regimes, which overthrows require and have led to the murder of huge numbers of people.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jacob’s lies grow like Pinocchio’s nose:

                  “Aapologies, rationalizations, and excuses for George Soros and Victoria Nuland noted.”

                  What the hell are you drinking, rabbi?

                  You want me to spell it out like a fucking test? GTFO of here I’m not demeaning myself and submitting to your bullshit.

                  Every goy and his dog knows what Nuland’s been up to, and I see where you’re going with this, (((fellow white man))), the endpoint is “installing fascism bad huh? interesting!” – seriously GROW tf UP

                  Every goy and his dog, including Alex Jones types, knows what Soros has been up to for a bloody long time and your co-‘religionists’ are trying to make talking about that a per se hate crime!
                  As far as I’m concerned, even if you lay aside ALL the Pussy Riot crap, that piece of shit still took away the pensions of millions of British workers when he attacked our currency and that’s reason enough to see him as public enemy #1.

                  I’m waiting for you to censor the long elaboration you demanded ROFL you people make me smile. I may despise your behaviour but it’s very entertaining.

                  I’m watching “Suits” at the moment and Rick Hoffman’s character’s WONDERFUL, up there with Larry David.

                • jim says:

                  Observe, if someone is a socialist, he complains we are pedophiles and Jews, but is unable to mention, or even notice, the bad conduct of those Jews who are actually our enemies, instead denouncing those Jews who are enemies of our enemies.

                  If a Jew wants Jews to rule Israel, if he genuinely is a Zionist, he is not our enemy, but the enemy of our enemies.

                  Conversely, those Jews that truly are enemies, as for example Soros and Victoria Nuland, seek the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, because they want world ruled by “the international community”.

                  Whosoever opposes capitalism, necessarily opposes Trump and Bolsonaro, thus is part of the enemy coalition, and when he tries to proclaim he is right wing by being twice as antisemic as the next guy, he shows his true alignment by reluctance to notice what those Jews who are actually part of his true alignment are doing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You should do an article on leftists pretending to be Nazis or genuinely left wing nazis. That is the tack most of the shills on /pol right now are using.

                  “How do we do fellow whites. F*** that Jew puppet Drumpf voting Democrat is white thing to do”.

                  Also that Hitler’s “Nazi style socialism” which he began in 1936 failed terribly especially in agriculture and how it lead to most of the crimes of the 3rd Reich.

                  Just a request not telling you what to do.

                • jim says:

                  Socialism is visible from space at night, because when they run out of other people’s money, the lights go out.

                  But even if was a good idea, socialists are part of the enemy coalition, because socialists are motivated by covetousness and envy, because the enemy coalition runs on covertousness and envy, and because the enemy coalition wants to knock over the apple cart to grab some apples, and the immediate impact of socialism is lots of apples rolling hither and yon.

                  Socialism is a bad idea, but good idea or bad, socialists are part of the enemy coalition.

                  Socialism, whether or not it can be made to work, is priests coveting the status of successful merchants.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what Trump supposedly says.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Then there’s THIS little anti-Juche canard:

                  “Socialism is visible from space at night, because when they run out of other people’s money, the lights go out.”

                  That’s a very shallow dive. A deep dive is this: who benefits from the 24/7 society?
                  Are we better off working the night shift? Having actually done it, I can tell you it’s no good for your sleep patterns, for your health, or for your social life. Weeks fly by but nothing gets done.

                  Like all capitalists, you ignore the environment. Why use up all the fossil fuels now by having a 24/7 society when a 10/5 society would have us be fuel-rich for three times as long?
                  Why such strong time preference!

                  No, North Korea *has* electricity. They just, unlike Westerners, get a good night’s sleep.

                  The shallow dive is that on this, and perhaps only on this, the media’s telling the truth. Just listen to charming public intellectual (((Michael Malice))). What a talented writer lol anyone read any of his books? They’re garbage from start to finish.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  They are sitting around in the dark cold and hungry, not getting a good nights sleep.

                  Towards the end, the Russian elite was flying to Finland to buy light bulbs.

                  And no lightbulbs, and no power, is the least of your problem. Not only does the power go out from time to time, the food goes out from time to time, as is happening in Venezuela, happened in Hitler’s Germany, happens from time to time in North Korea, and threatened postwar British socialism in 1949, causing them to back off from the command economy, and subsequently write that incident right out of history. The lifts in the British Treasury stopped working, and Britons were writing to family in Australia asking for food parcels.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Observe, if someone is a socialist, he complains we are pedophiles and Jews, but is unable to mention, or even notice, the bad conduct of those Jews who are actually our enemies, instead denouncing those Jews who are enemies of our enemies.”

                  By the way, I’ve never called you a pedo. What I observe is that when someone calls you a pedo jew, you respond by saying you’re not a pedo.

                  It’s time you came clean I think.

                  Now do your policies carry a risk of paedophilia in society? Obviously if implemented right now in globohomo Clownworld, absolutely they do, but I’m the kind of open-minded reader who’s more than happy to think beyond the concrete and see the abstract idea under discussion and as far as I can tell, what you’re claiming is that unrestrained women are a problem and the solution is for them not to be unrestrained.

                  No sane person could argue that that solution wouldn’t WORK, which is what ultimately matters.

                  So that just leaves the other part: why, when called a ‘pedo jew’, do you say ‘I am not a pedo’?

                • jim says:

                  > By the way, I’ve never called you a pedo

                  You continually imply I am a pedo, and did so again. Further comments containing this trope will be deleted, not because such an obviously absurd accusation bothers me, but because you are tediously repetitive.

                  > Now do your policies carry a risk of paedophilia in society? Obviously if implemented right now in globohomo Clownworld, absolutely they do,

                  Nuts.

                  Obviously if you crack down on bad behavior by females, including very young females, you get less bad behavior by girls.

                  My policy is to crack down on the problem, rather than crack down on random men who happen to be in the vicinity of the problem. We have a feral woman problem, and a feral girl problem, illustrated by unaccompanied eight year old girls attending a concert whose star puts on an obscene sexual performance. Eight or nine is when they typically start to display an alarmingly keen interest in obscene sexual performances.

                  When unaccompanied women attend such a concert, they are probably going with the intention to get nailed, and when unaccompanied eight year old girls attend such a concert, they are probably going with the intention to get nailed.

                  Your blue pilled view of women, plus the fact that you are beta and little girls do not hit on you, is blinding you to what is happening right in front of your face.

                  The typical sexual incident between an older male and extremely young girl with no boobs is not he creeps into her bed while she is sleeping, it is that she creeps into his bed while he is sleeping, and frequently drunk.

                  The variance of the age at which girls develop a sexual interest in men is very high, much higher than the corresponding age in men, and substantially lower than the corresponding age in men. As a result, there are far more very young girls with no boobs interested in adult men, than there are adult men interested in girls with no boobs.

                  The trouble with globoclown world is that we are not cracking down on women, not allowed to crack down on women, and not allowed to notice female bad behavior. Obviously if you crack down on female bad behavior, you get considerably less of it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  No comments allowed telling us what the enemies of our rulers are supposedly saying. Your version is never what we are saying, never what any of your enemies are saying, which leads to wasted bandwidth as people repeatedly explain what they in fact said.

                  Our responses are not on your script, and when you give a scripted response that attributes to us a response covered by your script, like a game npc or an unhelpful call center, not going to play along.

                • Dave says:

                  > Now do your policies carry a risk of paedophilia in society?

                  What is paedophilia, and why is it a problem? The goal is for each female to lose her virginity to the man whose funeral she will attend as a grieving widow with many children and grandchildren. If girls typically lose their virginity at age x, you either court those of age x-1 or x-2, or scavenge among other men’s leftovers and rejects.

                  Or do as Jim says, and build a new society where girls are forced to remain virgins until a more reasonable age, then married off.

                  The real risk is that millions of women will age into lonely catladies and bitterly vote for mass immigration in the desperate hope of getting some P in their V, which is what we have now.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                (Kepler, cough.)

                Quantity vs quality, excellent point regarding paradigm. It’s of course also part of the bureaucratization of science, along with citation indexes and impact factors. How can we manage what we can’t measure, cry the managerialists. Give us KPIs!

            • Andre says:

              “Austria, Hungary, Poland, Russia and the Czech Republic all have rightist governments and are 90+% white and they’re all below replacement fertility.”

              For a more extreme non-white example, South Korea has a fertility rate of 1. And that is with the men importing south east asian wives.

            • Andre says:

              “Natsocs are surprisingly feminist because they think race is the only thing that matters so white women can do no evil.”

              I think it’s because they think women can be their allies. This is particularly important if your plan is to win elections in the current system as women are over 50% of voters (unless those 80% male migrants get vote, or some unfortunate crime wave starts getting rid of old women living on social security).

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You make a good point.

                If we want to win elections, which for the first time in a long time seems like a viable possibility, we should probably lay off telling women they need to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for a while.

                Their natural instincts would soon assert themselves in a healthy, or even nominally conservative country. Who’s actually cucking, in practice? The men who say “yes dear” until the President gains power, or the anti-TRS defenders of capitalism who try to persuade their wives with intellectual arguments?

                • jim says:

                  We are not interested in winning elections, but in ending them, and women rather like men who will tell they should be barefoot and pregnant.

                • Andre says:

                  CR said: “Who’s actually cucking, in practice? The men who say “yes dear” until the President gains power, or the anti-TRS defenders of capitalism who try to persuade their wives with intellectual arguments?”

                  I hope those are not the only two options.

                • jim says:

                  Women are not persuaded by intellectual argument.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [Deleted]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what believe. You don’t know what we believe, and will not listen.

                • Anonymous says:

                  CR,

                  How do you feel about:

                  1) The gun control agenda?

                  2) Universal Basic Income?

                  3) The use of capital to fund medicinal research?

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Women are not persuaded by intellectual argument as such the way men can be, but they do receive authoritative instruction gladly (which is why they tend to make diligent and attentive students). Unable to think for themselves, but perfectly able to think, they crave being authoritatively told what to think. In the absence of authoritative instruction from the men in their lives, they default to brainless conformity to the consensus within their peer group, which consensus is set by a minority among them who act the part of a male (cf. what happens to chickens when there are no roosters around). Hence the NPC phenomenon.

                  Women therefore both can and should receive political instruction from a competent male- but *never* the other way around. THOTcasts are legitimate, if at all, only inasmuch as expressly aimed at other women in their content coverage. Any man who sinks to the point where he’s willing to let a woman tell him what’s what as far as politics is concerned might as well just go ahead and get the bottom surgery, since he is already mentally castrated and at least the surgical removal of appendages he’ll never have occasion to use in any case will enhance his social status.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m not here any more but was bored and had a scan through and saw this:

                  Anonymous writes:

                  “CR,

                  How do you feel about:

                  1) The gun control agenda?

                  2) Universal Basic Income?

                  3) The use of capital to fund medicinal research?”

                  1. It’s complicated. There is certainly a case to be made that the state should neither wish to, nor claim the right to, interfere with your right to defend yourself. Indeed the standard libertarian American Revolutionary argument is sound: a gun behind every blade of grass = no invasion by land or sea.
                  On the other hand, there’s always a sense with libertarians that the guns are really there to defend against the government. Again this is understandable and probably prudent, so I’d tend to err on the side of something quite like the American status quo – if anything perhaps a LITTLE less regulated, but not necessarily much less.
                  There is a lurking question though: why does the risk exist that the state will come to see the population as its enemy? That is in and of itself an alarm bell of an unhealthy society.

                  In a fully healthy society? No need to have guns at all, but you probably still should, for the ‘behind every blade of grass’ reason above. So overall: gun rights YES.

                  ******tl;dr****** in favour of gun rights

                  2) Well it’s inflationary on its face. It’s just another left-wing patch for the problems created by the vagabond principle. Most people would probably be comfortable with a job for life, matched to their natural abilities, with certain positive rights sufficient to allow them to raise a family and own a home. If individuals wanted to rise above that, there should of course be avenues. The starting assumption that everyone has the ability to be Tom Woods is incorrect and wrong-headed though, and rooted in Enlightenment egalitarianism.

                  ******tl;dr****** prefer to end the labour market altogether rather than patch over the parts that are causing the most harm

                  3) The state has always been the best vehicle for research. The problem is, since the 20th century the state has become corrupt and evil. The libertarian will look at that and say “see? the state’s not suitable – use the free market”, whereas quite frankly at this point I think the free market’s corrupt and evil too. We need to fix society, then once everyone’s on the same page we can have that conversation. I suspect the ‘need’ for competition would pretty much evaporate but who knows. Some things are certainly better done through market discovery, but some things clearly aren’t. Carlyle remarked even in 1840 that there was little or no real American culture to speak of. That doesn’t seem to have changed very much at all.
                  Medicine? Who knows: the advanced stages of modern medicine took place when the state was already corrupt and evil so it’s hard to say what *economic* model would best further those goals, but we can certainly look to engineering etc. and stab a guess.

                  ******tl;dr****** no idea, insufficient information

                • Andre says:

                  “Indeed the standard libertarian American Revolutionary argument is sound: a gun behind every blade of grass = no invasion by land or sea.”

                  Sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit. As was evidenced by the fact that the North managed to conquer the South. The United States could have been invaded and conquered for most of its history, even with the protection of the ocean, if any major power actually cared to do so.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what Andre supposedly says.

                  Your accounts of what we say are never what we say. Your responses are unresponsive.

              • The Cominator says:

                Hitler when he was running told women they should be barefoot and pregnant (even if in practice he didn’t do it). So it works under some circumstances.

                Single women are to be written off as long as the Cathedral is in place, we will get 80% of the black and hispanic male vote (black and hispanic men hate feminism and under Trump are increasingly concluding their economic interest lie with him) before we get 25% of the single female vote.

                We are in the short term interested in winning elections, but only with the idea of destroying the Cathedral or perhaps making Trump king… or laying the groundwork for someone who thinks like Trump to become king.

              • Nikolai says:

                ‘We need women to win elections’ quickly becomes ‘just let tradthots do their thing’ which quickly becomes ‘we need to carve out a special place for women in the movement’ and before you know it, you have guys competing to see who can cuck the hardest for some blue eyed thot who just wants money and validation from random internet racists.

                Fuck that, you get women in line by passing shit tests, not failing them.

                Anglin had a really good piece about this which I can’t seem to find. But these are close enough.

                https://dailystormer.name/alt-lite-skanks-scream-shut-it-down-as-coal-burning-thot-lauren-southern-patrolled/

                https://dailystormer.name/who-cares-what-women-think/

                • The Cominator says:

                  Re Tradthots

                  I’m okay with letting them do their thing as long as they act as cheerleaders (female cheerleaders showing that the movement has preselection are okay) and not opinion leaders. Once they start making demands attacking others etc they need to be ruthlessly bitchslapped back into place.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Sure, as long as they’re just there to cheerlead and not play the mannerbund against each other, then it’s not a problem. However the former has a tendency to turn into the latter, especially around thirsty betas.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes need to be ruthlessly called out the minute they start causing trouble.

                  Tomi Lahren (I don’t care whether shes into gangbangs in her personal life which is what I’ve heard, though she doesn’t really claim to be trad) is probably the best of them in that she’ll only really attack liberals and other women who are causing trouble.

                • jim says:

                  Not exactly.

                  It is more complicated than that.

                  Chicks are always testing authority and trying to get alpha males to fight to see who is the most alpha, but they are passive aggressive about it, so it is non trivial to define “causing trouble”

                  You cannot really have girls in a movement in the same way as boys – you need a ladies auxiliary for the wives and daughters of male members. Chicks always cause trouble, and the cuter the chick, the more trouble. And even old fat women and ugly girls cause trouble, just less trouble.

                  HBDChick is a great scientist, immensely valuable, and very smart woman, but she causes trouble. And the rest of them just cause trouble.

                  Girls cause trouble in ways that are less in your face than males causing trouble, and men are reluctant to see it. Their trouble is more complex, more subtle, and more ambiguous. And the hotter the chick, the more difficult men find to see it. And, with some notable exceptions, generally rather useless, except for girl stuff.

                  Sure, we should have hot chicks as cheerleaders for our movement, and by and large, do not. If your girlfriend is hot, and you want to make a you tube cast, have your chick make the cast, but do so visibly under your authority, and not doing the facebook thing where she wants ten thousand thirsty guys to promise their undying love and ask her to use them as a footstool.

                  And, by the way, always check your chick’s facebook feed from time to time. I failed to do this, and got bitten.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Completely agree Jim. Though I am unaware of any trouble caused by HBDChick.

                  Tomi Lahren is a bad example though. She’s not trying to be a cheerleader, she’s trying to be a voice. Cheerleaders don’t go on TV to have a semi-serious debate with the opposition. Can’t let women have that kind of prominence.

                  The best example is probably Lara Trump. She’s supportive and attractive, gives opening speeches at rallies and helps with fund raising. But she doesn’t try to be an actual policy influence like Ivanka. Jim’s right that women work best when they’re the wives or daughters of male members. But even daughters can have a bad influence, like Ivanka convincing Trump to get more involved in Syria. Thankfully that didn’t last long.

                • jim says:

                  Supposing that the constitution is still in effect in 2024 (I expect superficial compliance with the constitution up to 2026 or so) Melanie Trump would make a great president with her husband as “adviser”. And if we have a Trump dynasty, and the Trump dynasty pretends to be merely presidents, not Kings, and pretends the constitution is still in effect, as the Roman Emperors did for centuries, Lara Trump a great president with her husband as “adviser”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Melanie Trump would make a great president with her husband as “adviser”.”

                  As a foreigner she can’t do it with the constitution in effect.

                • jim says:

                  Obama re-invented himself as born in Hawaii, and the fact that he previously identified as born overseas went down the memory hole. Just adjust her history to have a brief residence in Hawaii.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Obama re-invented himself as born in Hawaii, and the fact that he previously identified as born overseas went down the memory hole.”

                  The Obama trick won’t work with Melania.

                  I’m certainly no fan of the lightbringer and think he probably was born in Kenya but even if he was born in Kenya he had a strong legal argument (backed by recent precedent in lawsuits against Ted Cruz in 2015) that he was natural born because his mother was a citizen.

                  Melania has very publicly said she was born in Slovakia (Obama was not yet a public figure back when he was claiming to be born in Kenya) and has no American parents.

                  It’ll be hard to do that with the constitution even theoretically in effect.

                • jim says:

                  Why not?

                  Just scold anyone who remembers things incorrectly. Worked for Obama.

                • The Cominator says:

                  A huge part of the divide between right and left is PDMH.

                  The right are the people who don’t believe its a horse, and are often willing to say at least privately.

                  Easier to have the newly purged rump legislature to eliminate term limits for President or at least exempt Trump from them and give Trump the power to exempt them.

                • jim says:

                  I am absolutely certain that we can get away with it, but would probably have harmful effects. Lies are bad for the soul, and impair cooperation.

                  Where we deploy a shared belief for solidarity and tribal identification, the belief should have a shibboleth, or a system of shibboleths, and should either be a forbidden truth, or, like the trinity, unfalsifiable. A shared belief that Melanie was born in Hawaii, but neglected to mention this fact until running for president, would not be healthy, even though I am sure there would be 100% buy in to that belief.

                • Dave says:

                  If leftists can change reality to suit their tastes, why can’t Donald?

                  It’s a scientific fact that when Bruce Jenner had his dick chopped off, he passed away and a new person named Caitlyn Jenner took his place. So in 2024 Donald Trump has his appendix removed and becomes a new person named Bonald Trump, a trans-god.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > Chicks are always testing authority and trying to get alpha males to fight to see who is the most alpha, but they are passive aggressive about it, so it is non trivial to define “causing trouble”

                  >You cannot really have girls in a movement in the same way as boys – you need a ladies auxiliary for the wives and daughters of male members. Chicks always cause trouble, and the cuter the chick, the more trouble. And even old fat women and ugly girls cause trouble, just less trouble.

                  Evidently this is why a key provision of the uniform protocol 1% motorcycle clubs adopted in the 1970s-80s was a total ban on women becoming full members. Before that they would sometimes let women wear their patch and had subsequent occasion to regret it.

      • peppermint says:

        If you want to weep during your conversion, watch this -> https://youtu.be/l4_6eQm7RTQ <- and think about that little girl, what her world looked like, how she was raised, and why she's 30 and childless.

        Your solution is to enslave her father so you can have her, and ban Homer Simpson from building his own swimming pool so he has to go to the municipal swimming pool that's next to your house. Because you're a smarmy traitorous faggot.

  14. sorcerer says:

    Well well well… it seems that NRx is growing pinko by the day!

    https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2018/11/04/socialism-and-capitalism/

    • Andre says:

      Property and Sovereignty are synonymous terms. The only valid distinction between them is that Sovereignty is Absolute Property while Property can be Delegated Sovereignty. In essence they are the same thing. Also, the State IS a corporation. I find anarco-capitalism quite funny because we already live in Ancapistan, it’s called Earth.

    • jim says:

      Not that pinko. He does not propose that the King should meddle, nor restrain corporations from the pursuit of profit.

      His analogy of allowing a miner to build a mine on your property is analogous to corporate capitalism as it was from the Restoration of Chales the Second to the early eighteen hundreds, which is the capitalism that Marx and old type Marxists complain about.

      When you authorize the miner to mine on your land, you authorize him to pursue profit, and promise not to meddle in his pursuit of profit by mining, in return for a share of the value created, but you did not authorize him to build a McDonald’s on your land. That would require another authorization.

      He is arguing Restoration style corporate capitalism against Randian Egoist style corporate capitalism. A Marxist or a Democrat is going to have no doubt that both systems are capitalism and find it difficult to notice any significant difference – in both systems it is glorious to get rich, which is to say, entrepreneurs get enough status to make priests envious.

      In Rand’s system, the natural law of nature’s God makes successful entrepreneurs inherently high status. In the Charle’s the Second’s system, God makes the King inherently high status, and makes him the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, and the King bestows status on those that create the prosperity of the realm. The King delegates a portion of his sovereignty and status to the peasant in his hut, and a considerably larger portion of his sovereignty and status to the entrepreneur in his mansion.

      In Rand’s system, you own your stuff outright. In the system of Charles the second, your right to your stuff is delegated from the King, and he is not supposed to meddle, apart from a few rare exceptions, but the King gets to decide what is the rare exception.

      • >In Rand’s system, the natural law of nature’s God makes successful entrepreneurs inherently high status. In the Charle’s the Second’s system, God makes the King inherently high status, and makes him the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, and the King bestows status on those that create the prosperity of the realm.

        One of Yudkowsky’s better ideas is “rationalist taboo”, that is, if a word seems empirically unproductive, blank it out and try to replace it with its definition. I find “status” empirically unproductive for a while, it is used as a sort of a magic sauce, to denote a kind of hierarchy between people but without really saying what does that mean in practice. In fact its usage is becoming circular, like, saying an idea is accepted because it is high status or spread by high status people, and yet we don’t really know much more about status that it generally means that high status people are respected and their ideas are often accepted.

        Pulling a taboo on “status”, we have its two core forms: dominance and prestige. Dominance is fairly easy. It is based on fear. This fear can be coming from personal power, or from institutional, official power, when someone else, like the state’s goons are doing the enforcement, this form of dominance is generally called authority. It also has a special form: fearsomeness also means ability to defend someone else from enemies, hence the dominant person can also be genuinely liked as a protector.

        Prestige is a bit of a mystery. It’s root is if someone else has a useful skill, we imitate him, to learn it and gain the same results. And also pay respect. We will also likely to imitate the unproductive behaviors of the popular person as well: for example, idolizing an intellectual or a rock star and imitating his haircut, clothes or way of speaking. This basically turns the high prestige person into a kingmaker: he can rally support for any cause simply by expressing support for it. I think this is the root of priestly power.

        Now using this toolset. God is the origin of high status and conveys it on the King. What does that mean? The term “god-fearing” suggests we associate God with dominance. Yes, there is also Imitatio Christi, which is prestige, but maybe less important and anyway more of a priest thing to do. As Edmund Burke pointed out in the Sublime and Beautiful, terms like “your dread majesty”, or the very word “majestic” largely meaning “fearsome”, we associate Kings with the ability to invoke fear and awe, so: dominance. This dominance is primarily institutional authority, it does not come from being personally super strong and being able to beat everybody up. Prestige? Yes. People imitate kings. That is why we wear neckties. But again it seems less important.

        So: it is dominance. It is dread.

        Next question: how does His Dread Majesty convey high status on the businessman who invented a better mousetrap? OK by knighting him but practically how does that work?

        At this point I am not sure. Maybe there is a way to convert dominance into prestige. Moldbug had a hunch about this but I think never really worked out. That people tend to fall into Stockholm Syndromes: that genuine fear and dread is rationalized into actually liking the person who scares us.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

        • peppermint says:

          Does CR care if he dominates you or has prestige over you? He’ll never say he wants to dominate you in particular, and a decade ago he would have disavowed dominance completely.

          Status is in recognition of the fact that we are animals and respect our superiors because they are our superiors, and never mind what is said on paper, the high status man makes the decision and the lower status men implement it.

          Which is why leaders need God more than followers. Followers can be told what to do by their leaders, but leaders need to be able to tell their followers that they obey God, and what God’s rules for them are.

          Boomers always argued about whether the man or the woman or some standing committee is in charge in posslqdom. Everyone else from the beginning of time until the end of time knows that God is in charge and God appoints the man to take care of the woman.

          We need licensing of priests so men will know that they’re getting advice from God, the saints, and the king, because when a man listens to a priest, he implicitly assumes he’s getting advice for God, the saints, and the king. Then they let CR tell them to do things that harm them.

          Without licensing, men will go with the holiest church on the block. But at least they’re not dominated by the king’s church, but choosing the prestigious church that looks like a weird space ship without stained glass windows or spires pointing to Heaven.

        • peppermint says:

          Ps plato is homo gay

        • jim says:

          > Next question: how does His Dread Majesty convey high status on the businessman who invented a better mousetrap? OK by knighting him but practically how does that work?

          The aristocracy were officers in the local militia, or the fathers, brothers, or brothers in law of officers in the militia. They could beat you up.

          “Racist” is today low status because if an academic is deemed “racist” some very large black political science professors with room temperature IQs will visit his office with baseball bats.

          Similarly, the Invisible College was invisible, because if visible, people would have hurt them and broken their toys. When King Charles the Second raised their status, making them the Royal Society, the puritans organized mobs of goons to shut down the Royal Society meetings. Had they succeeded, this would have lowered the status of the Royal Society. King Charles the Second sends his men at arms to guard the meetings, thus raising their status.

          Alt right is low status because the cops backed antifa.

          Similarly, watch this video, and feel the status of Pussy Riot and George Soros drop. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rH5GpMAMK_4
          That is what the Puritans intended would happen to the status of the Royal Society – but the cops stepped in to protect the Royal Society, while they did not step in to protect Pussy Riot.

          A successful entreneur was high status because knighting him proclaimed him to have high status connections, therefore if you got into a fight with him, his pals would beat you up, and no one would come to your assistance.

          The militia was high status because the militia can beat you up. Officers high status because dominant over the militia. Aristocrats high status because officers or dominant over officers. And the royal society high status because if your mob tries to hold a confrontation with their group, King Charles the Second’s men at arms show up.

          Similarly the food pyramid. Academics that doubted that animal fats caused heart disease got spat on, shouted at, jostled, physically intimidated, chased out of meetings, chased out of their offices, though no actual punches were thrown. It socially OK and legal to punch a nazi, and it is socially OK and legal to punch a denier.

          The commies tried to lower the status of nazis in 1930s Germany by sending their thugs to bust up Nazi meetings, while the cops benignly looked the other way. This failed to work because the Nazis were better at physical violence than the commies.

          Knighting someone bestows status, because originally knights were men trained and equipped for physical violence who were associated with other men trained and equipped for physical violence.

          • These are almost all examples of dominance status, some personal, some institutional. Which means kingly, not priestly. The truly interesting part is that somehow this was transformed into prestige status (priestly, or celebrity).

            Yes, I have read in Race And Reason how in the sixties anthropology professors who believed in heredity and racial differences were physically threatened, stalked home by angry looking black students and so on, and often told the author “once I retire and move somewhere else I will tell the truth”. And yes, all this was possible because the State was not on their side.

            So the “racist” professors were beaten into submission. Which is basically low status on the *dominance* pole.

            Fast forward a bit and what you see is “racism” is associated with low status on the *prestige* pole: dumb toothless inbred backwoods redneck hicks. And the left created a mythology that said rednecks are relatively high on the *dominance* pole and blacks are low on it: they go lynching them all the time and stuff like that.

            Let’s simplify the terminology a bit and call the dominance pole strong/weak and the prestige pole cool/uncool. So we have this transformation that the strong beat the weak, then somehow the weak are recast as uncool and at the same time the weak are recast as somewhat strong, that is, scary evil, an evil that is not entirely powerless.

            This seems to be the really important process to me. I mean, the important part is that if it is true it can read backward to find out truth: folks portrayed as weak, oppressed, but cool or holy are actually strong. Folks portrayed as fairly scary strong but evil, uncool and stupid are actually weak.

            • peppermint says:

              No, there is one pole, status.

              Failure to understand this caused the loss of South Africa and is causing America to crumble.

              Until we assert prestige and dominance, with faith, hope, and courage, and no false charity, temperance, justice, or prudence, we will lose.

              Until we deny the prestige of the NPCs and defy the dominance of the comped cops and antifags, we will lose.

              Until we stop seeing Boomers as men, and start seeing them as pathetic overgrown manchildren trying to keep the party going, we will lose.

              Until we stop pretending that heresy isn’t worse than atheism and thinking that faggot heretics can be convinced to give up faggotry instead of stealing our churches and scattering our churchgoers, we will lose.

              We need a revolution in our character. We need to be men worthy of the world, or we’re proving our enemies right about us.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Deleted for telling us what we believe.

        Reactionaries, Neoreactionaries, and the Darkly Enlightened, will tell you what they believe. Sometimes other reactionaries will interpret each others’ positions, or criticize their positions, interpreting their positions in the course of criticizing them.

        When you, however, interpret our positions, never accurate, so all such comments will be deleted as a waste of reader bandwidth.

        Try commenting on aidanmaclear’s blog. Tell him he is a socialist. He might agree, or might disagree by clarifying his position, but most likely will delete your comment, suspecting an NPC on a script written by those in authority over him, like one of those unhelpful Indian call center workers on an unhelpful help line.

Leave a Reply