Collapse of Building Seven

Since World Trade Tower Building seven is the most decisive evidence that the collapse of the towers was, as it seemed, the work of terrorists equipped with boxcutters, the troofers manipulatively announce it to be their strongest evidence to the contrary.

Building Seven begins its fall like a tree, falling sideways towards the holes blasted by the plane on the south Side, and the fires started by the plane on the south side.

In this video, shot from the north side it falls away from the viewer.  The structure on top disappears not because it falls into the building, for at this stage of the collapse the outer shell of the building is tilting like a tree, falling like a rigid object, but because the tilt of the building takes it out of view:


If the above image fails to animate for you, reload it in a new tab.

After about two or three seconds into the collapse it starts to fall downwards, as if in a demolition, but the start of the collapse is that the shell of Building Seven tilts and rotates southwards away from the camera like a tree falling towards the notch cut by the axeman. The change in the angle of the dark line shows that in the first few seconds of the fall, the movement is primarily rotation sideways, rather than droop downwards. The further end of the dark line drops by more than the north face of the building drops, indicating considerably more rotation southwards than droop downwards. In these images of the very first part of the collapse of the outer shell, the top of the building is moving away from the viewer a lot faster than it is moving downwards.

The image below, shot from the east side, shows it half way through its fall, transitioning from falling sideways like a tree, to collapsing downwards like a building.

Building seven was rated to survive three hours of uncontrolled fire, before the heat penetrated the insulation on the steel beams, softening them and causing them to collapse.

It instead survived seven hours of uncontrolled fire, roughly the amount of time predicted when it was built, when the builders considered the possibility of a fire raging for a long time without being brought under control.

They expected that any fire would be brought under control in three hours or less, and therefore the building could not be brought down by fire, but unfortunately the damage caused by terrorists crashing planes knocked out the water supply.

Building seven fell partly from damage, partly because the steel beams softened in the heat of the fire. When the building was designed the insulation on the steel beams was rated to withstand three hours fire:

The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the metal deck and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction. These ratings were to be achieved by application of Monokote MK-5, a gypsum-based SFRM that contained a vermiculite aggregate. According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 22 mm (7/8 in.) of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 48 mm (1 7/8 in.) to be applied to the lighter columns, 13 mm (1/2 in.) to be applied to the beams, and 10 mm (3/8 in.) to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck. Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values

which is a longer fire than would ever be allowed under normal circumstances. The reason for having insulation on the steel beams is that the builders expected that without insulation, fire would cause the building to fall – as it did. It fell because it reached and exceeded its design limits for not falling, and it fell as we would expect a building to fall from such a cause, in that it started its fall like a tree, sideways towards the notch.

609 Responses to “Collapse of Building Seven”

  1. Yara says:

    >rated to survive three hours of uncontrolled fire

    https://i.imgur.com/0FL6jUm.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/Sby1qat.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/3bBsw1X.jpg

    I’m mocking you.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Boy, showing three shots of a building on fire really disproves that the building was on fire.

      [That’s how you do mockery]

      • X says:

        Yara — despite his very high, eloquent verbal IQ — makes the mistake of trying to argue within the realm of vagueries, “who said, he said, who saw, he saw.” The entire discussion ends up as a competition to raise totally irrelevant subjective issues which have no definitive slam-dunk. His analogies are astute, eloquent and clever, but they lack the scientific precision to be slam-dunks.

        Of course Yara is reiterating the point he made in the prior blogs, that the fires were in his opinion not extensive enough to collapse the buildings in the pattern of a controlled demolition. Yet the dupes here will of course argue that what they saw was not a controlled demolition. And that steel buildings do collapse due to fires.

        That is why I have recently made an exacting summary of the physics of the structural engineering which make it impossible for these buildings to have collapsed completely without controlled demolition.

        No one has ever, nor will ever be able to refute the points I have made at the above link. That is why everyone is ignoring it.

        And so what does that say about the males here forsaking their civic duty to be diligent when our leaders attack and murder 3000 of us. It means the males here are defectors who can’t be trusted, because they’re too ignorant, lazy, and/or delusional to make correct judgments about reality.

        Period.

        I’ll be waiting for any cogent rebuttals to the statements about physics and structural engineering made in the above linked document.

        • Yara says:

          I’m going to critique your linked article, because no one is above critique.

          Nuke everything between “So Eric banned me again…” and the quote preceding “Let’s accept Nier’s challenge…”. Replace with: “A man of questionable intellectual integrity challenged me with the following statement: [Winter’s lies quote]. [link to source of quote]”.

          Begin:

          “I accept his challenge. Herein I will review the government’s best material science and structural engineering rebuttal of the controlled demolition theory.

          This collection of reports on the events of 9/11, produced by NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce), offers a piss-poor, error-ridden model of WTC 7’s collapse, which I will shortly rip to shreds, and no model whatsoever of WTC 1 and 2’s respective collapses.”

          Your other rhetoric is shit and you should delete most of it. Stick to technical analysis. Immediately transition to the boring, bureaucratic language of technical reports. If you want, I’ll write you some cutting rhetoric to intersperse between your technical analysis; cut out the existing shit and send me a link when it’s done.

          Finally, you should focus on like three points at most. Jim’s absolutely right about your deluge information overflow. Be more autistically focused. If you want to mention other things, do it in the form of primary and/or secondary evidence. For example, at the end of the article, for no conceivable reason, you finish with a mention of the “molten debris” pouring out of WTC 1 and/or 2 (which or both is not made clear). I think I recall once reading that someone important in the investigation said that the jet fuel had exhausted itself after 10 minutes. If that’s true, put it in there. Your inane personal commentary is entirely unnecessary.

          • X says:

            Yara I asked for a critique of the actual details of the physics and structural engineering. I want to see if anyone can poke a cogent hole in my technical argument. Those genuinely interested in truth will distill down to the technical details that matter. The document is not that lengthy. I don’t dispute your opinion of my rhetoric. During a war there’s no time to argue about perfection. Everyone must pick up the slack where they can. Never has the quality of prose changed the minds of humans. Only facts have any chance of doing so, and even they usually can’t change minds.

            If you want, I’ll write you some cutting rhetoric to intersperse between your technical analysis; cut out the existing shit and send me a link when it’s done.

            Thank you for offer but I don’t want to waste any more time on it. At least not right now. I would prefer to be productive on s/w projects. You’re welcome to incorporate my technical argument into your own presentation.

            For example, at the end of the article, for no conceivable reason, you finish with a mention of the “molten debris” pouring out of WTC 1 and/or 2 (which or both is not made clear). I think I recall once reading that someone important in the investigation said that the jet fuel had exhausted itself after 10 minutes. If that’s true, put it in there.

            Did you completely forget the lengthy debate Jim and I were having about whether there was molten metal pouring out of the WTC? Did you forget he argued that was jet fuel. I am refuting him with that point.

            Also I did mention in the linked document that NIST did state the jet fuel had burned off within a few minutes. And when we see the molten metal flowing out of the WTC, that is nearly an hour after impact. Readers note that my linked document is not primarily about the molten metal.

            Yara I’m, getting the picture you lack patience to read a lot of boring text. That is weakness of Millennials. They want everything to be soundbite. They lack fortitude. And thus they lack details. And thus they fail to assimilate what they read as you just demonstrated above.

            • jim says:

              > Did you completely forget the lengthy debate Jim and I were having about whether there was molten metal pouring out of the WTC?

              Typical Troofer instant amnesia. You agreed that molten steel is immensely brighter than full sunlight and shines glaring light on everything around it, and then immediately claim again that it is merely flame bright.

              What was pouring out of the building was burning jet fuel mixed with burning debris. If molten steel, would have been dazzling bright, so that people in the street would have been unable to look at the building without damaging their eyes, if molten aluminum would have been silvery. What was pouring out of the building was merely flame hot and merely flame bright, therefore was burning jet fuel mixed with burning debrise.

              • X says:

                You agreed that molten steel is immensely brighter than full sunlight and shines glaring light on everything around it, and then immediately claim again that it is merely flame bright.

                I did not. You so obfuscated the prior discussion with endless nonsense that I doubt anyone is willing to read that entire prior discussion. I will not recapitulate that diarrhea debate. You’re attempting to redirect the readers’ focus away from the salient slam-dunk points here.

                What was pouring out of the building was burning jet fuel mixed with burning debris.

                Where is the required trail of grey smoke tailing off of the falling debris all the way down?

                You don’t make any technical argument for anyone to poke holes in.

                If that is what you think after reading my technical explanation, then you are hopelessly incapable of leading white males to anything but their own self-destruction.

                There’s no point in wasting time on incompetents. Sorry to say.

                You say “B, therefore C”, not because you intend to prove C, but because you intend to get the reader to accept B as true, when B is flagrantly false, and you have presented no evidence for B

                Diarrhea. Would you like to discuss any of the specific technical points I made or just continue with obfuscating that you’re unwilling or incapable of doing so?

                • jim says:

                  > > You agreed that molten steel is immensely brighter than full sunlight and shines glaring light on everything around it, and then immediately claim again that it is merely flame bright.

                  > I did not.

                  So, is molten steel immensely brighter than full sunlight, too bright to look at without goggles and does it shine glaring bright light on everything around it?

                  Or is it not?

                  Not that it matters, because no matter what position you take, you will very shortly take the other as convenient.

                • X says:

                  My question was ignored:

                  Where is the requisite trail of grey smoke tailing off of the falling debris all the way down?

                • jim says:

                  Hot kerosene resembles cold gasoline. When I pour gasoline on my barbecue, I don’t get a trail of grey smoke. Brightly burning stuff does not release grey smoke.

                • X says:

                  If you have objects containing organic matter (other than pure carbon) burning in the kerosene, then it will produce a trail of grey smoke. Charcoal does not produce smoke because of the process of manufacturing it removes all the organic matter and leaves only the carbon. These are facts. You can verify these facts with some simple Internet research.

                  Thus what was pouring out of the WTC can only be molten steel. It can’t be molten aluminum either because that is silverish when it pours out, not yellow nor orange.

                • jim says:

                  On topic, because I have been discussing the molten steel issue, and you are entitled to respond:

                  Seems that according to you, when I juice my barbecue with gasoline, leaves and newspaper, should trail grey smoke.

                  Does trail smoke when I juice it with dry leaves, not when I juice it with dry leaves and gasoline.

                  I pour dry leaves wet with gasoline into my barbecue, the whole stream turns to flame, much like the stuff pouring out to the world trade tower, no trail of smoke.

                  Molten steel pouring out of the world trade tower would be dazzling bright, burning the eyes of the witnesses. Molten aluminum would be silver. The stuff pouring out of the Trade Tower was flame bright and flame hot. Molten steel is
                  a good deal hotter and brighter than flame hot and flame bright. What is pouring out of the tower Looks like what I see when I dump a stream of dry leaves wet with gasoline into my barbecue. Big whoosh, no smoke. Hot jet fuel behaves much like cold gasoline, and that stuff pouring out of the trade center is behaving much like dry leaves wet with gasoline.

                • X says:

                  It’s true that if a fire is hot enough to attain complete combustion of the organic matter, then there will be very little or no smoke.

                  But the fact that you allege the matter falling out of the WTC is organic means by your own definition it is not complete combustion. Also there was much dark grey smoke coming from the fires where the molten steel poured out from, so we would expect to see the same grey smoke from material falling out.

                • jim says:

                  Hot jet fuel mixed with odds and ends should burn like gasoline mixed with odds and ends.

                  And when I burn gasoline mixed with odds and ends, which I do when the barbecue is reluctant to start, I see little if any smoke.

                  Flame hot stuff in the open air just does not smoke, and what was pouring out of the tower was flame hot stuff in the open air.

                  I burn lots of things, and I only get smoke when stuff is not flame hot. Even plastic burns clean if the fire is hot.

                  My chicken shed, which had been used to store all kinds of things, came down in a hurricane. Too hard to remove, big pile of rubbish, so after things dried out, set it on fire. Huge amount of smoke initially, but once it got flame hot, burned clean. Moral is that even dry chicken shit and rotten things can burn clean if hot enough.

                • X says:

                  Also remember this was just some minutes before collapse that we see the molten steel pouring out. So that means this was nearly an hour after the plane impacted. NIST said the jet fuel would have burned off in the first few minutes.

                  Sorry you have no possible way to refute that the material out was molten steel.

                • Why don’t you use diesel to burn leaves, Jim? Burns hotter and no chance of a fume explosion.

                • jim says:

                  I have a steel jerry can full of gasoline on hand, because my car, my chain saw, my mower, and so on and so forth are all gasoline powered. Don’t have a jerry can of diesel on hand. I have plastic bottles of kerosene on hand, and probably should use that to avoid fume explosions, but used to using the jerry can.

                  Probably I should buy a second steel jerry can for diesel before I set myself on fire.

                • X says:

                  Hot jet fuel mixed with odds and ends should burn like gasoline mixed with odds and ends.

                  And you continue to ignore the fact that the video of molten steel pouring out is just minutes before collapse (collapse can be seen on one of the videos after the molten steel pouring out) and thus nearly an hour after airplane impact. NIST even stated that the jet fuel would have burned off within the first few minutes after airplane impact. So that can’t possibly be jet fuel pouring out.

              • Wake up says:

                I don’t get your point. Your video won’t load for me (even in a new tab) but assuming your claim that the building first falls to one side is correct for the sake of argument, how does that argue against controlled demolition? If the building started falling to one side that makes it even less likely that it would fall through the path of greatest resistance directly down into its footprint unless a carefully timed explosion blew out some girders on the other side to bring it back. Once it shifts to one side there will be massive forces pulling it to the side, not bringing it straight down into its footprint.

                Another problem: a passenger jet is basically 1/4 inch thick shell of aluminum. The façade of world trade Towers was closely placed massive structural Steel I –beams feet by feet in the XY plane and 2 inches thick at the base tapering to 1/4 inch thick at the top. The aired video shows the passenger jet entering the building entirely with no bounce at all and leaving a plane shaped hole like a cartoon character colliding with a cliff. this is inconsistent with Newton’s second law of motion. Ergo the video was CGI. Ergo no planes hit the buildings. There are also no photographs of substantial plane parts in Shanksville where a plane supposedly collided with the ground. Did it vaporize? There are also no photographs of substantial plane parts at the Pentagon. Supposedly they found one engine in New York but from what I’ve read it was not an engine consistent with a passenger jet.

                • Roberto says:

                  >the video was CGI. Ergo no planes hit the buildings.

                  Cominator is 100% correct. When you gaze too long into the abyss… it starts gazing back at you.

                • Wake up says:

                  As Gustav Lebon wrote in his 1895 masterpiece “the crowd”, for events which were simultaneously viewed by thousands of people you can be certain that what really happened is radically different than the accepted explanation.
                  He also suggested that if you want to get the French people into war you should blow up the Eiffel Tower.

                • Wake up says:

                  By the way, Trump more or less understood this point on 911 2001 (although he didn’t realize that parts should have bounced):
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >He also suggested that if you want to get the French people into war you should blow up the Eiffel Tower.

                  and if you want the American people to go to war, collapse 7 WTC…

                • Wake up says:

                  Steve, WTC seven was filled with CIA records.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Walk around Manhattan for a day and you’ll see dozens of trucks for mobile document shredding companies.

                  Good thing this whole “fake a plane crash into a neighboring building then demolish the building containing the records” doesn’t catch on or it’ll undercut all those businesses putting people out of work.

                  Certainly I can’t think of any better ways to get rid of documents than demolishing the building.

                • Wake up says:

                  CIA can’t necessarily legally shred lots of documents.
                  Reportedly also the plane hit the Pentagon in the office where they were investigating the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld had reported were missing from the Pentagon’s coffers the day before, September 10, 2001.

                  Beyond such speculation however the missing planes and Newton’s second law can’t really be argued with.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  CIA can’t necessarily legally shred lots of documents.

                  “Well, Johnson we’ve got to get rid of these documents”
                  “Can’t – it’s illegal”
                  “We could shred them anyway then just stonewall and deny it later”
                  “Nope I’m not breaking the law like that – any other ideas?”
                  “Well, we could murder thousands of people in an elaborate hoax and put the documents in a nearby building that we then collapse”
                  “Perfect! I wouldn’t want to violate document retention regulations”

                • X says:

                  Another problem: a passenger jet is basically 1/4 inch thick shell of aluminum. The façade of world trade Towers was closely placed massive structural Steel I –beams feet by feet in the XY plane and 2 inches thick at the base tapering to 1/4 inch thick at the top. The aired video shows the passenger jet entering the building entirely with no bounce at all and leaving a plane shaped hole like a cartoon character colliding with a cliff. this is inconsistent with Newton’s second law of motion. Ergo the video was CGI. Ergo no planes hit the buildings.

                  Cripes are you a disinformation agent or did you unintentionally just make that massive fucking derailing error?

                  You wrote some sensible information in your post up until the above quoted nonsense.

                  The mass of a commercial airplane is not limited to (not even primarily the) 1/4″ aluminum skin. Also kinetic energy is a factor of the velocity squared. So mass alone is not a sufficient analysis.

                  Go learn high school Physics please.

                • Wake up says:

                  Newton’s second law says that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. When that force is pushing the quarter inch shell of aluminum, it’s going to give before the force pushing on half-inch thick steel I-beam. There will be a bounce. The tales on planes come off on minor accidents, taxiing plane goes off into a ditch or something. Parts are going to spray. It’s not going to punch a plane shaped hole and disappear into it and come out the other side.

                • jim says:

                  We saw plenty of stuff bounce backwards when the planes hit – in the form of very small pieces flying at bullet velocities. But there is going to be a plane shaped hole. The aluminum shell mostly disintegrated and burned, but the engines and landing gear went all the way through, being pretty solid and heavy.

                • Wake up says:

                  Steve, I expect destruction of records wasn’t one of the primary motivations, it was just a fringe benefit. I say if I had to guess that the main motivations for the operation were to justify the war on the Middle East, to justify the surveillance state, to make a lot of money on insider-trading, and maybe to justify homeland security.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                • Wake up says:

                  A plane going 600 mph or whatever does not have kinetic energy at the scale of the chemical energies required to shred it into microscopic fragments.
                  Incidentally the video showed the nose of the plane coming through. I think it’s at that link I posted above with Trump speaking to the reporter on 911 2001.

                • jim says:

                  A plane travelling at six hundred miles and hour will shred into the quite small lumps we observed, and when we observed the collisions, we saw small bits and jetfuel spraying in all directions – mostly forwards, but some backwards, as anyone would expect.

                  You previously argued it would not have gone all the way through in one piece, and of course it did not. Now you are arguing it will not explode completely into vapor, and of course it did not do that either.

                  At six hundred miles an hour, will shatter into small pieces, most of those pieces still going forwards, some of the tinier pieces spraying in all directions, including backwards.

                  Which is exactly what we see in the photographs of the collision: Acts neither like a big steel bullet nor a big foil balloon full of jet fuel, but something of both and something in between. The engines and the landing gear act rather like big steel bullets, the fuel tanks rather like water balloons full of jet fuel, and the rest of it, something in between.

                • X says:

                  Newton’s second law says that for every force there is an equal and opposite force.

                  I quote from Wikipedia:

                  Newton’s First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

                • Wake up says:

                  it does appear that the planes if they were there could have disintegrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn_fZZ74MQU
                  however I am still skeptical with Trump that they could have gotten throughAnd destroyed the steel columns, but I don’t know enough about the physics of shattering to say for sure.
                  This leaves open my first question for you, Jim, why you think the claim that building seven initially started falling to one side rules out the controlled demolition hypothesis rather than supporting it.
                  It also of course leaves open all the vast other evidence for controlled demolition including the nano thermite found in the dust, the iron steroids found in the dust, the free fall, the squibs evident in the video fall, all the evidence of molten steel including the months of heat after the collapse, the fall directly through the line of greatest support, etc. etc. which is all spelled out clearly here:
                  https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/download/lc-doj-first-amended-petition/

                • jim says:

                  > This leaves open my first question for you, Jim, why you think the claim that building seven initially started falling to one side rules out the controlled demolition hypothesis rather than supporting it.

                  When a tree leans towards the axeman’s notch, you figure the axeman and the notch have something to do with it.

                • wake up says:

                  [* storm of fresh lies deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You are resorting to the standard troofer tactic of too many lies too fast to be rebutted. Stick to arguing the claims that are directly the issue of this post.

                • Wake up says:

                  When the axe man notches a tree the tree falls to the side of the notch. That’s not what happened here or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead the building fell in its footprint after (according to you) started to one side gaining presumably momentum and leverage to continue to that side.

                • jim says:

                  Liar.

                  World Trade Center building seven did not fall into its footprint.

                  Most of the building fell beside its footprint, into the square between building six, and the area where building seven used to be.

                  This is clearly visible in aerial photos, where the major part of the rubble is centered in what used to be the square between building seven and building six, which square was the same size and shape as building seven itself.

                  The notch was on the south side. The building started its fall by rotating towards the south like a falling tree notched by the axeman, then after moving a fair way south, the bottom disintegrated and it proceeded to fall nearly straight down into the square between it and building six. You can see this in videos of it falling, and in aerial photos of the rubble pile.

                  You guys just keep repeating your lies, not matter how many times people notice that what you are saying is just not true.

                  And now, without retracting nor defending your original lie, you will post a dozen new lies, equally false, equally blatant, then having created a sufficient distraction, will repeat the original lie, without presenting any evidence, or acknowledging that there has been any rebuttal.

                • Wake up says:

                  I never lie. It seems you are projecting.
                  Your view on building seven is different than every other one I’ve ever seen I think including the NIST investigation. I wonder how you think it disintegrated? Also how you think the steel columns on the façade of world trade Towers disintegrated when the airplane disintegrated collating with them.

                • jim says:

                  As the video quite plainly shows, did not disintegrate until it had rigidly fallen sideways like a tree, and was over the square between it and building seven. Disintegrated after falling rigidly like a tree for about ten degrees. Video shows this, and it is obvious from the wreckage, which mostly lands beside the footprint of building seven, on the square between building six and building seven.

              • buddhaha says:

                Molton steel is bright, uncomfortably so, but not equivalent to looking directly into the sun. Someone gas welding wears dark goggles to be able to discern detail, not to keep from being blinded. Arc welding will damage eyes, but that’s the arc, not molton steel.

                I’ve watched hundreds of hearth pours decades ago when I worked in a steel mill. My eyes were not damaged.

                If eyewitnesses described it as “molton metal” it’s not impossible that they are correct.

                • buddhaha says:

                  Damn, that’s “molten” not “molton”. Where’s spell-check when you need it 🙂

                • jim says:

                  Molten steel will not do permanent damage to your eyes (though the Mythbuster narrator says it will) but it will dazzle you, cause a temporary blind spot – it is uncomfortable. Had there been molten steel pouring out of the towers, no one would have had any doubt whatsoever that it was molten steel. Everyone would have noticed, everyone would have known.

                • X says:

                  Molten steel will not do permanent damage to your eyes (though the Mythbuster narrator says it will) but it will dazzle you, cause a temporary blind spot – it is uncomfortable. Had there been molten steel pouring out of the towers, no one would have had any doubt whatsoever that it was molten steel. Everyone would have noticed, everyone would have known.

                  That’s yet another disinformation strawman from you. You have no prior art which you can cite that documents what people see and sense when viewing molten steel that occupies a tiny portion of their field-of-view from greater than 1000 ft distance away. That’s not comparable to the experience of viewing it up close in a steel mill. Numerous experts have stated the was molten steel there.

                • jim says:

                  Mythbusters say molten steel will blind you if you are not wearing goggles. Even if that is not entirely true, that is not entirely false either, and every photo and video that you or I presented showed the molten steel blindingly bright and overwhelming mere sunlight.

                  If that was molten steel dripping out of the tower, not only would it be brighter than sunlight, saturating the camera, but the entire tower near the molten steel would be so bright as to saturate the camera, making the parts of the tower illuminated by mere sunlight seem dim and dark, because that is what happened in every video showing molten steel, both your videos and mine.

                  Molten steel is spectacularly and overwhelmingly bright, saturating the camera, and frequently damaging the camera, making full sunlight seem like dusk. Every video of molten steel looks like this, none of them look anything like the burning stuff coming out the tower. The stuff pouring out the tower looks like what happens when I juice the barbecue by pouring leaves wet with petrol on it. The stuff pouring out of the tower is merely flame bright, as one would expect of burning jet fuel, or burning debris mixed with burning jet fuel, similar to what I do to ignite a recalcitrant barbecue

                • X says:

                  every photo and video that you or I presented showed the molten steel blindingly bright and overwhelming mere sunlight […] Molten steel is spectacularly and overwhelmingly bright, saturating the camera

                  Except every photo or video taken from a far distance, of which so far only the WTC video has been presented because we never had the opportunity to see molten steel from a great distance in normal life.

                • jim says:

                  You are just plain lying barefaced, we have already been over this.

                  You were asked to present videos and photos where molten steel failed to overwhelm sunlight and failed make objects near the molten steel dazzlingly bright, photos and videos where molten steel resembled the stuff pouring out of the tower, failed to do so, yet are now confidently claiming that such evidence exists – somewhere – but it so obvious that you do not need to actually present it.

                • jim says:

                  > > every photo and video that you or I presented showed the molten steel blindingly bright and overwhelming mere sunlight […] Molten steel is spectacularly and overwhelmingly bright, saturating the camera

                  > Except every photo or video taken from a far distance

                  liar

            • jim says:

              > I want to see if anyone can poke a cogent hole in my technical argument.

              You don’t make any technical argument for anyone to poke holes in. \

              When you say “B therefore C” that is not a technical argument, that is flim flam to distract the reader from noticing that B is wildly improbable, and you have not actually presented any evidence for B.

              It is all a vehicle for sneaking barefaced blatant lies past the reader. You say “B, therefore C”, not because you intend to prove C, but because you intend to get the reader to accept B as true, when B is flagrantly false, and you have presented no evidence for B, and if anyone points out that B is blatantly false, you will deny having ever claimed B, complain about a straw man attack, only to shortly thereafter claim B all over again. Your supposed technical argument is just a distraction device to sneak lies past the reader while he is not looking.

              • X says:

                You say “B, therefore C”, not because you intend to prove C, but because you intend to get the reader to accept B as true, when B is flagrantly false, and you have presented no evidence for B

                Diarrhea. Would you like to discuss any of the specific technical points I made or just continue with obfuscating that you’re unwilling or incapable of doing so?

                • jim says:

                  > Would you like to discuss any of the specific technical points I made

                  None of your technical points are relevant or matter, because they all presuppose “facts” that are flagrantly untrue, and for which you supply absolutely no evidence. They are just a way of sneaking these presuppositions past the reader without him noticing.

                • X says:

                  because they all presuppose “facts” that are flagrantly untrue

                  Which presupposed facts are you referring to specifically? Please enumerate, so we can determine if you even read the information.

                  Also I need to know which specific facts you are claim need to be presupposed and aren’t just inherent laws of physics.

                  Because as far as I remember, everything I wrote in the linked information I provided, was all facts of the laws of physics.

                  So it seems to me you didn’t even read it. So please be more specific in your rebuttal?

        • jim says:

          The argument that steel buildings do not collapse in fires is only true because of building standards intended to prevent from collapsing in fires, which standards imply that if the conditions that the standard prepares for are massively violated, as they were in 911, the building will in fact collapse.

          World Trade Center Building Seven was designed to withstand three hours of uncontrolled fire without collapsing, which standard and design objective implies that it was designed to collapse after substantially more than three hours of uncontrolled fire.

          • X says:

            Nobody is arguing that steel buildings never collapse due to fires. There are recent examples of them falling.

            What we’re arguing is that no steel building that has collapsed due to fire, collapsed entirely into its footprint.

            Go look at thephotos of the few instances of steel buildings which have been destroyed by raging fires and you will noticed that they are a partially collapsed, entangled mess of bent steel.

            In no case can the 47 center columns of the WTC towers being entirely chopped up into neatly sized lengths and entirely collapsed without controlled demolition.

            Any engineer here who continues to think otherwise after reading my technical explanation, is literally insane.

            And I am not going to waste any more time on insane men who are determined to self-immolate.

            • jim says:

              > What we’re arguing is that no steel building that has collapsed due to fire, collapsed entirely into its footprint.

              Which presupposes the blatant and completely barefaced lie that the World Trade Center buildings fell into their footprints.

              Which, of course, they quite obviously did not. It is an absolutely indefensible lie. Any fool can see them falling to one side or the other of their footprints, especially World Trade Center Building Seven.

              Which is why you never attempt to defend or support this lie, just try to sneak it past the reader. You don’t actually say the buildings fell into their footprints, you just presuppose it, and you won’t try to defend it or support it this time.

              • X says:

                Which presupposes the blatant and completely barefaced lie that the World Trade Center buildings fell into their footprints.

                Present clear photos that show the WTC debris resembles the incomplete collapse of the other steel buildings that collapsed from fire.

                I do not believe you can.

                • jim says:

                  Bigger buildings, longer fires, no one fighting the fires, hence destruction was, unsurprisingly, more complete.

                • X says:

                  Bigger buildings, longer fires, no one fighting the fires, hence destruction was, unsurprisingly, more complete.

                  So unsurprising that complete destruction occurred three times on the same day and yet you have admitted that all three WTC collapses look nothing like the other collapses of a steel building due to fires.

                  You invoke unsurprisingly implausible stories that defy physics in order to protect your sacred cows.

                  And now you have contradicted yourself. You said the WTC collapse toppled over but now you admit they were completed destroyed. Your narrative goofs are slipping a bit Jimbob Jones.

              • X says:

                Jim is this what happens when buildings pancake because two lower floors are removed?

    • Yara says:

      Steve,

      Clearly I’m cherry-picking the evidence to support my thesis. Therefore, it should be easy for you to prove me wrong. Rise to the challenge.

      P.S. Jim, please rescue my reply to Steve from spam.

  2. […] Collapse of Building Seven […]

  3. Joe says:

    Posting in idiot containment thread.

  4. The Cominator says:

    I wouldn’t make these posts on troofers. Troofers are like some malignant Lovecraftian horror even mentioning their name or things associated with them can attact their attention.

    • Nikolai says:

      Agreed. Troofers are nuts, you’ve proved so time and time again in the comments. Making actual posts refuting troofer claims gives them a sort of legitimacy that they really don’t deserve. It makes them think that they’re worth arguing against. Instead, treat them like Russia treats Pussy Riot

      • X says:

        Another “pointless and witless” Millennial, another fantasy and diarrhea disrespect for those who actually understand some physics and engineering.

        Your falling into the woodchipper and we will enslave you in feudalism where you belong.

        You might be a white male, but that is not sufficient. You actually need to not be an idiot to be member of our tribe.

        • Nikolai says:

          >Using your instead of you’re

          >Implying I don’t want to be a feudal serf

          You really don’t understand NRx my guy. You’re right about one thing though, I will never be a member of your tribe. I don’t have any Cherokee blood. It’s a shame really, I’ve always wanted one of those feather headdresses.

          • X says:

            A Millennial snowflake pretending he’s tough while hiding behind the anonymity of Internet.

            A pointless, witless, tree fell in the forest and nobody cared.

  5. Bill Muhr says:

    I don’t see that it’s even that interesting to talk about. Whether Building 7 or any of the others were assisted by explosions or not seems irrelevant to what we do know:
    * Planes hit the towers which had been hijacked by hadjis with weapons (including serious knives and mace- the ‘box cutter’ myth is an interesting story on its own)
    * Those hadjis had received direct support from senior Saudi Arabian embassy officials
    * Those hadjis were filmed as they hit the towers by happy Mossad operatives under cover of a ‘moving company’
    * Some of those hadjis had been moved, while present in the US, by small Israeli moving companies
    * Other Israeli tied companies had been working on fire suppression systems in the Towers
    * Saudi Arabia and Israel subsequently got 7/10ths of the regime change they wanted in the Middle East at the cost of white blood and treasure

    Whether Building 7 collapsed solely due to fire and debris from the planes, collapsed due to sabotaged fire suppression systems and fire, or was blown up, I don’t really see the relevance. Israel and Saudi Arabia should have been glass by the end of 2001.

    • jim says:

      > * Those hadjis were filmed as they hit the towers by happy Mossad operatives under cover of a ‘moving company’

      Liar.

      To the extent that the terrorists had their asses covered by US aligned authority, they had their asses covered by Robert Mueller, who ordered the FBI to ignore Muslim misconduct and stop arresting so many Muslims, probably for the same reasons of political correctness as Muslim rapeugees are being allowed to rape white children today, probably for the same reasons of political correctness as led Major Hasan’s colleagues to politely listen to his power point presentation on why he was going to murder them,

      And Robert Mueller hates Mossad, and Mossad hates Robert Mueller.

      • The Cominator says:

        “And Robert Mueller hates Mossad, and Mossad hates Robert Mueller.”

        Can you expand on this? I thought Freeh and ultimately Dubya were the real bad guys and Mueller was (as he is now) a lackey and a henchmen but not a guy who really makes decisions.

        • Roberto says:

          “Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA, told 20/20 that some of the names of the five men appeared as hits in searches of an FBI national intelligence database. Cannistraro told me that the question that most troubled FBI agents in the weeks and months after 9/11 was whether the Israelis had arrived at the site of their “celebration” with foreknowledge of the attack to come. From the beginning, “the FBI investigation operated on the premise that the Israelis had foreknowledge”, according to Cannistraro. A second former CIA counterterrorism officer who closely followed the case, but who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me that investigators were pursuing two theories. “One story was that [the Israelis] appeared at Liberty State Park very quickly after the first plane hit. The other was that they were at the park location already”. Either way, investigators wanted to know exactly what the men were expecting when they got there.”

          http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17260.htm

          After the investigating the issue for a few days, my conclusion is that CIA, FBI, and Mossad all knew that an attack would be imminent, but each agency failed to make use of its intelligence to prevent it. The 3 agencies were all over the place, but did not cooperate with each other, did not forward crucial information. Had there been closer cooperation, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

          Post factum, they are playing the blame game, with FBI and CIA accusing each other, and both accusing Mossad, of failure to share intelligence about the hijackers.

      • Bill Muhr says:

        ‘Muslims’?

        I guess I don’t really see the connection here. Obviously Muslims are following an alien religion and are vastly non-white, so they shouldn’t be in our countries.

        But we’re talking about very specific people who profess Islam. Prince Bandar, one of the main funders of the 9/11 attacks, and the Saudi establishment in general which is tied in so closely with Israel that I’m sure Benjamin Netanyahu has been to several of their parties where they defecate on kidnapped Eastern European prostitutes.

        • The Cominator says:

          Israel and Saudi Arabia have been allied openly since the Crown Prince’s coup. They were not close at the time of 9/11 (because Saudi Arabia was paying people to cause trouble in Israel) nor was Netanyahu prime minister when 9/11 happened (Sharon was).

          The coverup of high level Saudi involvement was part of the ACTUAL 9/11 conspiracy, anything that claims Israeli involvement is the phony TROOFER conspiracy to muddy the waters.

          James Woods saw Arabs doing a dry run (who matched some of the hijackers, yes the official story hijackers) he did not see Israelis doing a dry run.

          • Bill Muhr says:

            It is simply not true to claim that Saudi Arabia and Israel have only become close since that particularly disgusting man became Crown Prince.

            The only nations helping the Palestinians in any meaningful way, through funding Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, were Iran and Iraq. Both enemies of Israel. The Saudi scum were giving money that they stole through a special tax on Palestinian refugees to the PLO traitors who were seeking peace with the kikes.

            • The Cominator says:

              “It is simply not true to claim that Saudi Arabia and Israel have only become close since that particularly disgusting man became Crown Prince.”

              Muslim detected.

              Hes probably about the only Saudi who shouldn’t die. He actually arrested all the troublemakers in the Saudi royal family and all the ones responsible for 9/11. It is unfortunate he didn’t kill them but he did take most of their money away.

              • Bill Muhr says:

                Pretty funny coming from someone who openly supports the terroristic actions of the Saudi/Jew alliance aided by their puppets in the US against, for example, the people of Yemen, which will ensure that the US and UK are tarred with the same brush as the kikes and Saudi subhuman dogs who are behind that war.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think anyone here cares about either side in Yemen. We care about the sides in Syria, because one side wants to ethnically cleanse the Christians, and the other side does not, and because those in America who want the Christians ethnically cleansed and the Alawites genocided also want war with Russia. But Yemen? They all deserve each other.

                • Roberto says:

                  The alliance between Israel and Saudi is post 9/11, as Cominator says. At the time of 9/11 and some years afterwards, Israel still perceived Saudi as a rival, like Iran. These were Obama’s reckless policies that finally drew Israel and Saudi together, out of necessity.

                • X says:

                  We care about the sides in Syria, because one side wants to ethnically cleanse the Christians

                  Our fore fathers didn’t approve of getting entangled in such foreign alliances/conflicts because inevitably these are not about they seem to be about— just as moral panics (i.e. holiness spirals) are not usually about morality. It’s about about power struggles and employing deception to confuse the delusional Westerners into supporting their own self-immolation via derivative (dominoes) effects.

                  Trump is being totally duped on Syria. The CIA is covertly bringing about the chemical weapon attacks to justify funding the rebels which are attacking Assad. This is to create a proxy war in the Middle East with Russia and China so the superpowers are divided-and-conquered by the global elite Zionists-bankster-cabal. This cabal is the puppeteer of the DEEP STATE that is doing all this shit is the same one that perpetrated 9/11. It is the same cabal that tried to manipulate Russia and the Russian year 2000 elections. It’s also Prescott Bush who financed Hitler so they can could get the persecution they needed to bring about the Zionist state so they can continue to fulfill their destiny as the Beast in Revelation. The Pope is also involved. They’ve been doing this manipulation since at the time of the Bolshevik revolution which they helped bring about as Antony Sutton has documented with his detailed research at the Hoover Institute in the 1970s.

      • X says:

        And Robert Mueller hates Mossad, and Mossad hates Robert Mueller.

        Or Mueller wants you to believe he hates those who he actually is aligned with.

        Dupes can only see beyond the tip of their nose.

  6. Dave says:

    The government murdered 3000 of its own people in cold blood for a false-flag excuse to invade Muslim countries, yet when people threaten to expose this heinous crime, the government allows them to live.

    Yeah, right. Next up on Dave’s Pay-Per-View, twelve parents whose children died at Sandy Hook will be locked in a cage with twelve Truthers who say those children never existed!

    • Bill Muhr says:

      Actually Dave, only 300-450 of the government’s people died on 9/11.

      • X says:

        Actually Dave, only 300-450 of the government’s people died on 9/11.

        Those plebeians such as the firemen who worked for the government aren’t aligned with the scum-of-the-earth who perpetrated the 9/11 mass murder. Many of them have been dying due to cancer ostensibly due to being exposed to the dust which contained carcinogens such as asbestos.

        • Dave says:

          Any major terrorist attack on a big city is likely to kill hundreds of police and firefighters as they rush toward and into an unfolding disaster. You allege that the government casually massacred people who are widely regarded as American heroes. Then you doxxed yourself in another thread. Why has the government not killed you yet? They could hire some nigger to sneak up and shoot you, pretend it was a robbery, and the media would ignore it like they do with all black-on-white crime.

          • X says:

            Already answered before you wrote it.

            Btw, if some mofo sneaks up on me I might rip his heart out with my bare hands, show it to him, and start eating it before he dies.

    • jim says:

      Most reactionaries operate under cover. Troofers make their true names readily available to the FBI. If they believed what they claim to believe, would operate under cover.

      If they believed what they claim to believe, would not lie all the time, would not use manipulative methods of debate like getting you to think past the sale. If they believed they had evidence, would not try to get you to think past the evidence. When they claim they are going to present evidence, they instead present discussion that presupposes that the evidence has already been presented.

      • Yara says:

        >Troofers make their true names readily available to the FBI.

        Most of your so-called “troofers” are probably federally employed disinformation shills with the express mission of shitting up every attempted factual discussion of the subject.

        >When they claim they are going to present evidence, they instead present discussion that presupposes that the evidence has already been presented.

        In the context of this conversation, you are purely projecting. For example, you cherry-pick a still image of WTC 7, mid vertical free-fall, in which the roof is half-a-second tilted to one side. For example, you repeatedly assert:
        >uncontrolled fire
        >uncontrolled fire
        >uncontrolled fire
        With absolutely no photo- or videographical evidence to support your claim. Anyone with semi-opposable thumbs, a cell phone, and an Internet connection can watch the Youtube video showing 23 angles of WTC 7 collapse, which by no conceivable interpretation shows a building ablaze.

        I suspect that if you had better evidence, you would present it.

        • Yara says:

          *still image

          Correction: clicking the image redirects to an mp4.

        • Roberto says:

          >Most of your so-called “troofers” are probably federally employed disinformation shills with the express mission of shitting up every attempted factual discussion of the subject.

          https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/absent-without-leave-2/

          Why were they pushing this particular line, Yara?

          Was it merely to “shit up factual discussion,” or was it to make one specific party seem culpable and other parties seem as innocent as the white snow?

          • X says:

            Snopes is probably another CIA or Soros disinformation front.

            Why would Israel follow such a course of action, betray its staunchest ally, and doom thousands of innocent Americans to death?

            The answer is so fucking obvious that only an idiot could read that and not see that the article is written to confuse extremely naive people.

            Christopher Bollyn has rebuked that question in great detail.

            News accounts in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks demonstrated that Jews and Israelis did die in the World Trade Towers that day.

            He also explains that Jews died but all those who had allegiance to the Zionist state were warned beforehand. I haven’t fact checked that claim, and I don’t think it is as important as the physics and structural engineering analysis I presented at the top of the blog.

            • Roberto says:

              >Snopes is probably another CIA or Soros disinformation front.

              I don’t care about their pro-USG or left-wing bias, which is glaringly obvious. In the vast majority of instances, Snopes successfully debunks the idiocy of various troofer tales, such as the one I linked. The shitlibby “spin” is irrelevant; the facts themselves are relevant, and Snopes factually demolishes one troofer lie after another, which is why you hate them.

              • X says:

                If you don’t care and you think they have actually debunked, then your mind is not your own.

                Stop consuming propaganda if you want to not be a zombie.

                Fact check. Dig into the details as I have done.

                If you expect life to a lazy soundbite, then you will be a dupe. No way around it.

                I’m not saying that to be condescending. I am trying to help you as your fellow tribe member. But I can’t help you if you are lazy.

                • Roberto says:

                  So are you saying that the troofer tale about 4,000 Jews not showing up to work on 9/11 is true?

                  If you are not saying that, and agree that it’s a troofer lie, then why does it bother you that I link to a website that factually debunks this lie?

                • jim says:

                  He is a troofer. Troofers never own their claims. He will assert as undisputed fact that everyone knows to be true that four thousand Jews failed to show up to work on 9/11. And if you respond by pointing out yet again that they did show up for work, will agree that they did indeed show up, will accuse you of making a straw man attack, and agree yet again that Jews showed up for work as usual, shortly before denying yet again that Jews turned up for work as usual.

                • X says:

                  Roberto,

                  Is endless strawman arguments are hoisted by disinformation agents posing as “Troofers” and then refuted by the same disinformation agents, what bearing on reality does that have?

                  What would you think of the person who cited that as relevant to anything?

                • jim says:

                  You lie, all troofers knowingly lie, because all troofers change their story whenever refuted, and then shortly thereafter return to their original story without answering the refutation. All troofers use manipulative tactics to get the people they address to think past the sale, as for example, the “no plane wreckage argument” – a claim that there was no wreckage is a lie, and under pressure shifts into a claim of no large parts. Well of course there were no large parts -duh!

                • X says:

                  He is a troofer. Troofers never own their claims. He will assert as undisputed fact that everyone knows to be true that four thousand Jews failed to show up to work on 9/11.

                  Are you entirely incapable of understanding that Yara and I have pointed out that disinformation agents plant those inane claims. Why do you assign those claims to me when I have never made that claim.

                  Why would I claim 4000 people died on 9/11 when my last recollection of the death total was below 4000.

                  Also I have clearly stated that those of us who are more sober and circumspect in our analysis do not claim that no Jews were killed on 9/11.

                  The disingenuous here point their fingers at planted disinformation strawmen and then use that as an argument to discredit our attempts to explain the sober engineering and physics facts.

                  Those who use that tactic of argumentation here are thus in effect becoming disinformation agents, aiding and abetting the crime of the those who are trying to prevent readers from knowing the sober facts.

                  By planting all that hysterical, farcical disinformation, they have successfully turned off the readers from seeking the sober truth.

                  But some of us are not so easily duped. And we will win while the rest of you “witless and pointless” will fall into the woodchipper where you belong because you are too gullible and not able to discern fact from propaganda.

                • Roberto says:

                  A comment went into spam.

                • X says:

                  All troofers use manipulative tactics to get the people they address to think past the sale, as for example, the “no plane wreckage argument”

                  There was no recognizable airplane wreckage on the lawn immediately after impact. Just a some fair amount of bits and pieces of the stuff from inside the Pentagon that was blown out by the bomb that was planted inside. The bits of planted plane wreckage magically appeared after they evacuated the area for 1 hour forcefully removing everyone from the area under the pretense that another plane was incoming (which turns out to be the C-130).

  7. Kgaard says:

    Isn’t the bigger issue the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon and Shanksville?

    • Bill Muhr says:

      That is one claim pushed by false ‘Truthers’, who want to make questioning the official story look ridiculous (presumably due to Jewish or Saudi funding).

      But it isn’t true. The stooges only show irrelevant photos of the Pentagon (like the exit hole that one of the landing gear punched going OUT, not in).

      There is plenty of debris at both sites, and plenty big holes.
      https://www.patreon.com/posts/do-not-fall-for-14351788
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNr0CpPoTwc

      • X says:

        There is plenty of debris at both sites, and plenty big holes.
        patreon.com /posts/do-not-fall-for-14351788

        That is disinformation:

        1. The debris was planted on the lawn. Go to my sources for more details. See my quote below for the point about for example the evacuation of the scene that took places right after the crash. See the evidence of the pre-planted downed light poles, etc..

        2. The was never a single plane seat found. The small parts that were planted aren’t even amounting to one of the two a huge 4 ton engines on that commercial airplane.

        3. After they cleared the debris, the ground floor concrete slab had not a single mark on it. I have seen a very clear photo of this which shows the panorama of the gutted Pentagon so I’m sure it’s authentic and because the photos were released by the government.

        4. Not even the windows were busted where the 4 tons (each) of engines on the wings would have struck from from the hole produce by the nose.

        5. The hole was not 90 ft. That was the collapse after the fire burned from the bomb. The initial hole immediately after impact was tiny and the concrete pillars that were exposed at the face of the hole were leaning outwards exemplifying that the bomb force originated from within not struck from the outside going inwards. You should find a photo of this on the Internet.

        There was a plane. That is well documented by witnesses. And it is also well documented that it flew over the Pentagon at the last moment when the bomb was set off.

        Note an important webpage (also) about the Pentagon bombing which I had originally linked from my 9/11 blog. It has since become a dead link. I linked herein to the archived copies. Pay special attention to “Fig. 2. Army survivor April Gallop” which is a photo of the lady who was working inside the Pentagon “50 feet from the impact zone” when it was hit and she walked out the hole in the front of the Pentagon onto the lawn. I linked to her video testimony from my blog and that should be an eye opener because she describes damage inconsistent with an airplane crash.

        Let me quote a relevant section from my blog:

        (continue in next post because the spam filter is eating the whole post)

        • jim says:

          > 4. Not even the windows were busted where the 4 tons (each) of engines on the wings would have struck from from the hole produce by the nose.

          Liar:

          There was Flight 77 size and shape hole in the ground floor of the Pentagon, wingtip to wingtip.

          See The Right Blogger for the details.

          • X says:

            Augment my refutations of that blog by also noting that all the videos he provides of airlines flying very fast close to the ground are so high off the ground that they could not have struck the ground (first) floor of the Pentagon. As I said, when the engines are positioned very close to the ground at those speeds, a ground effect vacuum is formed and the plane would be sucked down into the ground and crash on the lawn. Since it did not crash on the lawn, then we know it is aerodynamically impossible for the claimed airliner to have flown at such high speeds close enough to the ground to impact the first floor.

            Additionally the flight school video cited by Jim’s source does not simulate the near to ground effect. It is only simulating the turn and descent some minutes before the alleged impact (and actually bomb exploding inside) of the Pentagon.

            Additionally the Citizen Investigation Team evidence concludes that the plane flew over the building. If that surveillance video is not faked, notice the (very blurry) plane appears to maybe be not even close to the ground, which would be consistent with witness testimony that the plane pulled up hard and accelerated just before impact. Note the eyewitnesses they video interviewed also have an eyewitness that was in the parking lot and saw the airplane fly over the building.

            Also the eyewitnesses cited by Jim’s source have been debunked in my blog and in Citizen Investigation Team research. When pressed in video, they admit they really did not see the plane impact, they only saw it fly over the highway and they lose sight of it because of the terrain and trees. This is all analyzed in great detailed by Citizen Investigation Team and I expounded on all the witnesses on my blog.

            Yara and I have both mentioned that the DNA evidence argument is a farce, as well as other planted and fabricated stories without any transparency nor verifiable chain of evidence collection and analysis.

        • peppermint says:

          Plane seata burn at the temperature that melts steel beams, which was obviously present in the photographs.

      • X says:

        Let me quote a relevant section from my blog:

        She said there was absolutely no wreckage parts of an airplane. Photos just after the explosion don’t seem to show any wreckage. Those who claim they saw passengers in airplane seats actually saw charred human remains perhaps next to charred office chairs, or they’re lying. No such photo of airplane seat or other extensive wreckage has ever been produced. The few small pieces photographed with AA logos could have been planted, such as during the chaotic evacuation of the area minutes after the initial explosion when the C-130 approached and the people were told a second hijacked airplane was incoming. The non-randomized sheared base of the downed light poles compared to similar light poles naturally downed by high winds indicates the 9/11 poles were staged with a blow torch.

        You need to actually go to my blog for all the cited links, because I can’t insert so many links into a blog comment lest it be filtered by the spam filter.

        P.S. Another gem from my “boring, mundane, overly profuse” 9/11 blog which everyone is too lazy to read and study in detail:

        Corbett reported that in the Arab world “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” has the colloquial meaning “I’m going to the toilet.” It’s implausible that ‘the toilet’ could be the name of an Islamic movement. It’s fiction.

        The Deep State (e.g. CIA) are openly mocking the dupes. I can imagine them smoking a cigar while reading these discussions wherein the dupes defend their enslavement.

        • jim says:

          > She said there was absolutely no wreckage parts of an airplane.

          There was the flight 77 landing gear, much bigger than a man, lying outside the Pentagon exit hole.

          Also, entrance hole was commercial airliner sized and commercial airliner shaped, while the exit whole was smaller than the Flight 77 fuselage, implying something mighty big hit the Pentagon, and most of it was still inside.

          • X says:

            [*fresh lies deleted. Please defend previous lies without continually introducing new lies.]

            • X says:

              Jim deleted the smoking gun evidence about the C-Ring exit hole being impossible to generate with an airplane impact when viewed from an aerial perspective. Not surprising he would delete that because his entire point is refuted.

              • X says:

                And note that the aerial photos make it very clear how easy it would be to plant that alleged wreckage undetected because the C-Ring comes out for the third inner atrium level of the Pentagon. It is quite shocking once seen from an aerial perspective.

                • jim says:

                  In one breath you tell us there were no fragments of flight 77, in the next breath you tell us that there were fragments photoshopped in, and your third breath, lots of fragments, but these fragments were planted.

                  There is a quite large pile of debris outside the exit hole. “Someone planting” implies he could drop it from his hip pocket. This looks more like you would need a fleet of fork lift trucks.

                  In any case, your original claim was no flight 77 debris, and now you are claiming someone planted the debris.

                  Did someone also move the wreckage of World Trade Center building seven from its footprint to the square between it and building six? Also in his hip pocket?

                  Joel Suchmacher, USA today multimedia editor:

                  “Ironically, the passage of emergency vehicles got traffic moving again, which was now crunching over twisted metal Sucherman guessed was the skin of the plane.”

                  Staff Sgt. Chris Braman, who was inside the Pentagon:

                  “The lawn was littered with twisted pieces of aluminum. He saw one chunk painted with the letter A, another with a C…[a man next to him]…This was a jet.”

                  Ret. Lt. Col. Tom McClain:

                  “I saw the remains of the engines in the North parking lot of the Pentagon as well as melted aluminum and other debris left from the aircraft.”

                  Tony Terronez, from a nearby highway:

                  “…something made me look in my rearview mirror and by the time I looked up I saw the side of the Pentagon explode.
                  was stunned…The side of a building just exploded! As the fireball got higher and higher, you saw this debris go up in the air. I’m watching this in my rearview mirror, and then I thought, `Oh my God, there’s debris coming toward me!’ So my reaction was, I ducked into my passenger seat and I heard the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete bouncing off my car. And the next thing you know, I heard this big crash come from
                  somewhere. [on the car next to him]…
                  Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. We got up to a certain point and there was this huge piece of something — I mean it was big, it looked like a piece of an engine or something — in the road. And there was somebody, definitely a security guard or maybe a military person, with his car in front of it making sure no one touched it.”

                  How are they planting the evidence with all these people around seeing the evidence rain down?

                  In any case your original claim was no signs of flight 77, then you switch to signs of flight 77 photoshopped in, then you switch to thousands of signs of flight 77, all of them planted, and then will very shortly switch back again to no signs of 77.

                  And, by the way, did the people who planted all this evidence of flight 77, also move the wreckage of World Trade Center building seven from its footprint to the square between it and building six?

              • jim says:

                You are just plane and simply lying barefaced about the evidence.

                The exit hole looks exactly like what would be produced by the flight 77 debris lying outside of that exit hole, and there is no way anyone could have planted that flight 77 debris outside the exit hole without a fork lift truck and a thousand people seeing him do it.

                • X says:

                  [*More lies deleted Please stick to the claims already allowed through, instead of supporting them with fresh claims that would require fresh rebuttals. Your efforts to overwhelm our bandwidth will just not be permitted*]

        • Roberto says:

          >in the Arab world “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” has the colloquial meaning “I’m going to the toilet.” It’s implausible that ‘the toilet’ could be the name of an Islamic movement.

          Nothing is implausible when it comes to Muslims.

          • X says:

            Nothing is implausible when it comes to M̶u̶s̶l̶i̶m̶s̶[Jim Jones cult followers].

            ftfy.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Don’t mock: identifying Muslims as a problem is often a first step to the general principle that outside influences can be a problem if allowed to run amok.

              The MSM didn’t know what they were unleashing when they encouraged ‘anti-towel-head’ sentiment in the oughts.

        • Calvin says:

          “Al Qaeda” means “the base”. The organization’s full name is “Al Qaeda al Jihad” or “the base of jihad”.

          Troofers are credulous morons.

          • X says:

            Your sources are incorrect. My sources went directly to Muslim scholars to get the non-propagada translation. You can refer to the link in my blog to the source.

            • Calvin says:

              A) Your sources are terrible and you didn’t site them.
              B) Muslims lie about literally everything, which I suppose is why you like them so much.
              C) I know a bit of arabic. You’re full of shit.

              • X says:

                The source were numerous Western scholars that study Arabic languages their specialization. Apologies if that wasn’t clear in what I wrote before.

                Sorry your Google searches don’t constitute expertise in Arabic translation.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Arabic’s notoriously imprecise: it lacks vowels for a start!

                  There’s a reason why Germans and French require infinite nuance and precision in their communications and why third worlders just don’t.
                  I know it’s tempting to assume Africans who only have number words up to three are just retarded, and this could be an adequate enough explanation, but a simpler one would just be they have no need for them, never having bothered with book-keeping.

                  Likewise to a lesser degree Arabic: they have book-keeping but their poetry’s rudimentary (sorry Goethe) and the range of things they need to express to one another very limited. It’s surprising how far you can get in Muslim society with just ‘haram’ ‘makruh’ and ‘halal’.

                  Much to admire, but language not so much.

                • peppermint says:

                  I’ve always found the ‘s clitic annoying. It’s used almost exclusively by ghoulish midwits when they think they’re in charge.

      • X says:

        [*Deleted because resorting to the standard Troofer tactic of issuing too many rapid fire lies too fast to refute*]

        • jim says:

          > The hole in the facade that involves both the first and second floor is only a fraction of 90 feet.

          Barefaced Lie

          I have seen the Pentagon entry hole, in images taken immediately after the attack with the fires still burning. It was the full width of Flight 77, wingtip to wing tip, Flight 77 wide, Flight 77 shape.

          And outside the exit hole on the other side of the building, was the Flight 77 landing gear.

          And, without retracting your claim, you will shift to a different claim, and then resume your original claim shortly afterwards.

          Troofers claim that the there was no commercial airliner at the Pentagon because of all the three planes, it the one that most obviously was a commercial airliner, (commercial airliner size and shape entrance hole, Flight 77’s landing gear near the exit hole) just as the claim that Building Seven went down like a controlled demolition, because of all the collapses, it was the one that that looked the least like a demolition (penthouse disappears first, then the entire outer shell of the building, having lost its interior support, tilts sideways towards the notch blasted in the outer shell on the south side like a tree tilting towards the axeman’s notch).

          Knowing that the Pentagon and Word Trade Center Building Seven are the two biggest and most glaringly obvious holes in their story, they pre-emptively lie about them. If they believed what they were saying, if they were mistakenly telling us what they honestly believed to be the truth, would use their strongest evidence, not the strongest falsification of their claims.

          • X says:

            The hole in the facade that involves both the first and second floor is only a fraction of 90 feet.

            Barefaced Lie

            Jim if you’re going to quote me out-of-context and delete what I wrote which (is archived here and) clarified that the 26 ft x 90 ft hole only comprised the lower floor, then I’m going to end the discussion. The point was that to fit the physical evidence seen in the montage photo I had linked to, then the wings of the plane would have to have impacted only at the ground floor level. That is important because it is physically impossible for the plane to do that at the speeds the government reported due to the ground effect aerodynamics. The plane can physically do those speeds near the ground, but the ground effect aerodynamics will suck the plane into the ground and it will not be able to travel any appreciable distance that close to the ground. Instead it would have crashed into the ground. Thus we know the officially released video showing some blurry object at ground level is a fake. Have you ever heard of Hollywood, special effects, and software such as Photoshop? Maybe you have been living in a cave and are completely unaware of what can be done with modern technology.

            You’re employing the same diarrhea overload disinformation tactic that you employed on the prior blog that turned the discussion into noise.

            The tactic you’re employing is what disinformation agents always do, so as to make the discussion entirely incomprehensible. They wish to bury the salient details under a pile of noise.

            If you want to have a genuine discussion with a white male, then you can’t censor. If you continue behaving like an insane monkey who can’t tolerate civilized debate, then you don’t want to have a discussion, so just accept that your blog is a circle-jerk for the “witless and pointless” Jimbob Jones cult. Do you have the cyanide Koolaid prepared?

        • jim says:

          > That webpage posits that perhaps the wings folded or disintegrated,

          Odd then that the Right Blogger has close up photos of the wingtip impact points on the Pentagon, as well as wingtip to wingtip images of the entry hole taken from a distance.

          Again you are trying to get us to think past the sale. You don’t bother presenting evidence for your outrageous and absurd lie that the Pentagon entry hole is too small, instead you present a discussion as if all sane and reasonable people agreed that the entry hole was too small, and were trying to think up explanations for its small size.

          In fact you don’t bother presenting evidence for any of your claims, instead deploying manipulative techniques to sneak them past the reader without the reader noticing, and if the reader does notice, you immediately retreat from the claim and disown it, only to later return to once again presupposing it to be true, as if it had never been disputed and as if you had already presented evidence for the claim.

          These are not the tactics of someone who believes what he is saying. These are the tactics of someone who knows he is lying, and is trying to sneak one past his victims.

        • jim says:

          Let us stick to the following lies, which are more than sufficient:

          That World Trade Center Building Seven fell like a demolition, all at once and straight down
          Actuall the Penthouse fell first, destroying the interior, then the entire outer shell of the building slowly tilted southwards towards the notch smashed in the outer shell on the south side, tilting rigidly like a tree falling towards the notch cut by the axman.
          Molten metal pouring out of the building
          Actually burning kerosene
          No Flight 77 debris and no plane size and shaped hole at the Pentagon
          There was in fact a Flight 77 sized and shaped hole going in, and major parts of the plane coming out

          If any one of these claims were true, would suffice to prove your story. If any of them are false, then one lie, all lies, and I am not going to chase down one hundred new lies after falsifying one of your lies.

          • X says:

            Molten metal pouring out of the building
            Actually burning kerosene

            Impossible. That molten metal pours out a few minutes before collapse thus was nearly an hour after impact. NIST claims the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes.

            There was in fact a Flight 77 sized and shaped hole going in, and major parts of the plane coming out

            The hole going in was too close to the ground to be plausible as already explained (note if explanations are deleted by our host without any mention of deleting them as he has done several times, they are always archived at archive.is or .org).

            The C-Ring hole at the inner corridor wall coming out is farcical. I hope you continue to argue that. And I am surprised you think such small planted items are major parts of an airplane.

          • Yara says:

            >Let us stick to the following lies, which are more than sufficient:

            It’s completely reasonable to limit the scope and scale of discussion to a few manageable items, provided the items are well-chosen, and I believe your items are well-chosen.

            >1: WTC 7 fell like a demolition, all at once and straight down
            >2: At numerous of the available 23 angles of the WTC 7 collapse, the Penthouse is visible disappearing in excess of 5 seconds before main sequence collapse

            Your implication, I believe, is that these are mutually exclusive events. This is not so. Some demolitions do indeed set off their charges synchronously, but it is a common tactic to collapse the inner structure first so as to increase the cleanness of the collapse.

            >If any of them are false, then one lie, all lies

            This also is not the case. The events that occurred at WTC 7 vs. the Pentagon, for example, are discrete physical phenomena. One can quite reasonably observe the obvious and straightforward demolition of WTC 7 and use it to cast doubt on the authenticity, [*Fresh lies deleted, to avoid getting distracted by new rebuttals, while the liar refuses to notice previous rebuttals*]
            Here is an example of an ideological strawman:

            >the entire outer shell of [WTC 7] slowly tilted southwards towards the notch smashed in the other shell on the south side

            And here is my response to your ideological strawman:

            Really? I’ve looked at quite a few photos and videos of WTC 7 and[*Fresh lies deleted, to avoid getting distracted by new rebuttals, while the liar refuses to notice previous rebuttals*]

            • jim says:

              > >1: WTC 7 fell like a demolition, all at once and straight down
              > >2: At numerous of the available 23 angles of the WTC 7 collapse, the Penthouse is visible disappearing in excess of 5 seconds before main sequence collapse
              >
              > Your implication, I believe, is that these are mutually exclusive events.

              I never mentioned the fact the Penthouse fell seven seconds before the outer shell. Rather, the point is that in the later fall of the outer shell of the building, the fall starts by itss visibly rotating towards the south like a falling tree, not going straight down like a demolition.

              > One can quite reasonably observe the obvious and straightforward demolition of WTC 7 a

              But there is absolutely reasonable or obvious about it. It just does not look like a demolition. As I said, the start of the collapse looks like a tree falling towards the axeman’s notch.

              • Yara says:

                >[*Fresh lies deleted, to avoid getting distracted by new rebuttals, while the liar refuses to notice previous rebuttals*]

                I’ve forgotten what I wrote, so I guess it must not have mattered anyway. Something about known demolitions, I think.

                >I never mentioned the fact the Penthouse fell seven seconds before the outer shell

                Previously you denied this fact, and I never mentioned seven seconds, only ever “in excess of five” (I’m pretty sure), so is this an acknowledgement? Because it reads like an acknowledgement.

                >As I said, the start of the collapse looks like a tree falling towards the axeman’s notch.

                But Jim, there was a notch in WTC 1, where a 767 had blown out some of the structure, and there was a notch in WTC 2, where a 767 had likewise blown out some of the structure, but there was no notch in WTC 7, which no airplane of any size ever hit, despite that you have repeatedly asserted it being “impacted” by something.

                The only explanation I have for your reasoning is crimethink, unless you want to explain what impacted WTC 7 and created its “notch”.

    • jim says:

      There was plenty of civilian plane wreckage at the Pentagon. I have not checked out the facts of Shanksville. What makes you think there was no plane wreckage at Shanksville?

      • Yara says:

        >There was plenty of civilian plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

        I looked up photos and didn’t see any. Here are the two best pictures I found in a few minutes of looking:

        1: https://i.imgur.com/CIZ5ehp.jpg

        2: https://i.imgur.com/rM7Op2a.jpg

        Do you have better photos?

        • jim says:

          Plenty of photos of the Flight 77 shaped hole that Flight 77 made going in, and the Flight 77 plane parts that made all the way through and came out the other side.

          • Yara says:

            Thanks for the link.

            I’ve reviewed the pictures and videos available at the supplied link, which presumably contains most of the best evidence available concerning the crash of a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon.

            Interestingly, the only pictures or videos that contain a Boeing 757 are computer-generated. In the real pictures of the crash site there is no identifiable airplane wreckage, and the real video shows an outward explosion with no airplane at any point.

            I’ve seen several airplane crashes, and I’ve personally witnessed two. The behavior of the NTSB in the aftermath of any accident, however small, I would liken to a pack of hyenas descending upon the scene. In none of the supplied photos are they in evidence.

            I didn’t expect for there to be photographs of the Boeing 757 crash site without a Boeing 757 in them, nor pieces of a Boeing 757, nor the NTSB swarming the joint, nor for the photos to be so many in number. I’m hereby updating my “airplane crashed into the Pentagon” judgement from “ambivalent” to “highly skeptical to the extreme”.

            I hadn’t looked into the Pentagon crash previously, so thanks for the evidence.

            • X says:

              In the real pictures of the crash site there is no identifiable airplane wreckage, and the real video shows an outward explosion with no airplane at any point.

              [Fresh lies deleted*]

              • EBN says:

                Barefaced lie. Plane debris was clearly visible in the very first Pentagon photos, most notably the Flight 77 landing gear just outside the exit hole in the pentagon, which was the first thing anyone saw on that side of the building, and which was far too big and heavy for someone to easily place after the event.

                Claiming there is was no plane debris in around the pentagon is as transparent a lie as claiming the that World Trade Center Building seven fell straight down onto its own footprint.

                Did someone carry that in his hip pocket and unobtrusively drop it out when no one was looking?

                There is no plane debris on the side of the Pentagon that the plane went in.

                There is plenty of plane debris on the side of the Pentagon that small bits of plane and passengers came out of.

                • X says:

                  Why are you displaying a photo of wreckage that is not from the Pentagon while responding to my comments about alleged wreckage at the C-Ring of the Pentagon?

                  You are attempting to spread disinformation.

                  This blog is populated by disinformation sockpuppets of Jim posting to his own blog.

                • jim says:

                  This photo is what everyone saw immediately after the crash – the landing gear and the engines of Flight 77 exited the Pentagon, and were the first things that everyone saw immediately after the incident. Large numbers of witnesses witnessed the Flight 77 debris outside the exit hole, and witnessed each other witnessing the Flight 77 debris, and photographed each other witnessing the Flight 77 debris

                  And, by the way, have you abandoned the claim that World Trade Center Building Seven fell straight down on its own footprint, or will you shortly return to that lie as a distraction from the rebuttals of your Flight 77 lies?

                • X says:

                  That photo of a wheel was taken in New York not near the Pentagon.

              • jim says:

                You present an obvious blatant lie, someone introduces evidence countering your lie, and instead of responding to the evidence, you come up with a dozen more obvious lies. You can present more lies faster than anyone can possibly refute them. Instead of presenting evidence and argument, you just overwhelm reader bandwidth.

              • X says:

                Jim deleting links to the smoking gun evidence again.[*Smoking gun evidence deleted again*]

                • jim says:

                  That is not evidence. That is another liar telling more lies, without presenting any actual support for these lies. His lies support your lies, but what supports his lies?

                  Let us stick to discussing the question of whether World Trade Center Building seven fell straight down on its own footprint, or fell down on the square south of it, the square between building seven and building six.

                  By introducing thousands of fresh lies, you exhaust the reader’s bandwidth for hearing rebuttals of these lies.

                • X says:

                  The supporting evidence was at the original link you deleted. Censorship is for idiots who can’t defend their arguments.

                • X says:

                  It appears to me that Jim’s ethics may be that he is willing to give intelligent people their freewill while fulfilling his obligation to provide a woodchipper for the witless to fall into.

                  So this is why he deletes obvious pathways to the truthful links but he leaves the more roundabout means of discovering the links and information open for those who are not idiots.

                  This is the modus operandi of a very intelligent higher level echelon of agents of the global elite. He knows full well that his role in nature is to provide just enough rope for the numbnuts to hang themselves with (a productive activity that increases entropy on universal trend thus congruent with nature). Yet he knows that to attempt to destroy the maximum division-of-labor would be fruitless and counter productive.

                  Anyway, I think we’re done here. For those who are diligent they will discover the very clear truth about 9/11, including the answer to those 4 questions I was asked. That includes the well researched speculation of what happened to the people on board the airplanes.

                • jim says:

                  There is a storm of lies for anyone who spends time looking for them, but I am not allowing them fill up my blog and waste my reader’s bandwidth.

                  Thing is, if I let you make a thousand claims on my blog, then for each such claim I feel obligated to look into it – and that takes more time than I have, and more time than anyone can possibly have.

                  And whenever I look into a troofer claim it is always an obvious lie, with absolutely no supporting evidence, contradicted by readily available evidence. For example “Building seven fell straight down into its own footprint”. No it did not. Fell into the square south of it, as one would expect given that the south face of the building was on fire and massively damaged.

                  I have arbitrarily selected a small set of troofer lies for exposure. The other ten thousand are off limits and will be censored. If anyone else wants to look for them somewhere else, fine by me.

                  So any time you claim something that might be true, but does not sound very believable, and I don’t have the time to look into it, I am just going to censor it.

                  Neither will I let you link to someone else lying and say “this proves X” when it merely proves that you have no end of people willing to say X, with none of them willing to provide any evidence for X, particularly when X is apt to suddenly change into Y, and Y into Z, and Z back again into X.

                  Thus “no debris from flight 77” changes to “photoshop”, changes to “debris planted” – and will very shortly change back to “no debris from flight 77” again.

                  And, by the way, what is happening with your claim that World Trade Center building seven fell on its own footprint, rather than falling south into the square between it and building six? Do your retract, are you willing to provide evidence, or will you simply issue one hundred fresh lies on a hundred fresh issues, and then return to telling us again that old lie that building seven fell on its own footprint again, and again, and again, each time without evidence or explanation?

    • Kgaard says:

      Yes exactly. I have never seen a photo of anything that looks like a plane wreck. There are never any pieces larger than can be carted around by a couple of guys. There are no plane wrecks that look anything like Shanksville or the Pentagon.

      I will say that Bill Muhr’s link about how there is actually a big blown out portion of the pentagon on the ground floor is a good rebuttal to the photo of the small round hole. But still … no planes. Shanksville is even more dramatically absent of plane wreckage than the Pentagon. If somebody can show me something that looks like a fuselage or a tail or ANYTHING bigger than like 3 feet x 3 feet, well, I will revisit my stance.

      • jim says:

        > Yes exactly. I have never seen a photo of anything that looks like a plane wreck.

        There was a Flight 77 shaped entry hole in the Pentagon, a landing gear shaped exit hole, and a short distance beyond the landing gear shaped exit hole, the Flight 77 Landing gear.

        That is because when a plane hits at full plane speed, disintegrates into a cloud of quite small fragments.

        You only ever see plane shaped wrecks when an attempted landing goes wrong.

        The only parts that survive are a few extra heavy strong chunks – the core of the landing gear, and the core of the engines.

        Flight 77 created a plane shaped hole in the bottom story of the pentagon. It was flying at ground level and rapidly gaining height when it hit (looks like he dived too soon and was pulling out of his dive when he hit) with the result that anything that did not disintegrate exited through a spray of holes in the story above ground level, the largest surviving object, and the largest hole, being the Flight 77 landing gear, which wound up intact on the ground a short distance from the pentagon.

        You don’t see a plane shaped wreck. You do, however, see identifiable plane parts, the largest single surviving piece being the Flight 77 landing gear at the Pentagon, a short distance from a roughly Flight 77 landing gear shaped exit hole in the Pentagon.

      • Roberto says:

        >If somebody can show me something that looks like a fuselage or a tail or ANYTHING bigger than like 3 feet x 3 feet, well, I will revisit my stance.

        But what is your stance? That flight 93 never happened? There were 44 people abroad: 33 regular passengers, 7 crew members, and the 4 hijackers; and the passengers even managed to make phone calls to their family members. (Or are they fake also?)

        http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/vic.heroes/?related

        Let’s say that there is no footage of large-scale wreckage from flight 93. Absolutely none at all. Should then the natural conclusion be “the flight never took off, or was not hijacked, or did not crash, or never even existed in the first place; and the people abroad it were all crisis-actors making phone calls to their crisis-actor family members?” What is the conspiracy even supposed to be?

        • Kgaard says:

          Roberto … I agree it gets very strange very fast.

          • Roberto says:

            No, it really doesn’t. Flight 93 was headed toward the White House – when the hijackers realized that passengers were determined to get into the cockpit, crashed it into the ground. The phone calls allowed Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick, and Todd Beamer to know that terrorists had already crashes planes into buildings, so they must take over or else they would die. Without the phone calls and the ensuing resistance attempts by these 4 passengers, 93 would have successfully crashed into the White House.

            • Yara says:

              Consider just a few of USG’s known activities:

              * Hijacking the mail system and backdooring hardware en route to its destination;
              * Employing crisis actors for unknown reasons in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, which itself could have been fake (50/50);
              * Fighting ISIS while being ISIS, i.e. we’re on the side of “the rebels”, which we train, who are fighting ISIS, which is the Islamic State responsible for trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria, while we run air cover for “the rebels”, who are fighting ISIS but who the Syrian, Russian, and Chinese governments think are ISIS, etc. etc. etc.

              The only conclusion, I believe, is radical doubt of USG. Personally, I have no reliable way of knowing if Flight 93 even existed, or if it was simply ginned up by some bureaucrat in the bowels of NIST.

      • Roberto says:

        By the way, troofers actually do indeed claim that the phone calls were fake. For instance, Mark Bingham called his mother and said “this is Mark Bingham,” which according to troofers proves 100% that the entire thing was staged, since people just don’t normally talk like that.

        And so on and so forth.

        • Yara says:

          The clear implication of your comment is that if a person thinks that a phone call didn’t take place where it in fact did, that this person is stupid, evil, and insane for thinking that USG is not scrupulously.

          And furthermore, that the existence of people who are self-evidently stupid and crazy enough to question the veracity of an in-flight phone call itself disqualifies every other argument they might possibly make.

          This is your frame, it is the frame of one completely uninterested in factual conversation, and it is the frame that almost everyone plays into — including and especially X you unintentionally derailing fuck — but not me.

          • X says:

            IOW, as I have stated, by repeating the disinformation—that others (either unintentionally being they’re idiots or intentionally planted disinformation) promulgated—intended to be some form of indirect “attack the reputation” refutation of the more salient facts, is in fact a (perhaps unintentional or subconscious protection mechanism) disinformation tactic. How can facts have a reputation? Appeal to authority is viewed with great disdain in the hacker community.

            It’s not a valid argument to refute salient facts with noise about what other people said, that have nothing to do with refuting nor proving the said salient facts.

            On a meta level, there’s an interesting psychological effect involved here. By flooding the media and Internet will sensationalized, exaggerated disinformation noise (e.g. UFOs attacked the Pentagon, etc), this turns the public callous to finding the truth. It buries the truth under a pile of diarrhea so thick, that everyone immediately ridicules anyone who wants to talk about the actual salient facts.

          • Roberto says:

            The phone calls prove that Flight 93 took place, so of course, troofers need to claim that the phone calls prove that Flight 93 *did not* take place.

            Instead of concluding that people under very extreme psychological stress talk in a strange way, and that the family members with whom they talk might not remember the exact words transmitted during the phone calls verbatim, you conclude “therefore crisis actors.”

            Nobody here thinks that USG is above “manufacturing reality.” Jim himself doubts the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, for example, and I’m sure all of us agree that the gas attacks in Syria never happened. Government is itself a conspiracy, after all.

            But we are trying to figure out what happened on 9/11, and these “no planes existed, and the non-existent passengers on the non-existent planes were crisis actors anyway, and so were their family members, and so were all the witnesses” theories are indeed unhinged and undermine the rest of your counter-narrative.

            Conspiracies cannot be *that* big. CIA may want to be God, but is not God, and more than anything else, it must be very flattering to CIA to know that people ascribe to it the power that they do. In reality, CIA propagandizes by changing the *perception* of events, rather than by outright inventing events that never happened, except when absolutely necessary.

            Troofism is part of that. Troofism is a psyop by the Inner Party within USG meant to convince you to interpret — e.g., deny — certain events in a manner that the deep state favors, i.e. to shift blame for misbehavior from the clients of the Blue Empire (Muslims and other darkies) to the clients of the Red Empire (Zionist Jews). That is why your internet looks the way it does.

            (I sometimes wonder what would happen if Israel started doing to CIA what USG is constantly doing to Mossad. Imagine, “The attack on the USS Liberty never even happened: 10 reasons why the CIA hoaxed the whole thing.” No more ridiculous than saying that flights 77 and 93 never happened)

            That’s all there has ever been to Troofism.

            • X says:

              The phone calls prove that Flight 93 took place, so of course, troofers need to claim that the phone calls prove that Flight 93 *did not* take place.

              Who is claiming that Flight 93 did not take place?

              Phone calls don’t prove that Flight 93 hit the Pentagon. They don’t prove where Flight 93 ended up.

              We could even go one step further while still being sane. The phone calls don’t prove where the phone calls were made from, nor prove that the data wasn’t manipulated, even if we accept that the calls are legitimately involving the humans they came to be on the call.

              You demonstrate such weak logic skills that I don’t know how you can possibly trust yourself (other maybe to trust yourself to wank off and brush your teeth, sorry to say frankly).

              Nobody here thinks that USG is above “manufacturing reality.”

              Well that’s an improvement in attitude. But for some reason, 9/11 is some sacred cow that blocks the pre-frontal cortex of you monkeys. Why is that? I strongly suspect you are disinformation agents. Or is there some other reasonable explanation for your very weak powers of discernment and logic on this issue?

              But we are trying to figure out what happened on 9/11, and these “no planes existed, and the non-existent passengers on the non-existent planes were crisis actors anyway, and so were their family members, and so were all the witnesses” theories are indeed unhinged and undermine the rest of your counter-narrative.

              I have never claimed such nonsense. I have actively refuted troofers here who post such grandiose, fantastical claims which lack sufficient evidence.

              So why do you associate me with them? Because you’re mind has been programmed by their propaganda.

              Conspiracies cannot be *that* big. CIA may want to be God, but is not God, and more than anything else, it must be very flattering to CIA to know that people ascribe to it the power that they do. In reality, CIA propagandizes by changing the *perception* of events, rather than by outright inventing events that never happened, except when absolutely necessary.

              I trust irrefutable physics more than I trust your (already demonstrated to be poor reasoning skills based) judgments of what secret agencies are capable of.

              Troofism is part of that. Troofism is a psyop by the Inner Party within USG meant to convince you to interpret — e.g., deny — certain events in a manner that the deep state favors, i.e. to shift blame for misbehavior from the clients of the Blue Empire (Muslims and other darkies) to the clients of the Red Empire (Zionist Jews). That is why your internet looks the way it does.

              So that’s your sacred cow. You hate leftists so much and you are so convinced that Mueller did this all by himself with some incompetent Muslims, that you refuse to admit your own Neocons have always been in bed with the other side.

              The red/blue shit is a lie. The DEEP STATE has two heads but they both share the same heart and goal. They work together to deceive the public and get us to waste our time arguing about politics while they rob us blind because we’re so easily duped by the red/blue divide-and-conquer paradigm.

              • X says:

                Apology very sleepy. Flight 77 is the one claimed to have hit the Pentagon. Nevertheless all my points above remain.

              • Roberto says:

                Troofers have the uncanny ability to write millions of words without actually making any argument. I say that troofism is intended to shift blame from clients of Blue Empire to clients of Red Empire; you respond with “nah mang, it’s all the deepstate n’ sheeeit.” It’s not serious.

                • Yara says:

                  >I say that troofism is intended to shift blame from clients of Blue Empire to clients of Red Empire

                  There’s no difference, lol. Jim has past accused me of variously supporting, and being employed by, Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI coincidentally (not so coincidentally) from September 4th, 2001 (exactly one week before September 11th) to September 4th, 2013, and Trump Haranguer and Aspiring Revolutionary for the last 2 years.

                  Why did Deep Red Olde WASP Ultimate Republican Robert Mueller suddenly turn his coat and work for Deep Blue Progressive Jew Master of Justice Rod Rosenstein?

                  Oh wait: he didn’t. He’s always been of the same Deep Purple clique of treasonous, above-the-law American royalty.

                  Guess what, maaan. It is, in fact, all the Deep State, n’ sheeeit.

                • jim says:

                  I see no sign that Rober Mueller was ever deep red. He was always part of the program to dump large numbers of black male Muslim military age rapeugees on marginal federal electorates.

                  Red Empire proxies and blue empire proxies frequently get into shooting wars, and in the course of these shooting wars are apt to throw out blue state diplomats and blow up red state soldiers, thus a fairly serious level of conflict is undeniable.

                  All your arguments serve the interests of the blue state against the red state – including representing Mueller as a republican.

                • Yara says:

                  Mueller was appointed by George Bush the Lesser to be Director of the FBI, and if George W. wasn’t a Republican, then just who the hell ia? and if the FBI isn’t “Red”, then just what the hell is? Maybe NSA? Half of the Pentagon? Is that it?

                  In any case, I’m tarring Mueller as probably being involved in the cover-up. I don’t see how that’s an argument for the sociobiological obliteration of formerly American territory.

        • Yara says:

          *scrupulously honest

      • X says:

        I will say that Bill Muhr’s link about how there is actually a big blown out portion of the pentagon on the ground floor is a good rebuttal to the photo of the small round hole.

        Nobody who is sane is claiming there was only a small (farcical) C-Ring hole in the front. That C-Ring hole is in the back at the inner wall of the section of the Pentagon which was attacked.

        Those who are claiming that there was plane, claim it did approach and flew over the Pentagon as key eyewitnesses (including contributing testimony from two police officers and even the infamous cab driver admits when he thought he was not being video recorded that he actually lied about the light poles hitting his cab) have detailed at the Citizen Investigation Team website which is impeccably detailed investigative work that everyone should be reviewing.

        The problem with the hole we see at the front of the Pentagon is that only portion of the hole which spans ground and second floor is a very narrow portion (some argue where the fuselage could have impacted). The 90 ft width of the hole is only comprising the ground floor. This would mean that the wings would have impacted at the ground floor. As I have explained in my reply to Jim, this is impossible due to the aerodynamics of ground effects which at the speeds reported by the government would have sucked the plane into the ground causing the engines to crash in the field. We see no such crash on the field, thus we know the official story is faked.

  8. Roberto says:

    Just watch here from 5:54 (and again from 6:54). Doesn’t look at all like a controlled demolition. The start of the collapse looks exactly like a tree falling sideways, as Jim says.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w&t=302s

    • Yara says:

      Trees topple. When they come to rest on the ground they’re as tell horizontally as they were vertically.

      (Jim, you must admit: comparing WTC 7 to a tree was a fatal mistake. (Even I never made that connection previously.))

      • jim says:

        > Trees topple. When they come to rest on the ground they’re as tell horizontally as they were vertically.

        Buildings topple, but being larger than trees, after they have toppled for a bit, they fall apart and come down vertically in many small pieces, whereas a tree makes it all the way to the ground in one piece.

        The outer shell of World Trade Center Building Seven made it roughly a quarter to a third of the way to the ground in one piece and then started acting as if demolished by explosives.

        • X says:

          Buildings topple, but being larger than trees, after they have toppled for a bit, they fall apart and come down vertically in many small pieces, whereas a tree makes it all the way to the ground in one piece.

          Are you not ashamed when you make all the structural engineers run away from your childish blog?

          Even the simple Newton’s laws would inform you that a body in motion stays in motion until it is impacted by another force.

          We are talking about a steel building here, not a Muslim castle constructed out of sand being poured out of the eye of a camel in some Alibaba mirage. Photos of the collapse of other steel buildings such as the Plasco building and the Windsor Tower fire, exemplify that when buildings collapse due to fire then they end up in an entangled bent (not cut) mess that can’t completely collapse due to the resistance of the entangled mass. Buildings don’t spontaneously destruct into entire collapse comprised of appropriately cut sections onto their original footprint without controlled demolition.

          Also note the Plasco building is not even constructed with 47 center core columns that were thicker than huge oak trees at the base. So there’s no possible way the WTC entirely disintegrated without controlled demolition. Those who defend the official story are duped (and frankly I ponder if they even have a functioning brainstem).

          • Yara says:

            This is the single strongest comment you have made thus far. I doubt you will get a response. Not getting a response is a good sign — it means Jim was unable to poke a hole in your logic even with his superabundant rhetorical abilities. Getting a reply, especially a factual reply citing primary evidence, like Jim’s replies about molten metal, is a bad sign — it means that your argument is sufficiently weak that he feels comfortable addressing it on its technical merits. Why would you get distracted by some colored sparks of uncertain provenance when the whole fucking building collapsed, and why would you get distracted by WTC 1 and 2, which everyone knows about, when there’s WTC 7, which no one does? Misdirection is why.

        • Yara says:

          >and then started acting as if demolished by explosives

          So now we’ve worked our way up to “WTC 7 started acting like it was demolished like explosives”. Very good.

  9. Invader Zim says:

    1. Somebody flew two jet airliners smack into two skyscrapers.
    1a. The people who did this were either Islamist terrorists acting for the glory of Allah, or else they were Islamist terrorists who thought they were acting for the glory of Allah but were in reality acting in the interests of Mossad.

    2. Whoever they were, the people who crashed the planes into the buildings DID NOT KNOW IN ADVANCE that doing so would cause the buildings to entirely collapse. Their intent was to cause destruction and mayhem, and to enact the symbolic defacement/castration of an icon of American power.
    2a. Had the towers not fully collapsed (an unexpected added bonus) the propaganda value might have actually been much greater: two hulking, smoking, castrated stumps/splinters of American greatness humbled by Islam, which now would have to be slowly, laboriously, painfully disassembled by their own creators. If I were Leni Riefenstahl, I know which option I’d choose.

    3. No one involved in this operation knew, expected, or cared that WTC7 might or could collapse as well. WTC 7 had zero symbolic value. I worked for a few years in the Wall Street/FiDi area back in the 1980s, and I, an American and a native Noo Yawker, had absolutely no idea that WTC 7 even existed. I can assure you that Mohammad Goatf@cker and Shlomo Schemerberg did not, either.

    4. Of course, if Mossad was involved in this, as seems highly bloody likely, then of course Larry Silverstein and (((dozens of interested parties))) have a lot of ‘splaining to do.
    4a. But anyone who thinks it was a controlled demolition has to account for literally hundreds of miles of magic invisible det-cord, lengthily and laboriously installed in plain view, which somehow nobody in a very busy building in a very busy Union-controlled city, managed to ever notice.

    Occam’s Razor / I Ching verdict: scheming Jews manipulate stupid Arab fanatics, in order to get even dumber Americans to fight wars and do bidding of scheming Jews. Larry Silverstein and (((others))) get big payouts, wow, extra gravy. Fortune favors the bold.

    • Roberto says:

      >Of course, if Mossad was involved in this, as seems highly bloody likely, then of course Larry Silverstein and (((dozens of interested parties))) have a lot of ‘splaining to do.

      What should Silverstein “of course” be explaining?

  10. Yara says:

    You NIST citation:Is a revision of history
    [*Rest of comment deleted for linking to liars, thereby wasting reader bandwidth*]

    • jim says:

      If you say something is historical revisionism, you need to link to pre-9/11 history, in this case a pre-9/11 building code for steel framed buildings.

      When alledging revisionism, it is impermissible to link to something issued after the date of the alleged history revision. To claim that history has been revised, have to find pre-revision versions of history.

    • Yara says:

      >[*Rest of comment deleted for linking to liars, thereby wasting reader bandwidth*]

      Top fucking literal lol.

      Jim, the only link in that comment was to you.

      • X says:

        Jim, the only link in that comment was to you.

        Hahaha.

        It’s been a rough week for him. I sort of feel pity on these guys though. Must be tough to one’s ego and sanity, for someone to start facing the reality they’ve been wrong for 17 fucking years.

        • Yara says:

          No doubt. I was fortunate to have been in the middle of pretty much a 99% media blackout when it happened, so I wasn’t exposed to much of the real-time propaganda, and then was doubly fortunate to have “de-converted” (one might say) at about the time that Trump began his world-historical epoch-making ascent to the presidency, which I believe lessened the impact a great deal.

          Incidentally, https://youtube.com/watch?v=j-7bxI_XOoQ

  11. Yara says:

    In a previous post you requested that I clarify my vision of the future of computing. This is that clarification.

    What is the purpose of a computer, fundamentally? Like any tool, the answer, necessarily, is this: to augment man; to increase his natural abilities; to make him able where he was not; to make possible that which was not possible before, and to incorporate slivers of reality which were previously mere wisps of human intuitive thought.

    Why did Linux succeed where so many others had failed? It wasn’t technical excellence alone, for it had many capable competitors. It succeeded because it was free and open source, and unencumbered by user-hostile legal restrictions, yet prohibited arbitrary forking by profiteering corporate entities. Where did Linux fail? It was free and open source not just to humans, a noble enterprise indeed, but also to profiteering corporate entities, and though forking was successfully inhibited, it failed to internalize even one percent of the [ENORMOUS] value created by its existence.

    Red Hat, Inc. built its core business on its product, Red Hat Enterprise Linux. When Red Hat, Inc. went public in 2002, it was valued at 3 billion dollars. Q: What fraction of that enormous sum do you suppose went to its progenitor and patriarch, Linus Torvalds, without which it would not have existed at all? A: 1 million dollars, or 0.03%. Out of pity.

    Today the Linux kernel operates as a great computing commons shared by many corporate entities — something like XX% of its code contributions come from the top XX tech companies in the world. This is fine, fortunately, because it is also inevitable. But how might the successor to Linux succeed where Linux has failed? Here we have an interesting question indeed.

    Sociologically, a computer can be divided into 2 parts, hardware and software, and further subdivided into 5. In hardware: the processor, and peripherals; in software: the kernel, the OS, and the app.

    ARM is the future processor hegemon. Computers will continue to shrink and become more power-efficient, and Intel is a sinking ship. Additionally, Arm Holdings seems to do a pretty good job of managing fragility by creating the architecture and licensing it to manufacturers.

    The kernel is in for a reimagining. The future of computing is, evidently, highly parallel processing. Very highly parallel processing. The entire computing order based fundamentally on single threads is a dead end. The processor has grown as tall as it can, and now it’s going to grow horizontally until it exceeds the computation of the human brain. It has to be pretty much free to the end programmer to run his naïve program on hundreds of processors of providence he may not necessarily know. I have no expert knowledge in this field, but I would imagine that for this to be truly effective it has to be baked in to the base language, meaning the future probably looks pretty much like Rust.

    In luserspace, I would like to see the standard become a Lisp variant capable equally of filling the scripting role currently occupied by bash/zsh on one end and Python on the other, and the role of a general-purpose OS-application language filling the role of an Objective-C/Swift.

    The OS itself has to be capable of communicating to other similarly equipped devices end-to-end secure, zero config. A communications channel with the option of insecurity can never be made secure. This will eventually become infinitely important as people start literally wiring up their brains to these things — write-protection is going to be a really big deal.

    Up to now, the suggested processor / kernel /OS platform is pretty far out there, but I say we can go further!: let’s run the entire UI on a browser engine. This might initially sound utterly insane, but I don’t necessarily think it is.

    Consider: the web is the One True Platform; many billions of dollars have been poured into it already and there will be many, many more; it is already possible to create web interfaces that rival native implementations, and there is no reason to think that this fact will not continue to become all the more pronounced; and Brandon “Increasingly Apparently a Genius Supervillian” Eich recently announced WebAssembly, making the web platform formally a superset of app-level C, C++, Rust, .NET, Java, C#, Go, and possibly many others.

    I recently came across a spiffy new project by Mozilla called Servo. It’s a clean-sheet browser engine written in Rust. And the performance is insane. There’s a demonstration on Youtube in which the presenter mentions that Mozilla basically couldn’t find a website that Servo didn’t render at several hundred frames per second. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erfnCaeLxSI)

    Furthermore, if, in the worst case, the whole thing goes tits-up in some sort of reincarnation of M$ware’s BSOD, you just reboot the browser engine. Because you’ll have your state outside the engine, in your persistent Lispy quasi-OS/quasi-scripting/quasi-app language layer, the UI is essentially one enormous pure function.

    Finally, recall Atwood’s Law: anything that can be written in Javascript will eventually be written in Javascript. We can now extend that a bit: anything that can be written in any language compilable to WebAssembly will eventually be compiled to WebAssembly.

    And did I mention that you get billions of dollars’ worth of ongoing UI development for free?

    In terms of licensing, I think the answer is to release the whole thing under a dual license:

    One: an incredibly powerful viral copyleft-type license — for all non-commercial projects. It should be absolutely free to amateurs, hobbyists, charities, non-profits, maybe even governments, definitely schools, etc. etc. — free to get, free to use, and freely modifiable.

    Two: an incredibly powerful commercial license under which some percentage of value produced is captured by the custodian entity, the Computer Freedom Repository (CFR), and under which all desirable modifications are incorporated back into the main project. CFR thus occupies a role somewhat akin to a hybrid of a Visa/Mastercard/Amex point-of-use payment processor role and the traditional-historical Benevolent Overlord role of young Linus Torvalds.

    In addition, all modification and support are provided by CFR emissaries, technical experts who grew up learning the esoteric ways of the CFR computing platform. Naturally, they operate as elite consultants, living and working in the host corporation alongside the normie employees, mostly employed by the host corporation and fractionally by the CFR, which, equally naturally, negotiates on their behalf on key matters of personnel and policy, should they so desire.

    • X says:

      Where did Linux fail? […] it failed to internalize even one percent of the [ENORMOUS] value created by its existence.

      Thin protocols may be the solution to that.

      It has to be pretty much free to the end programmer to run his naïve program on hundreds of processors of providence he may not necessarily know. I have no expert knowledge in this field, but I would imagine that for this to be truly effective it has to be baked in to the base language, meaning the future probably looks pretty much like Rust.

      Rust is fundamentally incompatible with massive multicore, for the nonscalable cache coherency costs reasons I had already linked to (which readers will note that Jim entirely failed to grok). The solution is the Actor model and perhaps that could be the Zer0 programming language I am developing.

      In luserspace, I would like to see the standard become a Lisp variant capable equally of filling the scripting role currently occupied by bash/zsh on one end and Python on the other, and the role of a general-purpose OS-application language filling the role of an Objective-C/Swift.

      We believe homoiconicity is an anti-pattern, not a desirable feature. Visit the Macros issues thread for our discussion (c.f. links already provided).

      Brandon “Increasingly Apparently a Genius Supervillian” Eich recently announced WebAssembly, making the web platform formally a superset of app-level C, C++, Rust, .NET, Java, C#, Go, and possibly many others.

      You’re missing a lot of details. Webassembly has some serious deficiencies that for example make it impossible to support Go’s green thread stacks.

      One: an incredibly powerful viral copyleft-type license

      You pick a fistfight with entropy and you will lose. Viral license requirements are replaced by projects without them.

      Two: an incredibly powerful commercial license under which some percentage of value produced is captured by the custodian entity

      Thin protocols will obliterate any project based on such extortion and the power vacuum of fighting over who controls the pile of revenue.

      Sincerely,
      Your Dumb Rhetoric Idiot

      • Yara says:

        Your rhetoric is shit, yes, and your frame control is not very good, but your technical expertise no doubt far outstrips mine. I defer to your technical claims, which are probably substantially correct.

        Your claim regarding viral licensing is obviously false. GNU/Linux is licensed under the GPL, the prototypical viral license, and it is extremely successful. Linus Torvalds’ personal kernel, R.I.P., was also licensed under the GPL. Furthermore, my proposed licensing model is viral only on the non-commercial side, and it provides an ever-present “escape hatch”: just pay off CFR, the equally freedom- and profit-loving custodian of computing freedom. CFR’s message is simple: we make computing freedom free for private individuals, charities, etc., but if you want to make money by selling our stuff, pony up. And because it works on a revenue basis, there’s no up-front cost and no capital risk: just 1% or whatever of total revenue from products derived from CFR’s tech, like Visa/Mastercard/Amex charge a small percentage of all transactions handled by them.

        • X says:

          your frame control is not very good

          Excuses are for pussies, but … sleep deprivation causes brain damage. While sleep deprived with liver+spleen dysfunction, you would also suffer some degradation of your abilities. I have not showered for 3 months. I’m very busy.

          Also lack of control in one area can be in some individual cases a benefit to creativity (divergent insights) in another area.

          P.S. Richard Stallman is always right.

          How can you simultaneously argue for Marxism and free markets?

          Copyrights are anti-free market. I prefer the Unlicense.

          AFAICT, Stallman is contradicting himself. If s/w is to be free as in freedom, then we should not tell anyone what they can or cannot do with the s/w. Moralizing or militarizing licensing creates burdens. There will be at some future juncture a case where there are two choices and the viral license creates some clusterfuck, so the non-viral license wins. The obviousness of truth can be delayed.

          Thin Protocols enable everyone to participate in the value capture via tokenization.

          But one point I think they get wrong is that protocol specific utility tokens will be undermined by general purpose currency tokens. Currency is confidence and popular acceptance. So this means buy Bitcoin and work on open source aligned with decentralization. Maybe buy another altcoin that solves some problem of scaling that Bitcoin can’t.

          (excuse me very sleepy and shouldn’t be writing this now)

          • Yara says:

            Man, chronic sleep deprivation is one of the very worst things you can do for your transient IQ. Get that sorted out.

            >How can you simultaneously argue for Marxism and free markets?

            It’s a little bit of hyperbole. Not a lot, just a little.

            Stallman is a software commie: he believes that software should be free to use, free to examine, free to modify, etc. etc.

            It is my opinion that software should be free to use, free to examine, free to modify, etc. for all non-economic (non-corporate) entities. This latter point is where I believe GNU and/or Linux both went very wrong, and where both catastrophically undermined their core missions.

            Imagine how much better the world would be if, for example, Linus Torvalds were a politically savvy billionaire, quite possibly the wealthiest man in the world. Linux would be just as open source as it is now (free to use, free to examine, free to modify, etc.), but Google, Microsoft, Oracle and many others — many others — would be worshiping at his feet instead of contemptuously throwing him a bone every now and then.

            Linus could have had the clout to force driver writers to standardize their shit.

            Linus could have had the enormous wealth and power necessary to force the open sourcing of the hardware, up to and including processors.

            Linux open source conferences wouldn’t have been overrun by some of the weirdest fucking people I’ve ever seen.

            Linus could have kicked back in his royalty-sized colonial-style mansion and fended off the tranny freak circus in perpetuity.

            Just imagine.

            >Thin Protocols enable everyone to participate in the value capture via tokenization

            I must admit, I’m a bit skeptical. It seems to me that there will need to be like 3 standards at most to have any hope of mass adoption. People aren’t going to juggle more than 3 payment processors; there was never more than 3 major OSes; there are currently 3 (and a half, maybe) significant social networks; etc.

            >I have not showered for 3 months

            What. The. Fuck.

            • X says:

              It is my opinion that software should be free to use, free to examine, free to modify, etc. for all non-economic (non-corporate) entities.

              Due to shell games, it will become increasingly implausible/impractical to know whether someone is using it for economic or non-economic purposes. It’s possible to obscure what and where one is being paid for and by. Also the corporation is dying with the fixed capital industrial age. The knowledge age will be much more decentralized and so it will become more difficult to measure what you intended to limit.

              Imagine how much better the world would be if, for example, Linus Torvalds were a politically savvy billionaire, quite possibly the wealthiest man in the world.

              Then he would have huge vested interests to protect and would need to become as corrupt as Google, Intel, and Microsoft in order to protect his empire.

              In terms of other metrics of valuation (e.g. reputation), he is already a billionaire. Whether he can and will use that reputation to lead a new fork of renamed Linux that has a copyright which prohibits any Code of Conduit remains to be seen.

              Actually I think we need to toss aside much of the Linux OS and move to something based on Actors that can be enable a more performance massively multicore architecture that doesn’t employ hardware cache coherency, because that otherwise can’t scale to 100s of cores.

              I must admit, I’m a bit skeptical. It seems to me that there will need to be like 3 standards at most to have any hope of mass adoption. People aren’t going to juggle more than 3 payment processors; there was never more than 3 major OSes; there are currently 3 (and a half, maybe) significant social networks; etc.

              I agree there will likely be only up to about maybe 3 major cryptocurrencies eventually as the dust settles. But those who develop s/w for these main cryptocurrencies can HODL the cryptocurrency as part of their ROI for the open source work they do. The s/w they work on doesn’t have to be directly tied to working on the blockchain. And they will receive many donations of tokens from those who see that the ecosystem needs their s/w.

      • Yara says:

        P.S. Richard Stallman is always right.

  12. pyrrhus says:

    The conclusions from 2.25 seconds of free fall by building 7…https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

    • X says:

      [Deleted because applying the more lies faster method, telling more lies than anyone can rebut]

      • jim says:

        I told you: Stick only to the following issues: Molten steel, fell straight down, and no plane at the Pentagon. When one of your claims is rebutted, do not promptly issue twenty more claims and then act as though the original claim had not been rebutted.

        You are returning to the tried and true troofer tactic of issuing new lies faster than anyone can issue rebuttals, saturating other people’s bandwidth.

        The supply of bandwidth on this blog is limited, so I can only deal with three troofer lies. The other thousand troofer lies have to be merely censored.

  13. Calvin says:

    If the government was half as competently underhanded as troopers like to claim, then anyone remotely close to the true story would already be dead. Car accidents, murderous robberies, poisoning, just plain walking out one morning and never coming home. The fact that you’re still alive to spew this bs at us itself proves the deep state is not as competent as you allege or that you are fulfilling its agenda.

    • Roberto says:

      I generally agree, but Philip Marshall, his two teenage sons, and his dog, are no longer with us.

      Read a summary of what he alleged:

      https://larouchepub.com/other/book_reviews/2013/4011bamboozle_murder.html

      • Calvin says:

        Doesn’t it at all occur to you that if they did it they would have *stopped* the publication of the book first? Or subsequently?

        • Roberto says:

          I don’t know, honestly. Do they follow up on who’s writing what book?

          And, I mean, he was no typical troofer. The gist of his book is:

          >Marshall presents evidence that bin Laden’s role in 9/11 was a false flag, to cover for the fact that the funding, logistical support, tactical planning, and training of the 9/11 terrorist attack were all supplied by Saudi Arabia, whose role was covered up by blaming Osama bin Laden, who did not have the means to carry out such a sophisticated operation.

          >Secondly, he demonstrates that the operation was effectively facilitated, and then exploited, by the Bush family apparatus, which effectively stood down while the attack was occurring, and ignored warnings of the impending attack.

          >And thirdly, he exposes the roles in the coverup of Porter Goss, the House Chairman of the Joint Congressional Inquiry; Philip Zelikow, the director of the 9/11 Commission; and FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was appointed on Sept. 4, 2001. That coverup persists to this day.

          >Marshall points out that the 9/11 Commission never heard testimony from a civil aviation expert. As an expert himself, he writes that, “The flight profiles revealed that a tailored operating procedure was used to fly directly to predetermined targets, followed by a series of advanced hand-flown maneuvers that included rapid descents, steep turns and coordinated roll outs.” None of this could have been done without “critical inside help from aviation and tactical experts.” As a 20-year Boeing pilot and captain, he writes that he would have been “challenged to duplicate this performance without several practice flights.” The pilots could not have done this on the basis of the training they received in single-engine airplanes. Moreover, their civilian flight instructors all said afterwards, that in early 2001, none of the pilots was competent to fly Boeing airliners.

          >His conclusion is that they received advanced training in the final phase from Saudi instructors.

          >In the six months leading up to 9/11, four of the eventual hijackers travelled to Las Vegas. These hijackers were the pilots of the four planes that were used on 9/11. None of the other hijackeres went to Las Vegas. Marshall concludes that they must have received training at a site somewhere between Las Vegas and Tucson, Ariz. One possible location he identifes as Pinal Airpark, which had 757 and 747 Boeing planes on site at that time, and which is known to have been used by the CIA and the private mercenary company Blackwater.

          >Marshall argues that on 9/11, all four of the planes were supposed to hit their targets at the same time, but the hijackers of two of the planes that targeted Washington, D.C., were delayed in taking over the cockpits, which resulted in those planes flying further west than intended, and thus delaying the operation. Marshall’s point is that this delay exposed the fact that the Bush White House stalled in responding to the attack. Two military jets were sent up after it became clear that the first plane had been hijacked. However, no additional planes were deployed.

          >Not a single airplane was send out to defend Washington. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed afterwards that he recommended to Bush that orders be given to shoot down any incoming plane, but there is no record of any such orders being given, even two hours after the attack began. And even if such orders had been given, there were no planes in the air to follow the orders.

          /

          See? No dancing Israelis, no 4,000 absentee Jews, no controlled demolition, no crisis actors, and no Silverstein video. Unlike X and Yara, his allegations seem quite credible. But who knows.

          • The Cominator says:

            This all way more plausible rather then the typical troofer bullshit. Saudi Arabia did it and the Bush administration (though its possible Dubya was out of the loop, he did look surprised) more or less let it happen.

          • jim says:

            > there is no record of any such orders being given, even two hours after the attack began.

            It is absolutely obvious that the White House stalled in response to the 9/11 attack, that Hillary stalled in response to the attack on the Benghazi embassy attack in Libya, that Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s colleagues politely and respectfully listened to Hasan’s powerpoint presentation on why he was going to murder them, that every workplace I have been to has failed to notice shocking misbehavior by the females in its workforce right in front of the boss’s face, behavior that in a civilized society would result in them being hit with a stick and dragged off on a leash like a badly behaved dog, and that police turn a blind eye to Muslim rapeugees raping white women and children.

            The reasons for this are entirely mysterious. </sarcasm>

          • pdimov says:

            >The pilots could not have done this on the basis of the training they received in single-engine airplanes. Moreover, their civilian flight instructors all said afterwards, that in early 2001, none of the pilots was competent to fly Boeing airliners.

            Precisely.

            >His conclusion is that they received advanced training in the final phase from Saudi instructors.

            Or they received advanced training in how to input three waypoints into the autopilot.

    • X says:

      If the government was half as competently underhanded as troopers like to claim, then anyone remotely close to the true story would already be dead.

      This is not very smart.

      Can’t you think of any other possibilities that make your if A then B logic inconclusive?

      Let me help. For example, why would the government want to kill me when all of you faithfully regurgitate all the disinformation propaganda (including your quoted claim) that has been put out in the media and Internet for you. The perpetrators have no reason to fear me. I am helping them by allowing myself to ridiculed by dupes.

      In terms of those who were very close to the true story and potentially did have information that could blow this wide open, they are dead. There are numerous specific cases I could mention, but that will just derail this discussion away from the slam-dunk, salient, irrefutable facts about controlled demolitions.

      When you make that sort of statement, it indicates you do not focus on the relevant details and instead you choose to confuse yourself with irrelevant noise. Thus for example I would never want to work with you, because you lack the incision of an astute person.

      • Calvin says:

        You don’t take chances on a conspiracy like that. If they existed they would hunt you down and kill you.

        “Slam dunk, irrefutable facts”
        You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide any. Or, indeed, a cohesive narrative of what the hell happened on 9/11.

        Now watch X ramble on at length about how irrefutable his facts are without ever providing any instead of offering a clear and concise story of 9/11.

        • Yara says:

          Yawn.

          You’re not interested in facts, i.e. empirical inquiry, you’re interested in narrative, i.e. rhetoric. Hence: >a clear and concise story.

          • Calvin says:

            See how easy this is to predict? No facts, no logic, not even an attempt to claim anything. Just the same stale bullshit over and over again. But just to make this easy for you troofers:

            1)What do you claim hit the WTC and why do you claim it?
            2)What do you claim actually brought down the WTC and why?
            3)What do you claim caused the damage to the Pentagon and why?
            4)What do you claim happened to flight 93 and why?

            Now what X and Yara twist themselves in knots to avoid actually providing clear and falsifiable answers to these simple questions.

            • X says:

              You don’t take chances on a conspiracy like that. If they existed they would hunt you down and kill you.

              A man is not a faggot.

              No facts, no logic, not even an attempt to claim anything.

              Faggots lie and squeal.

              In this world cold-hard-irrefutable physics are facts. Apparently your snowflake virtual reality doesn’t obey physics.

              • jim says:

                > In this world cold-hard-irrefutable physics are facts.

                Your “physics” is just an excuse for introducing fresh lies that I have ruled off topic. We have limited bandwidth. Three troofer lies as much as we can handle, is perhaps more than we can handle. The other ten thousand troofer lies just have to be censored. Stick to the three that I have ruled on topic.

                You make thousands of improbable claims, and never seriously defend any of them. Whenever a claim comes under fire, you move on to numerous fresh claims. Stick to the three that I have ruled on topic.

                • X says:

                  Okay Jim.

                  You have your own free will.

                  I think Yara and I have done our civic duty.

                  I think you would like this discussion to end now correct?

                  I will be happy to oblige if so.

              • Calvin says:

                > In this world cold-hard-irrefutable physics are facts. Apparently your snowflake virtual reality doesn’t obey physics.

                Answer the damn question you lying faggot:

                1)What do you claim hit the WTC and why do you claim it?
                2)What do you claim actually brought down the WTC and why?
                3)What do you claim caused the damage to the Pentagon and why?
                4)What do you claim happened to flight 93 and why?

                • X says:

                  What part of high school physics do you fail to understand, such that you insist on replacing scientific facts with some story that somebody pulled out of their ass?

                • Roberto says:

                  Answers his questions, X.

                • X says:

                  Yara, so now you can see who remains here are disinformation agents. They try to force the discussion away from the irrefutable physics to some narrative they can control, because they can’t refute the physics. All they can do is censor it.

                • Roberto says:

                  He asked you 4 perfectly relevant questions. Stop being evasive and answer them.

                • Calvin says:

                  As predicted, simple and obvious questions that are literally just variations of “what do you claim happened and why” are beyond the troofer’s ability to answer. Nothing but autistic screeching all the way down.

                  Jim, why are allowing this to shit up the blog? It’s been going for weeks now, they’ve had plenty of rope with which they’ve hung themselves.

            • jim says:

              X will not answer, or rather will have far too many answers.

            • Yara says:

              >See how easy this is to predict?

              Yeah, you’re pretty easy to predict.

              >Now what X and Yara twist themselves in knots to avoid actually providing clear and falsifiable answers to these simple questions.

              Lol. I’ll bite.

              >But just to make this easy for you troofers:
              >1)What do you claim hit the WTC and why do you claim it?

              Which one? There were three that fell, and only two of them were ever claimed by anyone to have been hit by airplanes.

              I say that WTC 1 was likely hit by an airplane. Many people say they saw it and there’s a video of it.

              I say that WTC 2 was likely hit by an airplane. Many, many people say they saw it and there are several videos of it.

              I say that WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane, and to my knowledge not a soul disagrees with me.

              >2)What do you claim actually brought down the WTC and why?

              Which one? There were three that fell, and only two of them were ever claimed by anyone to have been hit by airplanes.

              WTC 1 and 2 were specifically built to withstand multiple impacts by jetliner, and WTC 7 fell without airplane contact of any kind. We are told by our ever-honest, ever-reputable, ever-trustworthy government that all three fell because of fire: jet fuel fire in the case of WTC 1 and 2 and ordinary office fire in the case of WTC 7. I’m unconvinced that there’s a significant difference in actual temperature between the two kinds of fire, but that quite beside, if WTC 7 was demolished and then lied about, it stands to reason that WTC 1 and 2 could have been demolished and then lied about.

              3)What do you claim caused the damage to the Pentagon and why?

              Jim has referenced an article as authoritative showing pictures of the Pentagon without identifiable airplane wreckage. Beyond that, it’s hard to say.

              Here’s a question I’ve been puzzling over: how much is 2 gigajoules worth? Kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2, and a Boeing 757 traveling at 500mph is approximately 80 metric tons at 805km/h, so 1/2*80000*(805*1000/3600)^2 is about 2 gigajoules. Is 2 gigajoules worth 100 diametrical feet of concrete, or more, or less? And what was the Pentagon’s waste disposal process for 80 metric tons of mostly metal mass?

              4)What do you claim happened to flight 93 and why?

              No claim. I’ve never seen any conclusive evidence showing its existence. There may be some (if you have any you could show it), but I’ve never bothered to look it up and so, if there is any, I’ve never seen it.

              Believe it or not, I don’t know everything, and I would strongly suggest that anyone who professes to know everything — or any one thing — beyond all doubt is lying to you, whether about 9/11 or something else.

              Jim, for example, knows beyond all doubt that USG wouldn’t dare issue a single lie about anything that happened anywhere in the world on a certain day of a certain month of a certain year, and nothing anyone says will ever prove otherwise.

              • jim says:

                > WTC 1 and 2 were specifically built to withstand multiple impacts by jetliner

                No they were not

                > and WTC 7 fell without airplane contact of any kind.

                Lot of big holes on the south side of WTC 7, which is why the outer frame fell by tilting southwards like a tree notched by an axe, but the primary cause of the fall of WTC 7 was out of control fires. WTC 7 was only designed to survive three hours of fire. It survived seven hours of fire.

                True there was no direct plane impact, no contact between an intact plane and the intact tower, but I would say that great big holes and raging fires were contact “of a kind”

                > > 4)What do you claim happened to flight 93 and why?

                > No claim. I’ve never seen any conclusive evidence showing its existence.

                liar.To explain away the evidence of the existence of flight 93 requires an elaborate conspiracy theory involving enormous numbers of people – all the families of those abord the flights, the calls to friends and relatives, the long history of airline records, and so on and so forth.

                • Yara says:

                  [*Fresh lies deleted. Please stick to the listed topics*]

                • jim says:

                  Now you want to argue that the south side of building seven suffered no massive damage – after failing to concede or support every previous lie, you will undoubtedly respond to me posting the relevant evidence that the entire South Side of Building Seven was heavily damaged and on fire, by moving on to yet another claim.

                  Instead of asking me to provide evidence that it was massively damaged, after you have failed to respond to the evidence that I presented on every other claim you raised, how about you providing the evidence that you say you saw that shows the South Side was OK.

                  And please don’t link to some other troofer also saying the South Side was OK. Show me the South Side of World Trade Building Seven looking like it is likely to continue standing.

                  Stop making unsupported and unsubstantiated claims. I am going to delete them, not rebut them. If you have some fact that you feel is relevant and significant, don’t just assert it and demand that I rebut it. Present evidence for this supposed fact. Present evidence that the south side of building seven was relatively undamaged and not on fire.

                  Stop making one fantastic claim after another and demanding that I rebut the claim and present the evidence. You present the evidence. And another troofer making the same claim is not evidence.

                  You say you saw the south side of World Trade Center Building seven and it was in fine shape. Don’t tell me. Don’t link to someone else telling me. Show me.

                • Yara says:

                  Good news. You caught me on my way out the door. I will therefore reply, and if you reply to this post (but only this post), I will check back sometime tomorrow.

                  >Now you want to argue that the south side of building seven suffered no massive damage

                  The above quote is a lie. I have made no such argument, and will not. I have simply stated that I have seen no such evidence.

                  >Present evidence that the south side of building seven was relatively undamage

                  I cannot find any images of a badly damaged WTC 7.

                  >and on fire

                  Please see the first comment on this page.

                  And of course, it doesn’t matter, because I was also unable to find any precedent of a skyscraper collapsing of fire.

                  If you censor me for ”lying” about not being able to find evidence of something, I will laugh at you.

                • jim says:

                  > > Now you want to argue that the south side of building seven suffered no massive damage

                  > The above quote is a lie. I have made no such argument, and will not. I have simply stated that I have seen no such evidence.

                  Well then, you similarly have not made any such argument that there was any evidence of there being any evidence for there being anything odd, unusual, or surprising about any of the collapses of any of the towers.

                  It is not my job to prove that the collapse was normal and expected in every possible way, given that you can complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect B, and if I present evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect B, you will then complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect C, and if I present evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect C, you will then complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect D, and if I present evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect D, you will then complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect E, and if I present evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect E, you will then complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect F, and if I present evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect F, you will then complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect G, and if I present evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect G, you will then complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect H, and if I present evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect H, you will then complain that you have seen no evidence that the collapse was normal and expected in respect …

                  How about you first present evidence that the South Side was in fine shape, and that therefore the collapse World Trade Building Seven was surprising.

                  Because if there was something seriously abnormal and unusual about Building Seven, there is nothing surprising about it collapsing. So, your mission: Present evidence that the south side of building seven was not seriously damaged, damaged in ways that would lead us to expect to see what we did in fact see, a collapse of the penthouse, followed by building seven falling over towards the south.

                • Yara says:

                  >the collapse was normal and expected in respect B… C… D… E… F… G… H [much bullshit excised]

                  That is the problem, you see. The collapse was not normal and expected in any way.

                  To my knowledge, the only way to bring down a skyscraper (technically, a steel frame building) is via controlled demolition. [*Lies deleted, and truths that presupposed unsupported lies for which no evidence has been presented deleted, to avoid further waste of reader bandwidth*]

                • jim says:

                  > That is the problem, you see. The collapse was not normal and expected in any way.

                  You are just lying barefaced, and repeatedly refuse to support your numerous and rapidly multiplying lies with any actual evidence.

                  Firemen at the scene observed damage to the south face, feared that fire plus damage would result in collapse, and retreated fearing collapse caused by the fires and the observed damage. The expected collapse happened in due course, and happened in roughly the way expected, in that the building collapsed southwards, filling the courtyard to its south with rubble, which is what one would expect given that firemen expected and feared collapse on the basis of the damage that they observed on the south side.

                  The “no steel frame building has ever collapsed completely from fire alone” argument would be relevant if anyone was claiming that World Trade Building seven collapsed from fire alone. Since no one is claiming this, raising the question is an effort to get us to think past the sale, to sneak in the presuppostion that there was no substantial damage to the south face.

                  Given that damage was reported, the collapse was predicted on the basis of the alleged damage, and happened in roughly the expected way, it is your job to prove that there was no damage, or little damage, or damage unlikely to influence the subsequent collapse, not my job to prove the presence of damage. And then, if you prove no substantial damage, then you can argue “steel frame buildings don’t collapse completely from fire alone”.

                  But first you have to produce positive evidence for the absence of major damage before you can legitimately make that argument.

                • Roberto says:

                  >The collapse was not… expected in any way.

                  Is Daniel Nigro a co-conspirator with Mossad/CIA?

                • Roberto says:

                  Frankly, I think that this should be the end of the debate. I considered the issue from a position of open-mindedness and even brought up the case of Philip Marshall, the CIA pilot who alleged that the hijackers received training and assistance from the Saudis, and who “committed murder + suicide” while writing a book. This is as far the we can go; any involvement by Mossad and/or CIA is pure speculation.

                  What is not speculation is that the collapse of WTC 7 was very much expected and not at all surprising, hence the firemen’s actions prior to the collapse. The unsurprising collapse of WTC 7 proves that a controlled demolition is *not* needed to bring down a “high-rise structure,” to use Chief Daniel Nigro’s terminology.

                  The troofers were given a chance (e.g. Calvin’s 4 simple questions) to present a compelling counter-narrative to Jim’s, and not only have they failed to produce a compelling counter-narrative, they have not produced *any* counter-narrative. The thread quickly descended to “no plane hit the Pentagon,” “Flight 93 never existed + the phone calls are fake,” “muh vaporizing energy weapon,” “Computer-Generated Imagery and/or Cruise Missiles Inside Holograms,” and so forth.

                  X is a legit nutter, Yara is prone to delusional thinking, and the rest of the troofers behave pretty much like government shills.

                  As far as I’m concerned, the case is closed.

                • Yara says:

                  >I considered the issue from a position of open-mindedness and even brought up the case of Philip Marshall, the CIA pilot who alleged that the hijackers received training and assistance from the Saudis, and who “committed murder + suicide” while writing a book.

                  Unreliable evidence. I have nil trust in any evidence showing either the existence or non-existence of any hijackers. I have nil trust in any current or former CIA employee. Whether or not you do is up to you.

                  >This is as far the we can go; any involvement by Mossad and/or CIA is pure speculation.

                  That is absolutely true. But it has precisely zero bearing on nature of the physical collapse of a real building in real three-dimensional meatspace.

                  >What is not speculation is that the collapse of WTC 7 was very much expected

                  It stands to reason that some people expected it: those with knowledge of what was to shortly happen to it.

                  >hence the firemen’s actions prior to the collapse.

                  I know of no reliable evidence regarding the actions of firefighters prior to the collapse of WTC 7, but it stands to reason that those with prior knowledge of the imminent demolition would disseminate this information so as to minimize government (even “little government”) employee casualties, especially those involving WTC 7, which was very much not part of the “main show”, e.g. “the unforgivable terrorist attack on the Twin Towers”.

                  >The unsurprising collapse of WTC 7 proves that a controlled demolition is *not* needed to bring down a “high-rise structure,” to use Chief Daniel Nigro’s terminology.

                  This is absolutely typical of you, Jim, and other steadfast believers in the integrity of the Cathedral Megaphone: repeated, baseless assertions of what “everyone knows to be true”.

                  The collapse of WTC 7 is highly surprising to me, because its collapse — according to NIST, i.e. the Voice of Official Authority, to ordinary fire — is so highly anomalous as to be a singular event in the whole, entire, then-117-year history of many thousands of skyscrapers all over the world.

                  Repeatedly arguing against high-school physics, structural engineering, and eminently falsifiable historical fact, in favor of NIST (i.e. the Cathedral) and George W. Obama’s literally interminable involvement in Middle Eastern horseshit is not something I would have expected on this blog, of all places, but so it is.

                  This comment is made in the interlude between my former comment and Jim’s reply.

                • Roberto says:

                  >I know of no reliable evidence regarding the actions of firefighters prior to the collapse of WTC 7, but it stands to reason that those with prior knowledge of the imminent demolition would disseminate this information so as to minimize government (even “little government”) employee casualties, especially those involving WTC 7, which was very much not part of the “main show”, e.g. “the unforgivable terrorist attack on the Twin Towers”.

                  See my post here:

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/collapse-of-building-seven/#comment-1907686

                  What else do you need? Oh, I know. An actual fireman PREDICTING IN ADVANCE the very unsurprising collapse of WTC 7:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4&ab_channel=giggedy4goo

                  0:12-0:13, Miller says, “It’s definitely going down. There is no way to stop it.”

                  Was Miller a government agent undercover? Was Dan Nigro?

                • Yara says:

                  To Roberto,

                  >See my post here:

                  Seen.

                  I have no knowledge of this Dan Niro. I have no idea if he is real, if he ever existed, if he is a government agent, or anything else. And I have no way to independently verify these things to the standard of evidence which I require for all things related to 9/11, as the lies, disinformation, and propaganda are so abundant and profound.

                  And in any case, no one’s verbal account supersedes the photo- and videographic evidence.

                  >0:12-0:13, Miller says, “It’s definitely going down. There is no way to stop it.”

                  Lol. What part of “I don’t trust eyewitness testimony” do you not understand? What part of “I don’t trust Mr. 102 IQ NY firefighter’s analysis of the situation” don’t you get?

                  There are 3000 well-studied professional engineers testifying to the physical impossibility of the consensus account (who I also haven’t independently verified, by the way), and you want me to prefer the reflexive “oh yeah such and such is happening / will happen / has already happened” of some random schmuck on a sidewalk somewhere.

                  Take a hike.

                • Roberto says:

                  >I have no knowledge of this Dan Niro. I have no idea if he is real, if he ever existed

                  You are nuts.

                  I mean, here’s a video of him from 5 months ago…
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_AtDVlv5JY&ab_channel=CBSNewYork

                  Denying the existence of real people is a whole new level of troofism, Yara. Sure you want to go there?

                  >What part of “I don’t trust eyewitness testimony” do you not understand?

                  So I guess you’re gonna ignore that:
                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/collapse-of-building-seven/#comment-1907947
                  too, huh?

                • Yara says:

                  >You are just lying barefaced, and repeatedly refuse to support your numerous and rapidly multiplying lies with any actual evidence.

                  If I were lying, you would let the world see my lie and explain, scathingly, why it was a lie. You are hiding my so-called “lies” because you are afraid of them.

                  They are also not “rapidly multiplying”. I have repeated the same three to five things repeatedly, to no intelligent response. For example, this conversation has now been had several times:

                  You: WTC 7 fell to wildly out-of-control fires.

                  Me: Here are pictures of your so-called out-of-control fires: [pictures]. They don’t look like the sort of fires that could bring down a chicken coop. These pictures are the best I could find, but perhaps you have some better?

                  You: *crickets*

                  In the post you censored, I explained that if you were to, and I quote, “censor any part of this post”, I would, and I quote, “consider this matter closed”. You have censored the post, and so I am departing for good, having quite regretfully lost all respect for you.

                  I will not be back. Ever. Except once, to gloat, when He reveals who really knocked down the World Trade Center.

                  And finally, as a parting jab, I will once more post a link for which you previously censored me, thus proving beyond all doubt that you’re not even reading what I’m writing: https://blog.jim.com/economics/why-the-elite-is-dumb-and-getting-dumber/

                  Farewell, faggot.

                • jim says:

                  > Me: Here are pictures of your so-called out-of-control fires: [pictures]. They don’t look like the sort of fires that could bring down a chicken coop.

                  Here is a picture of the south side of World Trade building seven.

                  Notice that you cannot see the massive damage to the south side, because whole damned building is on fire from top to bottom.

                  All subsequent lies will be deleted, because a waste of space, but allowing this lie through, because you complained I was censoring your lies because afraid of them.

                  No, I am censoring your lies because you lie continually and voluminously, too many blatant barefaced lies for anyone to possibly rebut, or even list, thereby wasting reader bandwidth.

                  The above image was the first image that came up on “south side of building seven” on Bing Search. If you search using Bing, should find plenty of evidence that World Trade Building seven was massively damaged, massively on fire, and expected to fall by any reasonable observer.

                  South side damaged, south side on fire, building falls sideways into and onto the square to its south. A completely unsurprising and expected collapse, as predicted by the fire fighters who observed the damage.

                  Glaringly obvious cause having entirely predictable effects. No need to invoke missiles cloaked in holograms. Yes the total collapse of steel framed building is unusual, but suicide bombers with box cutters hijacking commercial airliners is an unusual cause, hence we expect unusual effects, and the firefighters at the scene observed and reported unusual effects: Not that the massive fire is unusual, but the massive damage to the south face of building seven was unusual, causing the fire fighters to expect collapse, and hence the entirely unsurprising and expected collapse ensued, with the building collapsing in the entirely expected manner: Not straight down like a demolition, but sideways onto the square to its south.

                • Roberto says:

                  >I will not be back. Ever. Except once, to gloat, when He reveals who really knocked down the World Trade Center.

                  Have you watched your own video, faggot? God-Emperor Trump agrees with the suicided/assassinated Philip Marshall that it’s the Saudis who are behind it. He obviously doesn’t think that Israel is behind it, being the most pro-Israeli POTUS ever. He explicitly names the Saudis right in the video!

                  Farewell.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  I have no knowledge of this Dan Niro. I have no idea if he is real, if he ever existed, if he is a government agent, or anything else. And I have no way to independently verify these things

                  You are utterly retarded. According to his wikipedia page he joined FDNY in 1969 and his father was an FDNY captain. Maybe you know nothing about NY (why would that be an exception) but everyone from the area knows someone who knows someone in the FDNY who can easily ask around and find men who were stationed in the same fire houses as this guy in his career – or his suspicious absence from places where he’s supposed to have been.

                  Why not subject all claims to this level of scrutiny? Prove to me that 7 WTC ever existed using standards of evidence that meet your standards for accepting that Dan Nigro exists.

                • X says:

                  Here is a picture of the south side of World Trade building seven.

                  Now your credibility is entirely destroyed. The original image which you cropped is clearly some Photoshopped or CGI rendering.

                  At first I thought the alleged smoke was pulverized dust from the collapsing WTC. But then I realized the entire image is fake.

                  You’re a disinformation agent. Who do you work for Jim? The CIA?

                • jim says:

                  Videos show enormous amounts of smoke pouring out of World Trade Building seven for many hours. Eventually the smoke clears, because the fires are burning hotter, not because there are no fires. Everyone saw this.

                • jim says:

                  > Now your credibility is entirely destroyed. The original image which you cropped is clearly some Photoshopped or CGI rendering.

                  if it is a photoshopped image, show us a different image of the south side of World Trade building seven.

                  If all the evidence of Muslim misconduct is photoshopped, where is the pre photoshopped material?

                  Any accusation of revisionism needs to be accompanied by links to pre-revised history, otherwise the person calling “revisionism” is projecting.

                • Roberto says:

                  If Jim were CIA, we would be CIA’s biggest fans.

                • jim says:

                  > Raising strawman arguments is a disinformation tactic.

                  > Here are some photos

                  Which do not in fact show anything that supports your claims, and arguably contradict your claims. What a big surprise.

                  You surround some small blurry photos showing not-X, with a mighty wall of text explaining why not-X is actually evidence of X.

                • X says:

                  You surround some small blurry photos showing not-X, with a mighty wall of text explaining why not-X is actually evidence of X.

                  And your assertion is true because everything Jim says is true?

                  All you have is your lies and rhetorical disinformation campaign. Any reader with a brainstem and some decent understanding of physics and engineering has lost all respect for you and is not coming back.

                  You can only fool the idiots Jim. The idiots are fodder and collateral damage. We don’t need them, in order to defeat you.

                  And you are no friend of Trump. You are his enemy in sheepskin.

                  You work for the side that you claim to be against. Typical disinformation agent tactics.

                • X says:

                  if it is a photoshopped image, show us a different image of the south side of World Trade building seven.

                  Here is an ABC news video of the south side of WTC7 after the adjoining WTC twin tower has already collapsed. Clearly if watched in entirety and not cherry-picking frames, it can be seen that most of the smoke is coming from the adjacent debris pile from the collapsed twin tower. Similarly in another video from ground level looking up, it can be seen that the very white smoke is mostly coming from the said debris pile. You may prefer yet another video which shows more damage and fires to the south side of WTC7. Nevertheless those aren’t sufficiently to explain the nearly symmetrical collapse. As Yara has explained many times, the key feature of WTC7’s collapse is that it is non-localized which is the signature of controlled demolition. And the NIST model has been refuted with physics and structural engineering.

                • jim says:

                  Your video agrees with my still image.

                  There is a bit less smoke in your video – which allows us to see hints of the massive damage to south face of World Trade Center building seven.

                  Both my still and your video tell much the same story – smashed up and on fire, hence going to fall.

                  > it can be seen that most of the smoke is coming from the adjacent debris pile from the collapsed twin tower

                  liar

                  If the smoke is coming from the debris pile, where is the smoke at the top coming from?

                • X says:

                  if it is a photoshopped image, show us a different image of the south side of World Trade building seven.

                  Here is an ABC news video of the south side of WTC7 after the adjoining WTC twin tower has already collapsed. Clearly if watched in entirety and not cherry-picking frames, it can be seen that most of the smoke is coming from the adjacent debris pile from the collapsed twin tower. Similarly in another video from ground level looking up, it can be seen that the very white smoke is mostly coming from the said debris pile. You may prefer yet another video[1] which shows more damage and fires to the south side of WTC7. Nevertheless those aren’t sufficiently to explain the nearly symmetrical collapse. As Yara has explained many times, the key feature of WTC7’s collapse is that it is non-localized which is the signature of controlled demolition. [*Fresh lies deleted, and no point in linking to talking heads lying.*]

                • jim says:

                  > the key feature of WTC7’s collapse is that it is non-localized which is the signature of controlled demolition.

                  The collapse was not non localized. Penthouse fell down first, that is localized to the floors under the penthouse failing, then about seven seconds after that the outer frame leans like a tree towards the notch blasted into the South Face, that is localized to the notch, and only after the building has tilted like a tree a long way south does everything start to come apart, which is a bit late for Mossad to be setting off demolition charges.

                  The collapse is sequential, first the penthouse, then the whole building goes over rigidly like a tree, and only after that does everything start coming apart.

                • X says:

                  Your video agrees with my still image.

                  Only if you cherry pick a frame of the video and refuse to acknowledge that clearly most of the smoke is billowing up from the debris pile.

                  There is a bit less smoke in your video

                  Not just less. The frames where it looks to be less is because there’s an angle where you can distinguish better which smoke is coming from the debris pile and which coming out of windows of the WTC7. The latter is producing only a fraction of the smoke.

                  If the smoke is coming from the debris pile, where is the smoke at the top coming from?

                  Did you not see the word ‘most’ in what I wrote? Some small fraction of the smoke appears to be coming out of a fraction of the windows of the WTC7.

                  The collapse was not non localized. Penthouse fell down first, […]

                  A building which entirely collapses nearly into its own footprint is non-localized collapse. You have yet to cite for us a video which clearly shows WTC7 toppling and toppled to one side onto the ground far beyond its footprint. I have never seen such a video, so I think you’ll never be able clearly demonstrate your hallunications about what you imagine you see. Whereas, you can easily find many videos which show WTC7 collapsing in what looks to be more or straight down onto its footprint.

                • jim says:

                  You are just plain and simply lying about what the video shows.

                  What the video shows is a massively damaged building that is on fire, shows a building that is clearly likely to fall for obvious reasons.

                • X says:

                  Jim, this doesn’t change any of my conclusions about the source of the smoke, but to be fair and honest, I found the original source of that cropped WTC7 image you displayed. At the following higher resolution, it no longer looks fake to me:

                  https://imgur.com/a/9cMZeR2

                  https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf#page=20

  14. Oliver Cromwell says:

    This is an uninteresting topic and big time sink.

    • jim says:

      Troofers get places by making it a time sink, their biggest tactics being simply issuing more barefaced lies faster than anyone can rebut them, and spraying irrelevant distractions so as to keep you from dealing with their key claims.

      It is a time sink if you play along with their tactics, rather than calling out their tactics.

      • The Cominator says:

        Troofers are like individual appendages of some malignant Lovecraftian entity that dwells beyond… even mentioning the topic draws the attention of the entity and the appendages manifest. You can’t reason with Lovecraftian horror and by looking at it you will be seen… its best to avoid being seen and thus best not to look.

      • Calvin says:

        Can’t you just shut them up? These repeated and irrelevant derails are just a waste of all our time and a distraction from the more important events of today. They’ve been given ample time to put up a single plausible case and they have yet to do so.

        • Yara says:

          To prevent the wastage of time and distraction from “more important events of today”, censorship is certainly an option, just as it’s possible to make men more virtuous by banning restaurants, air travel, and private swimming pools.

          If you’re concerned about your own time and timeliness of infoconsumption, by all means: turn the computer off.

          If you’re concerned that others are doing something of which you don’t approve, I’m afraid you’ll have to come up with a better moral justification for societal harm as grave as “wasting time” on questions of insufficiently recent temporality.

          • Calvin says:

            Allowing irritating ankle biters to endlessly shit up a private space is no virtue.

            • X says:

              We didn’t create this blog post on 9/11 nor hold a gun to the host’s head. Apparently the host decided he wanted to challenge us to a debate.

            • jim says:

              I am controlling the amount of shit. I allow them some shitting to show that they have nothing but shit.

              To which they respond

              “Well, you say our claims 1, 2, and 3, are shit, but what about our claims 4 to 4000? Hey, what about them?”

              And I then proceed to censor claims 4 to 4000.

              • X says:

                And then you take another hit of that make-me-ignore-physics-so-I-can-embarrass-myself drug that you’re on.

              • Yara says:

                As a practical matter, you can censor whatever you like.

                As an ethical matter, you have to behave in a straightforward, honest, and upstanding manner, or men like myself will lose respect for you, as, after being repeatedly censored, once for citing your post on “Why the elite are dumb and getting dumber” [just to reiterate: top fucking literal lol]… I have.

                You haven’t once engaged any of the evidence presented, and you haven’t once provided evidence to support your baseless assertions, e.g, “out of control fires”, where you bother to make any at all.

                I tire of this, and so after this last succession of posts, I’m out for good. Good day to you fellows.

                But when Hereditary President Donald John Trump finally pulls back the curtain, I will be back.

                To gloat.

                Immensely.

                That I can tell you.

  15. TBeholder says:

    It’s a Converse Error. Next!

  16. Invader Zim says:

    Well on a blog, strictly speaking, it’s a time-sink b/c nobody cares: in cyberspace nobody can hear you scream.

    But in absolute terms (or in ideal terms… who knows what effect a butterfly’s wing-flap will ultimately have?), examining the whole thing from the POV of possible Mossad involvement would be the only way the question might provide results.

    Think of it this way: if retard Arab fanatics were the core of this whole train-wreck, then the melodrama plays out more or less as understood, and the results, though woeful and moronic, are more or less what could be expected from typical humans-are-stupid metrics.

    But if, as is more than both plausible and likely, scheming Jews are at the heart of this catastrophe, well then… things could get interesting, tables could be upturned, throats could get cut, and so on.

    It’s only a time-sink if you’re dead certain you don’t have a plausible finger pointing directly at scheming Jews (BIRM).

    Well, do ya….? Punk?

    • scrub says:

      Fuck off, Chaim.

    • Roberto says:

      Thanks for the LARP, (((Invader Zim))).

    • jim says:

      It is absolutely obvious that Jews have nothing to do with 9/11

      The Troofer conspiracy theory is designed to provide cover for population replacement, for the introduction of Muslims to outvote legacy Americans.

      Jews do lots of bad things, but 9/11 is not their style. It is Muslim style, and it has been Muslim style from the beginning. Mohammed was a terrorist, and all Muslims should imitate Mohammed, as Major Nidal Hasan explained to his colleagues in his power point presentation on why he was going to kill them.

      Muslims have been doing this for thirteen hundred years and are not going to stop, short of measures similar to those applied in Myanmar by the Burmese, or Tripoli by the French.

      A jew is going to get creative on interpreting the contract you have agreed with him. A Muslim is going to kill you.

      • X says:

        [*Deleted comment because too many troofer lies to deal with.*]

      • Invader Zim says:

        “It is absolutely obvious that Jews have nothing to do with 9/11.”

        I don’t normally think of you as a silly person; you can be right or wrong or so-so, on a case by case basis. But you are almost never silly.

        But that was an extremely silly thing to say.

        Which is not to say that my suspicion that Mossad was involved (they most certainly, if not “absolutely”, had means, motive, and opportunity, so there is nothing silly in the assertion, though it is of course more or less unknowable) is some kind of iron-clad what-not –it clearly isn’t.

        But your sweeping dismissal of the very notion is beneath your normative intellectual standards. You’re being silly.

        • jim says:

          Poster girl principle applies: Anyone claiming Israeli involvement in 9/11 is usually an obvious government agent, usually lies shamelessly with every breath, generally rather dim, and is usually nuts.

          To even consider the possibility is beneath me, because the people who argue the case are beneath me. These are bad and stupid people. The FBI is not sending us its best. If they were arguing the sky is blue, it would cause me to doubt it.

          Jews do many bad things, and Israel does many bad things. Israel backed groups in Syria that sought to genocide Christians. Israel betrayed its Christian allies in Lebanon. But 9/11 just is not their style, and if it was their style, the kind of people who make the claim would still lead me to conclude that this time, not the Jews.

          • Koanic says:

            If I applied the heuristic of disbelieving in a position because most of its adherents are retarded, I wouldn’t believe in evolution. The Israelis have been manipulating where Muslims go boom for a long time, and they benefited most from 9/11. Crimestop for Muslims applies to Jews too. Let’s see whether Trump reveals anything.

            You’ve crushed the Troofers, no need to overextend your victory. Sometimes gullible morons are just gullible morons. I didn’t connect my knowledge of star spectroscopy to photos of molten metal either. Yours is the best debunking I’ve seen. Maybe people sense something is badly off and they don’t know what, so they grasp at simple but wrong answers. The very theory of crimestop implies that some other answer must be generated spontaneously in people’s minds.

            • jim says:

              > If I applied the heuristic of disbelieving in a position because most of its adherents are retarded, I wouldn’t believe in evolution.

              Darwin, however is one of the smartest men ever. Everyone should believe in evolution, because everyone should read Darwin.

              Further, not one of the evolutionist morons that you rightly complain about genuinely believes in evolution, because if they did they would believe that humans are continuing to evolve, that human brains are continuing to evolve, and that races are the origin of species, none of which they believe.

          • Invader Zim says:

            OK, it’s a fair cop, ya caught me red-handed. Je m’accuse: I’m a lying retarded government agent, living in an FBI insane asylum in the cell right next to Hannibal Lecter. That’s some pretty sweet sleuthing there, pard. Your pattern – recognition-fu is well beyond my humble Hunanese “Stumbling Catfish” school of Zany Theories. Were you perchance a member of the Handsome Boy Detective Skool, Class of ’79?

            Psst, Dr. Lecter just passed me a note, written in his own blood on a torn-out page of the Necronomicon. He says, “The sky isn’t ‘absolutely’ blue, you know. Sometimes it’s red, and at night, or so the Pirates say, it even turns black.” But I’ll let you be the judge.

            • jim says:

              OK:

              Assuming you are intelligent and honest, you agree that 9/11 were genuine Arab terrorists, who believed themselves to be working for Allah and his prophet, because Mossad does not have suicide bombers.

              Do you agree with that?

              If you do agree with that, how does Mossad get into this story?

      • Koanic says:

        I thought Israel had a relevant record of false-flag attacks. That would be Israeli style.

        • jim says:

          Israel’s record of false flag attacks does not include sending Israeli agents with box cutters and false Arab identities on suicide missions. If you buy into the Israeli 9/11 story, you have to buy into the whole no plane at the Pentagon, no hijackings, no heroes of flight 93, narrative, which narrative is floridly insane, the work of evil, hostile, and malicious people who very plainly do not believe their own words.

          They do not use the rhetorical tactics of a person who honestly but perhaps mistakenly believes he is correct, but rather the rhetorical tactics of someone who knows he is lying, who seeks to manipulate and to deceive those he hates and wishes to harm – as for example burning bandwidth to avoid having his arguments examined too closely. Someone who believes his arguments are true and convincing wants to have his arguments examined closely, and does not use rhetorical tactics aimed at distracting people from his arguments.

          For Mossad to do this, has to work through genuine Arab terrorists. But if we are assuming genuine Arab terrorists, Mossad is redundant. Likely Mossad knew and failed to act, as the FBI knew and failed to act, but the terrorists were not doing this for the glory of Israel. The causal factor is not Mossad, nor the FBI, but genuine Arab terrorists.

          • Invader Zim says:

            Re jim@06:43 (the whole thing)…

            This is either an epic neutron star of stupid, which would be really quite uncharacteristic of you, or else it’s a black hole of dissembling. Or maybe something else entirely; I haven’t read enough John LeCarre, and you haven’t thought hard enough about the structural, chess-position-like nature of intrigue. I suggest you study Morphy’s games, and re-read Measure for Measure. But that’s just me, and we already know I’m a lying pathological FBI retard.

            Either way I don’t really care enough to dive into the wreck with you; my position is that the whole sloppy mess of the thing is essentially too unknowable to make a sleuth-y argument about. It’s simply that some questions, some fish-rot smells and some rather unmistakeable patterns leave such a withering WTF?!? aroma as to be rather hard not to arch an eyebrow straight thru the bloody ceiling at.

            But that’s enough o’ that. Let us repair to Crosby House, where we may digest our complots in some form.

            • Roberto says:

              Present an argument or shut up, (((Zim))).

            • jim says:

              I asked you a straightforward question, was entirely unsurprised to not get an answer.

              Par for the course.

              Supposedly those evil Jews are at fault, not the poor innocent gentle peace loving Arabs, but you decline to explain just how those evil Jews are at fault for this one.

              For the Jews to be at fault for this one, there has to be some plausible causal connection between Jews and airliners crashing into towers, but you are content to blame the Jews without the need to suggest any particular causal connection.

              I suppose that those evil Jews directed their evil Jewish mind rays at innocent peace loving Arab terrorists causing the innocent peace loving adherents of the religion of peace to sleep walk onto the planes and crash them into towers.</sarcasm>

              • Invader Zim says:

                Oh, stop. And btw if you’re going to attempt sarc, at least try to be funny about it.

                What, you think I am in secret possession of a hidden book called “How I Did It,” by Victor H. Mossadenstein?

                My argument isn’t even an argument, since as I say, I believe the situation to be effectively unknowable (which is in fact my straightforward answer to your loaded, bad-faith question.) My “argument,” if you’d even care to call it that, is not based on “facts” and “evidence,” since I lack the skills to sift through the miles-deep pit of skullduggery and horseshit which this situation presents. My view is nothing more than an armchair thought experiment, an attempt to sort it out using only plausibility, possibility, probability, and chess reasoning.

                A quick answer to your ahem, “straightforward” question would be simple query, Cui Bono? Short answer: scheming Jews. Who in fact benefitted most from the vast unnecessary sink of American blood and treasure in pointless wars on the other side of the planet? Did white Americans get rich by stealing all the Iraqi oil? Nope. Did a glorious era of democracy blossom in countries white Americans have no real reason to care about? Nah-uh. But, oh, wait… The Jews got their enemies taken out and disruptive chaos sown in lands of their choosing, all done by their pet golem America. Not a single Israeli or ADL donor died in a gutter in Basra with his legs shot off, screaming for his momma. All those grieving wives and mothers? Shiksas, every single one of ’em.

                If only there was an influential Jewish political organization, let’s call it PNAC just to be whimsical, that prior to 9/11 pointed out the need for a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to rile up the goyim, I mean the golem, no I mean Vital American Interests to go off on bizarre disruptive wars which could only benefit Our Greatest Ally. And then, poof! A new Pearl Harbor-style outrage appears. And then also, poof! A new pointless war appears, masterminded by guys with good ole Irish names like Wolfowitz and Perle.

                And if only there was a devious highly-motivated foreign intelligence agency, let’s just call them Blossad, cuz it sounds funny, who specialized in manipulating both Arab fanatics and dumb goy American political structures. Nah, I wouldn’t out-source my zany New Pearl Harbor plot to those guys, I’d hire some Puerto Rican gang working out of a storefront in Sunset Park.

                Your recourse to silly “look! squirrel!” tropes like evil Jewish mind Rays to shift focus is pretty 1996. Are you gonna start spelling it “joooooz” to fat-shame me, too? Maybe you can conjure up a photoshopped image of me sharing a brewski with David Duke.

                All the same, it’s just a humble thought experiment, not a white paper for the cucks funding NRO. You can go back to reading The Plot Against America (“no, not THAT plot against America, goy! The OTHER one!”) with an easy mind.

                • jim says:

                  I notice that you are not only revising the events of 9/11, but also rewriting the history of the subsequent events in favor of the blue state and the Democrats, and against the red state and the Republicans.

          • Koanic says:

            I agree the Arab terrorists were clearly genuine. However I believe that Israeli intelligence has penetrated Arab terrorism networks, and wields significant influence over some of them. Not e.g. Hamas, but probably e.g. ISIS. I don’t know a ton about this, but I assume they are much better at their jobs than e.g. the FBI, which does ok at penetrating white nationalists.

            The FBI is always trying to get the white nationalists to go blow up a judge or whatever, and will supply them with considerable assistance towards doing so. I imagine the Israelis doing something similar, to enable the successful followup attack on the WTC.

            • jim says:

              That is an entirely reasonable and plausible theory – blind eye to terrorists, covert funding through deniable channels of which the terrorists themselves are not aware, and indirect technical assistance, again with the terrorists themselves being deluded about the provenance of this technical assistance (though how much help do you need to get boxcutters, and you don’t need much funding to send a bunch of fanatics to America and give them flight training.)

              But you will notice that your entirely plausible theory fails to support a program of bringing in millions of male military age Muslim rapeugees from subsaharan Africa and dumping them on marginal Republican federal electorates in flyover country, and therefore does not seem to have much support from Troofers, who prefer far less plausible theories, theories convoluted, outrageous, improbable, bizarre, but which provide support for a program of mass import of rapeugees.

              If your theory is true, we still are going to wind up with holy war and genocide, irrespective of anything Israel has done or failed to do, whereas if the troofer theory is true, millions of rapeguees are no problem except Mossad makes them do bad things and falsely accuses them of raping large numbers of white women and children in order to make trouble.

              • Koanic says:

                Haha, ok, fair enough.

                I honestly cannot read the sewage you are stoically wading through. I just dismiss it all as “Most people are idiots and/or mentally ill”.

                I wonder how the Democrats or whoever would contain opsec on paying shills minimum wage to spread anti-Semitic memes. I still suspect this one is grassroots, albeit fertilized by ambient Prog memes.

      • TBeholder says:

        It is Muslim style, and it has been Muslim style from the beginning.

        The examples of which being?..
        It is Hollywood style, and was Hollywood style from the start.
        [*A complete new set of lies, deleted to economize on bandwidth*]

        • jim says:

          Please stick to one set of lies, instead of endlessly producing new lies when the old ones are refuted, while neither retracting nor defending the old lies.

          Feel free to comment on the claim that Building Seven fell straight down on its own footprint, which is the topic of this post. The other four thousand troofer lies are not going to be dealt with in four thousand new posts, and any and all of the other four thousand or so lies will be censored.

          For starters, try producing some evidence that World Trade building seven fell straight down on its own footprint, instead of just asserting it. And quoting someone else asserting it does not constitute evidence.

          In fact, of course, World Trade building seven fell, as any idiot would expect, not on its own footprint, but onto the square to the south of it, the square between World Trade building seven and World Trade building six, and fell like a tree, as one would expect, as the firemen at the time expected, not like a demolition.

          Building seven falling down, building seven on fire, building seven smashed up is on topic. All the other stuff is off topic, and there is far, far, far too much of it.

          • TBeholder says:

            “The Claim” remains irrelevant to the “issue” due to converse error.
            It’s irrelevant to my response (the part you removed, the part you kept or both) even more completely.
            Further arguments are pointless, because you already started to resort to arguing with a strawman and erasing anything inconvenient.
            Good day.

  17. Doug Smythe says:

    Conspiracy theorists miss the point as completely as they could. The bad guys, the enemies of civilization, don’t have to skulk about in shadows. They run the place, and have been running it for a long time; and they not only don’t keep their agenda secret, but broadcast it as loudly and as offensively as they can, and bend over backwards to make sure everybody hears it (to the point where saturating comic books (of all things) with this propaganda is regarded as a top policy priority). At the same time, it’s strictly forbidden to publicly point out that this propaganda says what it’s blatantly saying, or to do anything other than repeat it while pretending that it doesn’t actually say what it says. That’s how power works today. Conspiracy theories not only shed no light whatsoever on how power today works, but intentionally or not are part of the tactic whereby people are induced not to reflect on what is being done to them by real power right in front of their faces every day and in every aspect of life.

    • The Cominator says:

      There are conspiracies but almost all of them are open.

      The Trilateral Commission is not a secret conspiracy its an open one.

    • X says:

      [*Deleted comment because too many troofer lies to deal with.*]

      • jim says:

        Please stick to the three troofer issues that I have ruled on topic. No bandwidth available to deal with the other thousand, so I just have to censor you rather than debate you.

        • X says:

          All the deleted posts are archived on archive.is/.org

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            We are all rushing to look them up…

            • X says:

              Why would I care what idiots — who by their lack of due diligence will fall into the woodchipper and self-immolate — do or don’t do?

              We’re doxxing Jim and his regulars as disinformation agents, so that those who have a brainstem can be aware of not falling for it.

  18. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Troof hinges on the idea of consensus, and consensus impinges on democracy…… if we had a Strong Man, we wouldn’t need a consensus and Troof wouldn’t matter……. if the Strong Man wanted to invade Iraq/Afghanistan, he’d do it……. and if that doomed him, he’d soon find out.

    • Roberto says:

      That is actually true. A legitimist ruler does not need false flags to justify doing whatever he thinks needs to be done. Demotism, “will of the people” propaganda, makes false flags useful. Under a King, false flags would serve no purpose.

    • Doug Smythe says:

      On the other hand, though, in practice the King often has to talk the freeholders into subsidizing and/or fighting his wars, thus still has to get consensus

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        I don’t recognise that original post, though it’s possible I may have been tired or something.

        A legitimate leader in the 21st century needs to appeal DIRECTLY to the masses, not to people who declare a right to a say.
        Sure, a leader will have a circle of friends he trusts, and sure this group will in part be formed by a need for a particular area of expertise, but in the age of the internet this is too easily overstated.

        The future is not in fact freeholder assemblies: that just leads to bureaucratic bloat and an ever-expanding franchise.

        The leader needs to find out what the people WANT and deliver it for them. In the past this would’ve broadly been a reliable supply of food, safety from invasion and a sense of fun and achievement.
        Today we can add into the mix freedom from bureaucratic interference, defence of the borders and protection of living standards against global capitalism.

        A good leader can deliver on all these things, but just as Roberto and Jim want to physically remove the Musulman, a good leader will physically remove the likes of David Marmorstein Tassillo: at least from the domain of commerce.

        • jim says:

          You advocate democracy.

          Never worked, always short lived. Vote buying necessarily ensues, and everything falls apart.

          • The Cominator says:

            I’m not sure what he is advocating. CR is many things but a Democrat… I don’t see that.

            I certainly oppose Democracy but I do not think any regime in the long term can entirely ignore demotic factors. A regime that loses the confidence of its productive male population will eventually fall unless the population is replaced (which is why the Democrats wanted to replace American whites), may take DECADES but eventually it falls one way or another.

            • jim says:

              Socialism normally purports to be a benefit to the unproductive members of the population, and the people CR supposedly wishes to help behave like wiggers – supposedly the only reason they behave like wiggers is that capitalism oppresses them, and if we removed pizzas, they would all be drinking coke zero in a prius.

              In actual fact, I don’t see white working people acting like wiggers, and I think that what CR is seeing, but cannot admit that he is seeing, is behavior among non working non whites, which behavior he attributes to the white working class, and his socialism is standard issue cultural Marxism, targeted to benefit women and nams by taking stuff away from white working males. Who will supposedly be inspired to become productive under socialism.

              The major problem faced by productive people today is that they cannot get laid and cannot get married, that even Musk cannot afford pussy, which problem does not trouble CR, but my proposed solutions horrify him. And he proceeds to tell me that it is 2018 now.

              Under capitalism, by and large it is the productive people that own property. Take their property away from them, put them in housing projects, and you get the East Germany problem – you are treating them like wiggers, and they start behaving like wiggers, thieving, getting drunk, and not working.

              The sovereign needs to make sure that soldiers and taxpayers have wives and property – and that non soldiers and non taxpayers don’t. That is the capitalism of Charles the Second, and the marriage and female roles of Saint Paul.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                It’s just the same old boring lie again and again: you’re against capitalism hence you must be FOR redistribution, equality, gibs, blah blah blah

                Nope. Just wanna shut a few things down and nationalise a few things. There are some industries the government needs to be able to control, otherwise it’ll try to do it subtly through regulation, etc.

                If you’re serious about getting rid of all the programmes, the entitlements, the red tape, you have to start being realistic.

                Laissez-faire applied to labour sounds like it gives you accurate pricing of the labour market leading to good allocation of skills where they’re most needed. In practice it gives you gibs and mass franchise democracy. It’s been tried many times and the result’s always the same.

                Laissez-faire applied to housing sounds like it gives you an infinite diversity of designs apt to match the infinite diversity of need. In reality it gives you over-priced cookie cutter sprawl and absentee landlords first, and then after that it gives you people unable to reproduce while working hard and trying to better themselves.

                Worse, since your laissez-faire labour market gives you gibs and programmes, the government ends up importing new consumers so it can keep up the programmes and gibs.

                Capitalism’s what gives you the things you hate, but you’re just too gaslit to see it. You’ve always got Uncle Milt whispering in your ear: deregulate it all, privatise it all, don’t worry about the debt, don’t worry about the poverty.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s just the same old boring lie again and again: you’re against capitalism hence you must be FOR redistribution, equality, gibs, blah blah blah

                  Redistribution is just an excuse, and you propose other excuses, much as the troofers have no end of reasons why Muslims are innocent, you have no end of reasons why capitalists are guilty.

                  If socialism, you are taking what capitalists and entrepreneurs create away from them. That is what socialism is. Supposedly favoring workers and peasants is one reason among many, and none of those reasons are to be believed, and none of those reasons reflect the actual practice of socialists.

                  Socialism is the standard envy of intellectuals for successful entrepreneurs, of priests for merchants, and similarly, the standard envy of priests for warriors.

                  Capitalism is that those who save and invest, (capitalists) and those who plan and organize the creation of wealth (entrepreneurs) get to be in charge of the distribution of value, which inevitably means they distribute a good chunk to themselves

                  It is not that you want to redistribute in favor of Joe Sixpack. It is that you want to be in charge of Joe Sixpack, and you are pissed that currently his program manager or his sergeant is in charge of him.

                  The King does not want to kill the golden goose. The priests, on the other hand, hate the golden goose, because his gold threatens their status. Similarly, the King wants Joe Sixpack to get laid (assuming that Joe Sixpack is in the army, or is paying taxes, or is working for someone who is paying taxes) Priests do not want Joe Sixpack to get laid.

                  Your arguments reflect those interests of the clergy that are hostile to civilization.

                • Eli says:

                  @CR: What gives you the urban sprawl is not so much laissez-faire capitalism, but population pressure and winner-take-all effect of modern industrial processes and technology. Gone are manual farms of yore, subsistence or tenant based. Now it’s the conveyor belt, the complicated machinery, the office cubes. All of it allows for immense productivity but it also wants centralization and labor mobility into city. The age of the car arrived in the 20’s. Also, population has been increasing hugely all the way to 50’s, both in cities and the country overall (which exacerbated pressure on cities to grow).

                  The impetus for SUBurban cookie cutter sprawl is not even because of all that. Said sprawl is because the government took away the power of communities to defend themselves and grow from within: to defend their women and children against diversity. It is because the highly educated (many from Ivy League) government bureaucracy (guys like you, CR, yes) shoved diversity up people’s butts, sometimes even calling in the National Guard, despite the citizens’ earnest efforts to protest. Of course, those bureaucrats only wished for things to be better and fairer, only wanted for enlightened values to prevail.

                  So, what happened? Those communities, some of them quite tightknit, got dissolved and people moved out — or, rather, ran away. Suburban cookie cutter sprawl thus ensued. Boston is a great example: Dorchester and Roxbury used to be good places to live. Even Malden was OK. What, you think corporations destroyed them?

                  Great (Nigger) Migration would, left to itself, just lead to creation of shanty towns populated by N’s, not unlike those in Africa. It is because the progressive bureaucracy couldn’t possibly accept existence of signs of obvious inequality and, more importantly, the fact that they wanted power over the other men, that they made it illegal for civil men to act as civil men (in the natural sense of “civil”).

                  I’m also convinced (though here I’m admittedly hypothesizing), that, had the men who ran out of cities into suburbia had absolute knowledge that they could be patriarchs with familial pride and if they believed that their lines will persist, those suburban areas would not look so cookie cutter, but would be more individualistic and conducive to communal life.

                  About importing consumers: this is not the reason. The government is very much interested in a divide-and-conquer strategy and importing more voters. The desire of businesses to hire cheaper illegals is of tertiary importance. More saliently, businesses are not the ones making decisions about border enforcement and repatriation of illegals (as well as enforcing punishment against hiring illegals).

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim:

                  “Redistribution is just an excuse, and you propose other excuses, much as the troofers have no end of reasons why Muslims are innocent, you have no end of reasons why capitalists are guilty.”

                  No, just some of them, and they’re good reasons.
                  A small reminder of what we are and are not talking about.

                  Crimes of capitalism as opposed to crimes of the state:

                  1. Man cries in the bookmaker’s on Xmas Eve having blown all his wages once again, and now his children have no presents and his wife has no turkey
                  2. Couple work difficult full-time jobs (night-work at a garage and rotating shifts at a care home) and can barely afford to rent. They do however find themselves drawn to the globalist chain restaurants, where billionaires pay 19-year-olds minimum wage to sell hot dogs for $15 each. Long term this is reducing our heroes’ life expectancy
                  3. Pop culture

                  Your answers are these:

                  1&2: F&@% ’em
                  3: The market has spoken – anything else would be fake and gay

                  My answers:

                  1. Shut ’em down
                  2. Shut ’em down, nationalise large quantities of housing and fix the prices, guarantee a family wage so that just the man can work and STILL they can afford somewhere to live

                  “If socialism, you are taking what capitalists and entrepreneurs create away from them.”

                  It’s tempting to just dismiss this as one more lying attempt to paint me as advocating redistribution, but fine let’s stretch the meaning of English words here: yes indeed I would have the government ‘take away from’ the bookmakers and the chain restaurants, in the following sense: take away their right to do what they’re doing, and simply tell them to FO.

                  Quite a long way from ‘each according to his ability’ bs, unless you’re a liar, in which case of course that’s exactly what I’m saying.

                  “Supposedly favoring workers and peasants is one reason among many, and none of those reasons are to be believed, and none of those reasons reflect the actual practice of socialists.”

                  I’ve speculated before that socialism of the kind you’re talking about is, in effect, a reaction against laissez-faire and the problems it creates. That in no way makes it a good idea.
                  I’m not talking about redistribution, for the third time: I’m talking about serving “cease and desist” notices to bad actors in society whenever they crop up.
                  Providing guarantees of material human rights can happen on the same basis but it’s a separate question. The core issue is “may the King close KFC?” and your answer seems bizarrely to be “no he may not”.

                  “Socialism is the standard envy of intellectuals for successful entrepreneurs, of priests for merchants, and similarly, the standard envy of priests for warriors.”

                  Only a sociopath would envy the porn kings and gambling merchants. The third position doesn’t envy these people: it recognises their evil and seeks to put a stop to it.
                  You seem to think you can have a restoration without getting rid of online gambling, chain restaurants, pop music, absentee landlords, exploitation wages, the gig economy and consumer-oriented economic planning.

                  It’s a silly pipe dream. Those things are the poison that gave us globohomo, every bit as culpable as all the terrible things democratic governments have done.

                  “Capitalism is that those who save and invest, (capitalists) and those who plan and organize the creation of wealth (entrepreneurs) get to be in charge of the distribution of value, which inevitably means they distribute a good chunk to themselves”

                  You think globohomo’s driven by SAVINGS? What are you, crazy? Globohomo’s driven by leveraged speculation and socialised risks.

                  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve clearly stated the third position emphasises savings over consumption, but since you’re still lying, I may as well say it again: the third position emphasises savings over consumption. Everything we can do to ‘stimulate’ saving for the future, we will, and everything we can do to ‘discourage’ splurging in the present, we will, from taxing air travel to a hefty VAT on entertainments and a ban on private swimming pools for good measure.

                  “It is not that you want to redistribute in favor of Joe Sixpack. It is that you want to be in charge of Joe Sixpack, and you are pissed that currently his program manager or his sergeant is in charge of him.”

                  This is a lie when applied to ME PERSONALLY, but when applied to the King (or lawful authority of the nation), yes absolutely. That’s precisely right: the bourgeois industry owners were placed in charge when the monarchs stepped back and ‘let them be’. That’s the root of much of the trouble. The other part of the root is the state’s response to the initial trouble, which is equally evil.

                  Socialist redistribution is a RESPONSE to laissez-faire and the response to the poison is just more poison.

                  “The King does not want to kill the golden goose. The priests, on the other hand, hate the golden goose, because his gold threatens their status. Similarly, the King wants Joe Sixpack to get laid (assuming that Joe Sixpack is in the army, or is paying taxes, or is working for someone who is paying taxes) Priests do not want Joe Sixpack to get laid.”

                  This Moldbug nonsense is getting old. Yes we get it, “priests” means public intellectuals. Fine. This isn’t about public intellectuals. It’s about officers of the King seeing a man crying in the bookmaker’s and CLOSING THE BOOKMAKER DOWN.

                  Does the King want to take back control of the nation? YOU BET HE DOES.

                  “Your arguments reflect those interests of the clergy that are hostile to civilization.”

                  If civilisation is the profit margin of William Hill, PornHub and Domino’s Pizza, the glory of Time-Warner, Virgin Records and CNN: very hostile yes. The mystery is why you’re not.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The other guy:

                  “What gives you the urban sprawl is not so much laissez-faire capitalism, but population pressure and winner-take-all effect of modern industrial processes and technology. Gone are manual farms of yore, subsistence or tenant based. Now it’s the conveyor belt, the complicated machinery, the office cubes. All of it allows for immense productivity but it also wants centralization and labor mobility into city. The age of the car arrived in the 20’s. Also, population has been increasing hugely all the way to 50’s, both in cities and the country overall (which exacerbated pressure on cities to grow).”

                  Agreed. As Moldbug put it in his “Letter To France”, we need to get rid of all that and forget about placing profit and productivity at the top of our list of priorities.
                  Much of the workforce can be put to work on clothing, food, house maintenance, ecological caretaking and so on.
                  It used to be the case that a working man could buy a family home and fill it with quality furniture. It’s possible we might require a few generations to get back to that, while the savings base and good habits of our ancestors are restored, but we can definitely get there.

                  “The impetus for SUBurban cookie cutter sprawl is not even because of all that. Said sprawl is because the government took away the power of communities to defend themselves and grow from within: to defend their women and children against diversity. It is because the highly educated (many from Ivy League) government bureaucracy (guys like you, CR, yes) shoved diversity up people’s butts, sometimes even calling in the National Guard, despite the citizens’ earnest efforts to protest. Of course, those bureaucrats only wished for things to be better and fairer, only wanted for enlightened values to prevail.”

                  Your description’s right, and obviously I’m sad to see you’ve fallen for the Jimians’ (Cominator, Roberto, Javier, Jim himself) misrepresentation of me. If you seriously think a fascist third positionist (or ‘neo-nazi’ if you like, with the usual caveats) is advocating integration and ‘diversity’, I don’t know what to tell you.

                  I seem to find myself repeating the same basic statements in order to deflect these false accusations, and then Jim seizes on the repetition as an excuse to grant himself executive power, rather than just say “this is me exerting executive power” lol

                  I have consistently told you people, I’m not advocating for bureaucracy, programmes, or even regulation. What I’m advocating is that when a bad thing happens, the King (or whoever’s in a position of genuine authority) simply SHUTS IT DOWN!
                  How many times? Not regulate: SHUT DOWN.

                  “So, what happened? Those communities, some of them quite tightknit, got dissolved and people moved out — or, rather, ran away. Suburban cookie cutter sprawl thus ensued. Boston is a great example: Dorchester and Roxbury used to be good places to live. Even Malden was OK. What, you think corporations destroyed them?”

                  What, you think government destroyed them?
                  We’re both right!

                  If you’re going to say “what, you think corporations destroyed them?” as if it’s obviously not the case, then what you’re in effect saying is that corporations didn’t benefit. This is clearly false.
                  If a leftist says “what, you think government destroyed them?” as if it’s obviously not the case, then what they’re in effect saying is that government didn’t benefit. This is clearly false: it benefits the bureaucratic nanny state to have as much division and dependence as possible.

                  The red pill here is that corporations benefit for largely the same reasons. Poor people are excellent consumers. Atomised individuals are excellent consumers.
                  Old-fashioned straight white men who buy quality furniture for life and hand it down to their descendants are awful consumers.

                  It’s not rocket science.

                  “Great (Nigger) Migration would, left to itself, just lead to creation of shanty towns populated by N’s, not unlike those in Africa. It is because the progressive bureaucracy couldn’t possibly accept existence of signs of obvious inequality and, more importantly, the fact that they wanted power over the other men, that they made it illegal for civil men to act as civil men (in the natural sense of “civil”).”

                  Absolutely. How do you draw that principled line between state and corporation though?
                  Doesn’t Walmart rather like ‘the people of Walmart’ that resulted from all this state action?
                  It seems to me from their literature, they’re more than happy with the direction things are going.

                  “I’m also convinced (though here I’m admittedly hypothesizing), that, had the men who ran out of cities into suburbia had absolute knowledge that they could be patriarchs with familial pride and if they believed that their lines will persist, those suburban areas would not look so cookie cutter, but would be more individualistic and conducive to communal life.”

                  I can’t imagine what’s ever given you the idea there’s any disagreement between us here. The reason I favour a family wage is that it’s crucial that a man can work hard and afford a family and a family home. The idea isn’t to transfer 1% of Peter Schiff’s wealth to Joe Sixpack so he can visit Franky&Benny’s another time per week. (That’s what 50%+ VAT on entertainments is for, although I expect when a home becomes affordable again, Franky&Benny’s won’t appeal quite so much to otherwise decent people.)

                  “About importing consumers: this is not the reason. The government is very much interested in a divide-and-conquer strategy and importing more voters. The desire of businesses to hire cheaper illegals is of tertiary importance.”

                  Not to them it’s not!

                  Little anecdote: the United Kingdom had no minimum wage laws until the late 1990s. Why?
                  Because they were about to open the borders. Had there been no minimum wage laws, the whites would have been 100% eradicated from all ordinary employment (which in the post-industrial, out-sourced world is basically all employment) and there would have been a revolution.
                  So they boiled the frog slowly. A minimum wage laws is an excellent tool for government: it can be reduced through inflation and simultaneously hiked for votes.

                  Corporations LOVE welfare dependents. They spend every penny they get.
                  Corporations LOVE people too poor to buy or even rent a home. They spend every penny they get.
                  Corporations LOVE your favourite tribes. They spend every penny they get.

                  Governments love corporations: very good for GDP, which can be leveraged for more debt.

                  Speculators love the whole thing: very good excuse for more debt, amplifying their tiny, modest cuts.

                  This is where the Kosher Sandwich kicks in: if you’re complaining that a small parasitical cabal extracts all the wealth and grows exponentially richer than the rest of the world, well then obviously you’re an envy-socialist who wants to tax inheritance and punish savers LOL

                  The elegance of the structure is impressive. The fact this intellectual community falls for it, less so.

                  “More saliently, businesses are not the ones making decisions about border enforcement and repatriation of illegals (as well as enforcing punishment against hiring illegals).”

                  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                  If you don’t want to get red-pilled to 1488 degrees Fahrenheit and an aneurysm in your dick, don’t look into the case of poor Mollie Tibbetts.

                  That town and its oligarchy needs to be subject to martial law for a century.

                • jim says:

                  > . As Moldbug put it in his “Letter To France”, we need to get rid of all

                  You are reinventing Moldbug as a socialist, just as you reinvent Jesus as a commie advocate of transexual rights, and Mohammed as a feminist.

                  Firstly, it is not true, and if you managed to persuade us it was true, we would not become socialists, but rather would cease to be adherents of Moldbug.

                • Roberto says:

                  >we need to get rid of all that [written in reference to conveyor belts, complicated machinery, office cubes, and cars]

                  I don’t know who “we” are, but I think Jim should use his authority as Prophet of Reaction to denounce Luddism (or “technological atavism”) in as strong terms as possible.

                  >I’m talking about serving “cease and desist” notices to bad actors in society whenever they crop up.

                  Restaurants only become “bad actors” if you blame gluttony on the very existence of restaurants – which, of course, would be nuts.

                  >If you’re going to say “what, you think corporations destroyed them?” as if it’s obviously not the case, then what you’re in effect saying is that corporations didn’t benefit.

                  Illogical strawman

                  >The core issue is “may the King close KFC?” and your answer seems bizarrely to be “no he may not”.

                  Another strawman; furthermore, it’s wiggerism in action. “Da capitalyss be keepin’ da pipul down!” says wignat (wigger nationalist) at the sight of KFC, which is half a step removed from niggers who screech about how “dis be a whypipo conspiracy to kill da black man.”

                  See, CR, I am not terribly racist; I want to eliminate niggers of all colors.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR quite simply you reject in total Jim’s freehold principle (rather then wanting to limit it in specific cases).

                  When you continue to argue for severe violations of freehold you are going to get accused of being a socialist and an entryist.

                  If you want to attack the freehold principle in total fine but do so in a comprehensive way where you argue why its bad and stop making these emotional attacks on resteraunts you don’t like.

                  I actually defended you against charges of being a democrat (in the classic sense not the awful American political party).

                  IM probably more of a Democrat then either you or Jim since I argue that demotism can never be ignored entirely. In the long term the government must have the confidence of its productive male population even if the government is a hereditary absolute monarchy.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto says:

                  “I don’t know who “we” are, but I think Jim should use his authority as Prophet of Reaction to denounce Luddism (or “technological atavism”) in as strong terms as possible.”

                  Let’s be completely clear here. Your definition of
                  NOT-Luddism
                  is tolerating BetFred dot com, PornHub/Blacked.com/etc. and throwing working people under the bus in defence of the freedom of Franky&Benny to exploit the need vulnerable people have for a scrap of dignity in a world that mocks all their efforts.

                  I guess a lot of people are Luddites then.

                  “Restaurants only become “bad actors” if you blame gluttony on the very existence of restaurants – which, of course, would be nuts.”

                  This is just egalitarianism: just because you and I don’t assuage our feelings of insecurity by handing $50 a head to some disgusting corporation until it literally takes ten years off our life – doesn’t mean those places aren’t full of people who ‘just got paid’.

                  This is the crux of our disagreement: you say screw those idiots, the world would be better if they just DIED.

                  “Another strawman; furthermore, it’s wiggerism in action. “Da capitalyss be keepin’ da pipul down!” says wignat (wigger nationalist) at the sight of KFC, which is half a step removed from niggers who screech about how “dis be a whypipo conspiracy to kill da black man.””

                  I see you’re a fan of BBC Pidgin too.

                  Unfortunately it’s real. I couldn’t begin to count the number of times I’ve experienced this first-hand.
                  My first interaction with this demon in our midst was about five years ago: some security guard had been telling everyone how tired he was after his 50+ hour working week risking life and limb to secure other people’s wealth.
                  Fine, freedom to choose, etc. etc. right?
                  OK……. then he told us all how he was strapped for cash that evening because he’d spent £40 on a Domino’s delivery.
                  He still decided to hit the town, and by the end of the night he’d parted with another £40-50 one way or another.

                  No doubt, the week before pay day, he felt the consequences of this, but come pay day, it was time to do it all again, Katy Perry style – except it’s no joke.

                  What happens to that guy when disaster strikes? Two possibilities: either he’ll lurch from one debt disaster to the next until he ends up homeless or dead; or he’ll become an obedient little robot serving his corporate masters under the promise that nanny state will look after him.

                  Both bad outcomes in my book, but you seem ok with all of it.

                  Given that you personally are a eugenicist who thinks people will be just as OK as you are with bodies in the street, this comes as no surprise, but the fact you have the slightest support among self-described reactionaries is a mystery to me.
                  I’ve given up trying to BE a reactionary in the face of these attitudes, but it’s a mystery to me that anyone can see THEMSELVES as a reactionary defending civilisation against degeneracy whilst siding with the pizza guys.

                  “See, CR, I am not terribly racist; I want to eliminate niggers of all colors.”

                  What makes you think I give a damn? I want nothing but the best for our African cousins, so long as they stay away from me. I don’t give a damn if you have violent race war fantasies: you may get your wish long before I get mine.

                  The Cominator says:

                  “CR quite simply you reject in total Jim’s freehold principle (rather then wanting to limit it in specific cases).”

                  As a PRINCIPLE, yes. In practice, there’s a lot of work to be done by the private sector and there’s very little need for property taxes, income taxes, and certainly none for inheritance tax and suchlike.
                  There’s very little need for regulators as currently understood and there’s very little need for price fixing *as currently understood*. There may be a need for some temporary interventions to correct grotesque markets such as housing, but these won’t last long. Once houses become HOMES once more, the idea of frequently selling one will seem quaint and destructive.

                  “When you continue to argue for severe violations of freehold you are going to get accused of being a socialist and an entryist.”

                  I have no objection to the term ‘socialist’ if it’s used to mean putting society first. If it’s used as a synonym for redistribution then it just doesn’t apply. Not only have I stated umpteen times that redistribution’s OFF THE TABLE, but I’ve even explained why, and what the (entirely contrary) goals of a fashy reaction would be, such as incentivising SAVING.

                  “If you want to attack the freehold principle in total fine but do so in a comprehensive way where you argue why its bad and stop making these emotional attacks on resteraunts you don’t like.”

                  What I don’t like is white men unable to reproduce even while working difficult jobs and long hours, even when they’re willing to compromise by upskilling in their leisure time, working crossed shifts with their wife and allowing their wife to also work full-time.
                  What I don’t like is the beneficiaries of that system THEN going on to push anti-white propaganda and take the taxes of those white men in the form of wage subsidies to their own underpaid staff.

                  Those entities make me think very unpleasant thoughts, but being a CIVILISED MAN, my desire is for the state to get rid of them. There is precisely zero room for negotiation with these firms, and the only reason you defend them is you’re a libertarian at heart. So long as it’s the private sector, they can do no wrong. Put a government name badge on them and you’ll suddenly see how bad they are.

                  “I actually defended you against charges of being a democrat (in the classic sense not the awful American political party).

                  IM probably more of a Democrat then either you or Jim since I argue that demotism can never be ignored entirely. In the long term the government must have the confidence of its productive male population even if the government is a hereditary absolute monarchy.”

                  You’re absolutely right. The legitimate sovereign in a healthier future will need to listen to what the masses want. What the bourgeoisie wants is completely irrelevant because they’ve proven themselves untrustworthy, cosmopolitan and treacherous.

                  Will this take the form of elections? Well no because the authority won’t be changing (Hans Hoppe’s reasons &c&c&c), but regular bouts of opinion-testing are a very good idea indeed.

                  Right now, for example, our notional King would find the general public wants broadly this:

                  – to feel the benefits of increased productivity in terms of their living standards
                  – to be able to buy a family home on one male wage
                  – a total end to immigration and in-sourcing
                  – a total end to industrial out-sourcing
                  – a sense of belonging and solidarity in the nation instead of MacDonald’s culture of critique everywhere
                  – a plan for the long-term health of the nation: perhaps eventually something like a modern version of cathedral building, but in the medium term, perhaps more mundane goals such as a return to a homogeneous, gently religious and benevolent state

                  Much the same, it should be noted, as the desires of peasants throughout history whenever they had a benign King.

                  If this all makes me a Luddite, a communist, an entryist and a bleeding heart liberal, so be it.

                • peppermint says:

                  You’re ignorant because you blame the market for canceling and pozzing all the good entertainment, and you’re a commie because you think the government should tell people what kinds of hot dogs to buy, and you’re a ghoul because you say you want productive people to enjoy the fruits of their productivity but then actually want to boss them around and make yourself a career of bossing them around.

                  Go back to heck.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In other words, you want BetFred/Ladbrooke’s, KFC/Franky&Benny, PornHub/RedTube, Netflix/Disney and all the rest to be allowed to just carry on as they are.

                  So not so much reactionary as free-market centrist MRA.

                  Fine, there are some areas of agreement between sane people and people like that. So long as you stick to saying rude things about girls, you’ll be fine. On trade and culture though you’re really no different to the cuckservatives. In fact the only thing distinguishing you from the poz/J-left is you don’t quite go so far as to say you’re GLAD things are how they are…. although you do come quite close, to be honest.

                • jim says:

                  > In other words, you want BetFred/Ladbrooke’s, KFC/Franky&Benny, PornHub/RedTube, Netflix/Disney and all the rest to be allowed to just carry on as they are.

                  Liar.

                  As I said before: The Sovereign and High Priest will impose chastity and monogamy culturally through the mass media, theologically through the state religion, and coercively through family law (in order that Silicon Valley Engineers should be able to reproduce successfully, thereby ensuring an adequate supply of of soldiers and taxpayers) in the same way that globo homo is currently being imposed culturally through the mass media, theologically through the state religion, and coercively through family law

                  When we take charge, we will call in inquisition members (Human Resources employees) and ask them if they are prepared to conform to the new doctrine. Nonconformists will be retired. Stubborn nonconformists who continue to preach will be sent to re-education camps in Alaska, and in some cases dropped into the Pacific from black helicopters. With the new inquisition (the new Human Resources Department) in line, the board will fall into line. Sarbannes Oxley accounting will simply become illegal. We will privatize accounting, and in that sense, be more libertarian than the current regime. But we are not going to privatize the Human Resources Department, which will work much as it does at present, but under new management. Also, Human Resources will no longer preach and enforce doctrines transparently falsified by observation, and in that sense more libertarian, but it will continue to preach the official state faith, and enforce outward compliance with the official state faith.

                  Pornhub will continue to have porn, but no gay porn, cuck porn, etc. Mills & Boon is going to be shut down, Romance stories will only be permitted if either the girl goes directly from the authority of her father to the authority of her fiancee, or if the story ends in murder and suicide as with Romeo and Juliet. No happy ending romances involving unattractive forty year old women with four children being courted by three men, and then happily ever aftering with a six foot six billionaire vampire pirate king. Adultery is to feature wicked people who deservedly die violently. Galahad is traitor, Queen Guinevere is a slut, and they cause their own deaths, the deaths of everyone around them, and the fall of Camelot.

                  You will scarcely notice the change in Pornhub, but the romance section of the bookstore is going to disappear, and when it reappears, will be much smaller and have radically different content.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You will scarcely notice the change in Pornhub, but the romance section of the bookstore is going to disappear, and when it reappears, will be much smaller and have radically different content.”

                  You’re pretty good on the MRA stuff, and the way things are going today, that’s going to be item number one for some considerable time.

                  The other stuff can wait. I wish NRx folks had a little more empathy for their co-whites, but we can’t have everything. You’re still better than ‘pure’ libertarians and orders of magnitude better than conservatives of all stripes (including those sympathetic to curbing degeneracy, albeit in bad ways).

                  This pro-business anti-state bias is just something those watching you have noted about you. It’s not the end of the world, it just places you in the same broad church as the pro-market ‘Freedom Caucus’, the ancaps, the Mises guys and (especially) the ‘Free State Project’ types in NH.

                  Perfectly respectable. Wrong, but perfectly respectable.

  19. Kgaard says:

    To me the most interesting theory is that of Judy Wood, as detailed in her book, “Where did the towers go?” Her analysis addresses the weird manner in which the towers did not so much fall as “turn to dust.” You can see the pieces disintegrating and vaporizing as they descend. Then there is the issue of the melting rubber on cars well away from the scene, as well as molten lava-like metal in the basements etc. Her thesis is that an energy weapon was used to destroy the buildings.

    • X says:

      Oh shit here come the disinformation kooks. Or their surrogates who are duped by Judy Wood.

      • Kgaard says:

        Not a disinformation kook. I read her book and found it persuasive. I’ve never seen a good rebuttal. If you can point me to one I’d be happy to change my mind.

    • peppermint says:

      this is the 21st century. we have understood what the forces of the universe are for decades. how does this energy weapon work?

      • Kgaard says:

        [*Fresh lies deleted*]

        • jim says:

          The point you make is worthy of discussion, but the fact that you made it indicates you have no intention of discussing it. When I point out that that is not in fact what the video shows, you will just claim something else, and likely claim a dozen more things, so I censored it instead of rebutting it, for a rebuttal would be a waste of reader bandwidth.

          When I point out that what a troofer claims to see is not what in fact the videos and photograph show, then troofers, without defending or conceding their original claim, issue a new claim, and often a twenty new claims, saturating available bandwidth with a storm of lies too numerous to be rebutted.

          Stick only to the following issues: Molten steel, fell straight down, and no plane at the Pentagon. When one of your claims is rebutted, do not promptly issue twenty more claims and then act as though the original claim had not been rebutted. Instead, defend the original claim, or concede the original claim.

          Only those three claims will be permitted, all others will be censored, because troofers do not defend or support their claims, they just move right along and make new claims.

          • Kgaard says:

            Okay those are reasonable terms.

            Plane at the Pentagon … yes … your explanation moved the needle for me. You are correct that people showing just the small hole were in fact showing an exit hole and thus that was disinformation. I didn’t know that. So I am open to a plane having hit the pentagon.

            Molten steel — Nothing useful to say.

            Fell straight down — Well this gets to the crux of it. The building does not look to be falling. It looks to be blowing apart, with pieces turning to dust in mid air. The amount of rubble at the bottom is not consistent with what supposedly fell, no?

            • jim says:

              No, not what it looks like. The first second or two look like a tree falling sideways, tilting as a solid rigid unit, then the structure connecting the top to the bottom disintegrates, then the top falls straight down < a href ="/images/building_7_collapse.jpg">as a solid rigid unit, and then when and where the fast moving top and the stationary bottom meet, they shatter explosively. The stuff explosively flying apart only happens after the top has been falling for a bit and has reached mighty high speed, by which time it is a little bit late for explosives planted by evil CIA operatives in order to frame sweet innocent peace loving Muslim rapeugees.

              • Kgaard says:

                Ah sorry I was referring to WTC 1 and 2. If that is changing the subject or you are sick of the topic that’s fine.

                But I have only heard one good explanation for why pieces of the WTC 1 and 2 appear to be turning to dust in mid-air (other than Judy Wood’s) and that is that the concrete is somehow being pulverized. But I don’t see how that can happen to a piece of the building that is already flying through the air. The puliverization of the concrete would seem only possible under pressure, and once something is flying through the air it is no longer under pressure.

                • jim says:

                  > I was referring to WTC 1 and 2.

                  World Trade Center Building One and World Trade Center Bulding Two behave in much the same way as World Trade Center Building Seven, though it is more obvious with World Trade Center Building Seven

                  In all three cases, top tilts like a tree leaning towards the notch cut by the axeman, then free fall downwards, then, when it is moving mighty fast, then, when and where the fast moving top and the stationary bottom meet, they shatter explosively. The stuff explosively flying apart only happens after the top has been falling for a bit and has reached mighty high speed, by which time it is a little bit late for explosives planted by evil CIA operatives in order to frame sweet innocent gentle peace loving Muslim rapeugees.

                  > But I don’t see how that can happen to a piece of the building that is already flying through the air.

                  And that, of course, is why nobody saw that happen to any pieces of the building that were already flying through the air.

                  And, predictably, instead of trying to support your lie by presenting examples of that happening to pieces of the building that were already flying through the air, you will provide ten links to people who claim to have seen that happening to pieces of the building that were already flying through the air, ten documents that take completely for granted that everyone knows and agrees that happened to pieces of the building that were already flying through the air, and twenty completely new, and equally unsupported, claims.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  At which point the Bin Laden family’s the only group allowed to fly and the media creates the impression that Iraq did it.
                  Meanwhile plenty of available cushy alternate office space and a rapid increase to Muslim immigration in conjunction with the Patriot Act putting jeeps in rural towns.

                • Kgaard says:

                  Well here is Judy Wood’s dustification argument. At the 6-minute mark she discusses with video pieces of steel turning to dust in mid-air.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LG83Fc7Us

                  I’m not a scientist so I can’t prove it one way or the other. But to me her explanation the only one I’ve heard that explains why these pieces seem to be disintegrating as they’re falling. it also explains why there is so little rubble at the bottom.

                  I’m not in this for any agenda other than getting the right answer. You’ve changed my mind to some extent on the Pentagon. If you can convince me she’s wrong that would be great.

                • jim says:

                  I predicted that instead of showing us pieces that seem to be dustifying, you would link us to someone else telling us that she sees pieces that seem to be dustifying, and, lo and behold …

                  She implies that she is going to show us pieces dustifying, she implies she has shown us pieces dustifying, but, surprise, surprise, does not actually show us pieces dustifying.

                  If there is an image of a piece dustifying, show us the two second close up of it dustifying, not the three hour lecture of a talking head telling us all the remarkable things that she supposedly saw.

                • Kgaard says:

                  I thought you would say that, and I suppose it is a bit of an open question why those pieces are trailing dust.

                  Now … the best clip I’ve seen of dustification in progress is this one, which is 25 seconds but grainy. I didn’t include it initially because I figured you’d say, “Well, it sure is grainy, how do we know what you think is happening is actually happening?”

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG57LD7lkGw

                  What this appears to show is a spire turning to dust. If it’s collapsing, why does it leave a spire-shaped shadow of dust in its wake? What could explain that?

                • jim says:

                  It is not “flying through the air”, not yet a separate piece. It is part of a collapsing structure that is rapidly turning into separate pieces.

                  Tall slender object bends over slightly, part of its structure pulverizes, starts falling straight down, entire structure suddenly pulverizes, It is not “flying through the air” It is crashing into something underneath it. Indeed, until it disintegrates completely, still seems to be attached to something, perhaps several things, and those things are themselves falling. It is falling sideways, as what it stands on seems to fall away underneath it.

                  At 15 seconds we see a tall slender fragment of the building tilt slightly to one side as a rigid object, like a tree toppling. After it has tilted slightly, starts to collapse downwards, still like a rigid object, implying that some lower section of it has disintegrated. After falling a sizable distance straight downwards as a rigid object, suddenly the entire object disintegrates.

                  Does not look like CIA explosive charges. Big things falling fast are brittle. No one would be surprised by a big pane of glass suddenly turning into a cloud of fragments. Whatever happened to that spire, does not seem all that strange, and does not look anything like explosives.

                  It turned into small bits while falling straight down – not a terribly surprising outcome: large objects are brittle, and and in the collapse, subject to large forces. Maybe it disintegrated on hitting the thing below it, maybe it turned into small bits earlier, when it bent over slightly sideways, but the bits stayed together part of the way down, and then suddenly started going their separate ways.

                  The actual event far less mysterious than your, or Judy’s, description of the event. Small part of large disintegrating structure suddenly disintegrates. What a surprise. </sarcasm> If it was already detached, then the sudden disintegration would be odd.

                • Kgaard says:

                  Well that’s the best I got for troofing. I disagree with your conclusions but whatever … I can’t prove anything and I don’t know anything about science. I know what intuitively I find convincing and that’s that I guess.

                • jim says:

                  Your intuition is fooled by scale. Big things are brittle. If this was human sized, its behavior would indeed be odd – but not odd in a way that would suggest that people had attached explosives too it.

                  But it is enormously larger than human scale, therefore fragile and brittle.

                  If you fired a bullet at a sheet of glass, would not be surprised if it suddenly disintegrated.

  20. Mister Grumpus says:

    Big thanks for this one. Big big thanks.

  21. X says:

    I’m censoring myself from Jim’s blog as of this post. So any posts that follow the timestamp of this one will not be read by me. So my non-response to them will not be an indication of an inability to do so. Rather I need to get back to my important work.

    Frankly I can’t decide if Jim and his regulars here are disinformation agents or if they just hate the left so much that they can’t accept that the right was also involved in the perpetration of 9/11. I lean to this being the case, not the former. Also based on the interaction with Roberto, I am inclined to believe the reason the guys here can’t accept the truth is because it would destroy their will to live. They just can’t imagine living in a world that is so entirely fucked as it is really is.

    Seriously Jim, I am closing this and not coming back. Because I would otherwise never get any work done.

    I do hope you all come to your senses. But that is your decision to make. I can lead a horse to water, but I can’t force it to drink.

    • Calvin says:

      Who wants to bet he’ll be back under a different alias inside a month? Do I hear any takers for a week?

      • X says:

        I have come back momentarily mainly because I saw Jim post a photo where he misrepresents pulverized concrete dust as smoke from fires. I will challenge him on that lie, so I might as well reply to few other posts while I am here. I will soon be gone again.

        You were asked questions that you failed to answer.

        It is your blog so you can lie and censor as much as you want. But that doesn’t magically convert your vicious lies into truth.

        • Roberto says:

          Answer the 4 questions.

          • X says:

            I am writing a blog now that will answer your 4 questions. I have found the smoking gun about the Pentagon that nobody else realized before! Should appear later today.

            My “X” username above is linked to my blog.

            Hint: 70 degrees magnetic north (which is 80 degrees geographic north) is the same as 70 degrees geographic north. And 4 additional seconds were on the flight data recorder with the error correcting codes removed. This explains the entire hoax! Stay tuned…

    • jim says:

      You were asked questions that you failed to answer. I would have been interested in your answers, and would have addressed them seriously.

      Instead you rapid fire sprayed a numerous new claims, without committing yourself to any of your old claims, or defending any of your old claims.

      • Yara says:

        Here’s a short list of things I have fruitlessly demanded of you:

        [*list deleted*]

        • jim says:

          You claim all sorts of remarkable, extraordinary, and improbable things happened when the towers fell, and then demand that *I* provide evidence that they did not happen.

          That is not how it works. When you make an extraordinary claim, *you* are supposed to provide evidence that it did happen.

          And when I do provide evidence of something, you then demand evidence of something else. And if I provide evidence of something else you then proceed to lie barefaced that I failed to provide evidence of the original thing that you asked for, even though, as for example evidence of the World Tower Seven falling sideways, I provided ample and overwhelming evidence.

          In particular the original post contains video and photograph of World Tower Seven falling towards the south. It is in the video starting at thirteen seconds, in the original post, and in this post to which you are responding. Double click on the image, and wait thirteen seconds, to see the building fall towards the south.

          You failed to respond to evidence that World Tower Seven fell southwards, demanded evidence for lots more things, and then the evidence that World Tower Seven fell southwards slipped your memory and you demanded evidence for that one all over again.

          There is no end of things you demand evidence for, and no end of things you could demand evidence for, and when I do provide evidence, you ignore it and proceed to lie barefaced that no evidence was provided. How about you provide some evidence?

          Further, your lies are so carefully phrased as to indicate awareness that you are lying, indicating that you have been called on your lies many times before.

          For example, you demand evidence of a steel frame building falling from fire, as if it was well known and uncontroversial that World Trade Tower Seven fell from fire alone, as if this was an uncontroversial and accepted fact, when in fact it is a lie. A fireman looked at the damage, estimated the building to be likely to fall from fire and damage, therefore in his expert opinion, the fall was not surprising.

          If you want to argue no significant damage, therefore fall from fire alone, therefore the fall is surprising, and unusual, you have to produce evidence, and since you are disagreeing with an expert witness, you have to produce compelling evidence.

          Because a fireman is an expert witness, I don’t have to produce evidence that the damage was sufficient to make collapse from fire plus damage likely, you have to produce evidence that damage was insignificant, or did not affect the collapse therefore the collapse was collapse from fire alone, hence unlikely. That steel frame buildings rarely fall from fire alone is irrelevant to the case of a steel frame building so damaged that in the opinion of a fireman, the damage makes fall from fire plus damage likely.

          • Roberto says:

            For those not following what’s going on, let me post the following:

            “Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail.

            Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

            The reasons are as follows:

            1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

            2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

            3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

            4. Numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

            For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else – as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

            Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

            Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

            Regards, Dan Nigro
            Chief of Department FDNY (retired)”

            https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

            And a troofer, without conceding anything at all, will say that Daniel Nigro must be somehow involved in the conspiracy and the cover-up, and is not even a real fireman but a crisis actor, etc.

            It’s all so… tiring.

  22. So they pretty much tricked Danny Jowenko by showing him a video taken from a misleading angle?

  23. eternal anglo says:

    Deputy Attorney General, overseer of the Russia collusion probe, Rod Rosenstein resigns in anticipation of being fired by the God Emperor: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/408076-axios-rosenstein-says-he-plans-to-resign

    HAVE WE STARTED THE FIRE?

  24. Bill Muhr says:

    Jim, I’m disappointed by your love for Jews (who have destroyed white civilization). Nobody (especially boomers) is perfect, I guess.

    But this loon you’ve sparked off is hilarious. Great work.

    • jim says:

      Again, I ask for a concrete and plausible explanation of how the Jews caused 9/11

      And again, I will not receive one.

      • Invader Zim says:

        Concrete explanation? I honestly don’t think one can be produced, not a power-point type thing with appropriate bells and whistles. And after all, maybe that isn’t what happened at all. I’m not welded to the notion, nobody should be, and besides, it hardly matters anyway. But plausible explanation? I already kinda-sorta went over that.

        Just forget ideology and treat it as a thought exercise. We can I think rule out zany invisible demolition teams; 9/11 was caused by planes crashing into buildings.

        The simple, elegant explanation is the obvious one: Muslim fanatics behaving true to form. It only makes sense to explore any further options if you’re including other outside questions that conjure up puzzlement. I have no idea how to evaluate much of the odd peripheral stuff, things like shady Israeli moving companies or Larry Silverstein’s rather “interesting” business decisions. Could be true, could be made-up internet hooey, I have no way to tell, which is why I call a lot of it unknowable to an amateur. Some of the more peculiar scuttlebutt one hears could be chalked up to the unprecedented aspect of the situation, viz. people made weird decisions b/c they were in a really weird situation and there was no protocol for how to act.

        But for the sake of argument, if you admitted some of the rumors and processed them with the historic outcome (bizarre pointless war which seems to have served only Israeli interests, and which was predicated on an outrage which had been conveniently anticipated by neocon influences, specifically as a pretext for a pointless Mideast war) then it really isn’t too hard to imagine a scenario. Mossad infiltrates al-Quaeda, runs a cell, and gets Muslims to perpetrate an outrage whose long-range effects and outcomes benefit Israel.

        Did that happen? Maybe not. Maybe even, Probably not. Is it plausible? Of course it is. Stop pretending it’s an impenetrable head-scratcher. But let’s say you’re better than me at judging whether all the peripheral info is true, and you’re able to say with confidence that it’s not. Then simple explanation of Muslim fanatics makes most sense, and Mossad (or CIA if you like, same animal) involvement doesn’t seem likely.

        To me it’s just a five finger exercise, one more crackpot on the Internet matters not a whit. So that’s it for me, this was just a bit of practice at considering a strange problem. Cheerio, gentlemen, over and out.

        • jim says:

          > Concrete explanation? I honestly don’t think one can be produced

          That is exactly my point. That it is impossible to invent any concrete specific plausible scenario in which you can blame the Jews and exculpate the Muslims – the latter being the whole point of all this ridiculous stupid nonsense.

          Although there is absolutely no evidence of controlled demolition by dancing Israelis etc, there is ample and overwhelming evidence of White House misconduct and FBI misconduct, in that they turned a blind eye to what the Muslims were doing, and then failed to act when the proverbial hit the fan. But no one is interested in this actual and obvious misconduct, because this misconduct was clearly motivated by fear of appearing prejudiced against Muslims, was motivated by Islamophobiaphobia, like the audience of Major Nidal Hasan, who politely and respectfully listened to his power point presentation on why he was going to murder them, like Hillary Clinton ordering no defense of the Libyan Embassy, because Muslims supposedly just loved the democracy that the US was so generously helping them attain.

          Instead, people are issuing barefaced lies claiming wildly improbable misconduct, which absurd and surreal misconduct has the effect of implying that Islamophobia is a wicked Jewish plot, whereas the actual and obvious misconduct implies that it is rational and wise to fear Islam, and that Islamophobiaphobia is self destructive insanity.

          The real and obvious misconduct implies the White House and the FBI were evil, stupid, and crazy for failing to fear Islam. Instead we get a story that exculpates progressive evil, stupidity, and madness, and blames the Jews.

          Jews do lots of bad stuff – which makes them very handy when you are caught red handed doing something bad, and you want to blame someone else. “It is not me. It is the Jews!” Supposedly it was not German politicians that caused the Wiemar hyperinflation, it was disproportionately Jewish international banksters. Which though absurdly false, as Hitler observed, nonetheless was superficially plausible because the international banksters had done lots of bad stuff.

          In this case our government was caught red handed doing something very bad, is still doing that very bad thing (for example ignoring the likely consequences of importing large numbers of male military age Muslim voters from subsaharan Africa and dumping them on marginal federal electorates in flyover country) and we see lots of people appearing on this blog saying “Hey, no problem, nothing wrong with all this, it is the Jews”

          One of the commentators asks who benefits from conflict between the US and Islam? Obviously the Jews.

          But who benefits from denying bad things done by Muslims? Who is right now ignoring and covering up the rapes of white women and children resulting from their voter replacement program?

          • Koanic says:

            I would expect Muslims living in the West trying to shift blame to the Jews so they can import more Muslims to sound dumber and crazier than the commenters here I’ve been not reading.

            For other leftists, I wouldn’t expect them to try to shift blame to Jews. They’d shift blame to fucking white males for emanating root causes for 9/11.

            • jim says:

              > For other leftists, I wouldn’t expect them to try to shift blame to Jews.

              Not exactly blaming “The Jews”. Blaming Israel. The left is as anti Israel as it is Anti American.

              Progs, who are for the most part biologically and culturally of Christian descent, hate Christians and Christianity.

              Marxists, including Cultural Marxists, who are for the most part biologically and culturally of Jewish descent, hate Jews and Judaism. Reflect on the intransigent and bitter outrage against moving the embassy to Jerusalem. Leftists want a prog Israel in which Jews get permanently outvoted, much as they want a prog America in which whites get permanently outvoted.

              • Roberto says:

                Two Canadian Jews, Michel Chossudovsky and Henry Makow, have been very prominent in the troof movement. Regarding the former, “NATO information warfare specialists in November 2017 linked to a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media.” Granted, mainstream Western media has no credibility, but it seems that Chossudovsky is employed by the Russians. He’s a no-planer, needless to say.

                • jim says:

                  Cultural Marxists: By and large, most cultural Marxists are Jews, and most Jewish Cultural Marxists hate Jews and hate Israel more than anyone. His anti semitism is like white male progs being against white Christian males.

                  Leftists say they are against near because supposedly in favor of far, but actually they hate everyone and everything, they favor death over life, dying over living. Sometimes someone hates Jews and leftists, not because he is a rightist, but because he is a Jew and a leftist.

              • Koanic says:

                > Marxists, including Cultural Marxists, who are for the most part biologically and culturally of Jewish descent, hate Jews and Judaism.

                Ohhhhh-k. That’s a good point. I forgot about that.

                Still, I think the non-Muslim US left would have opsec problems paying shills to blame Israel for 9/11. Marxist desire to destroy Israel would be part of the “ambient Progressive memes” fertilizing a grassroots internet commenter movement to do so.

                It’s a religion, after all. Which is the best way to create unpaid laborers.

                However there could be upstream guys like the two Roberto mentioned who are funded, and blame Israel as part of disinfo, but maybe aren’t funded specifically TO blame Israel, just to be themselves, more or less.

                • jim says:

                  There is a major openly funded Harvard and Academia program dedicated to denying that the FBI and CIA coverup of the terrorists plot was motivated by political correctness and islamophobiaphobia, denying that it was motivated by the same factors that lead police and judiciary to deny and conceal the rapes of white women and children committed by Muslim rapeugees dumped on marginal federal electorates in flyover country, denying that it was motivated by the same factors that led Major Nisal Hasan’s Fort Hood audience to respectfully and politely listen to his power point presentation on why he was going to murder them, denying that it was motivated by the same factors as led Hillary to stonewall on Bhengazi. This program suggests that the coverup was motivated by the supposed fact that they were not Muslim terrorists, but actually CIA/Mossad operatives faking up a terrorism, implying and hinting at all the usually barefaced troofer lies without actually stating in print to any of the usual barefaced troofer tales.

                  This openly government funded program fades off at the edges into the usual troofer operation, where they spew out thirty lies in thirty seconds, and refuse to defend or support any one lie. You will not find a respectable academic doing that on government funds, but you will find respectable academics coming mighty close, and no clear separation between the academic in good standing, and the internet memer who spews out thirty lies in thirty seconds.

                  You will also notice that Google blocks searches for scientific information on global warming, while promoting pseudo scientific official science on global warming. Arguably it is promoting troofers on 9/11, and blocking the actual truth on 9/11. Use a search term related to 9/11, genuinely factual examinations seem to get anomalously low page rank.

                • Koanic says:

                  This sounds plausible. I am curious to see links supporting this:

                  > This program suggests that the coverup was motivated by the supposed fact that they were not Muslim terrorists, but actually CIA/Mossad operatives faking up a terrorism, implying and hinting at all the usually barefaced troofer lies without actually stating in print to any of the usual barefaced troofer tales.

                  I’m curious to see which non-Muslim elite academics are hinting it was Israel, not Al-Qaeda.

            • Roberto says:

              On 9/11, there was indeed a group of people dancing, but it was not the Israelis – it was Palestinians. Which is precisely why the “dancing Israelis” meme was created by the troof movement.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            “blame the Jews and exculpate the Muslims”

            This binary form is fake and gay. We already know that the State Of Israel funds, heals and generally supports the Al-Nusra Front in Syria.

            It’s perfectly possible for Israel to seek to maximise American anti-Muslim sentiment while simultaneously funding Muslim grievance direct action.

            Ryan Dawson has a lot to say about this, including (and I don’t seek to misrepresent: go to Ryan instead of listening to me) the fact that most of the businesses occupying the Twin Towers found no particular difficulty procuring alternate accommodation right after the attacks.

            • jim says:

              Straw man attack: You are saying it is perfectly possible for Israel to do bad things, as if anyone ever doubted that Israel does bad things.

              The question at issue, however is Muslims doing bad things, and apologists for Muslims, and for a political class that regularly overlooks bad Muslim conduct, blaming bad things undeniably and obviously done by Muslims on Israel.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Muslims are, to put it rather mildly, not an amorphous blob.

                What you’re saying, in the end, is that it’s not possible to manipulate cretinous elements in the Muslim world to create chaos and weaken strengthening Muslim nations before they become a threat.

                Bit naive, to be honest.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Pre-empting straw man: am I claiming Muslims lack agency?

                  Sure, a bit. They’re somewhat stupid, somewhat impulsive, somewhat violent as a people. (Middle Easterners, Muslims, take your pick.)

                  They don’t *entirely* lack agency but if Israel’s capable of gaslighting Western populations in various ways (which I assume as a Cathedralist you must accept to some extent), surely (DING!) the same trick could work on low intelligence savages.

                  ?

                • jim says:

                  Every single plausibly faithful Muslim, ever single Muslim generally regarded by other Muslims as faithful, supports terror, in the sense that he will not openly oppose, and will at least passively if not actively, support terrorists of his own sect. After notable acts of terror, the press sometimes goes around the imams looking for an imam to condemn it. Never get any takers. All Muslims are one nation.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If that were actually true, we’d be absolutely screwed.

                  Muslims are people, and just like us they talk and posture and chew the cud.
                  If Muslims were like the cartoon boomers have of them, we’d be absolutely screwed.

                  The West has them installed in every industry, every town&settlement, every arm of government. If they sprang into action, we’d be absolutely screwed.

                  In the real world, there are a few organised terror cells and there are a few criminals who spring into action. That’s plenty bad enough.

                  All’s I’m saying is it’s best for Israel is Iraq and Syria are not strong and stable, because once a nation becomes strong and stable, it has options. While a nation’s torn apart by in-fighting and chaos, it’s no threat.

                • jim says:

                  > > Every … Muslim … supports terror … All Muslims are one nation.

                  > If that were actually true, we’d be absolutely screwed.

                  Not screwed. We can always do what the Burmese are doing today, do what the Chinese are doing in Xinjiang today, do what everyone for the past thirteen hundred years has always wound up doing:

                  War with Islam.

                  Every Muslim gets killed, expelled, or swordpoint conversion. Put the males in detention camps, shotgun marry the females off to our own people. See the Reconquista or the Chinese in Xinjiang province right now for how to deal with the kebab problem.

                  For over a thousand years, every kingdom, every empire, every people, every nation, every culture, every civilization, every race, and every religion, has searched for some other solution. No one has found any other solution, and everyone wound up applying the one solution that works, or else they perished.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  omg scratch a trad libertarian and find a neo-con 😮

                  I see no reason why another single Muslim needs to die for globohomo. Just institute a sane policy of apartheid, preferably around nation-state lines but if adjustments are required, so be it.

                • jim says:

                  The reason that there is the superficial appearance of peace with our Muslim minority is that our cops are reluctant to do anything about Muslims raping white women and raping white children of both sexes. This is not peace, it is surrender, and if they were to act to do something about it, the appearance of peace would evaporate mighty fast, which is why they let it pass.

                  Similarly, observe prayer rooms in airports. If those were Christmas trees at Christmas, there would be a problem, but Muslim zones at airports, no problem.

                  We have the superficial appearance of peace with our Muslim minority because everyone responds to Muslim misbehavior in the same way they respond to female misbehavior, as exemplified by the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, the Flight 93 Victory Mosque, and the reaction of the Major Nidal Hasan’s audience to his power point presentation. It is a one sided and brutally intolerable peace.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Of course but the answer’s living separately, not slaughtering them and forcing them to convert to Christianity. That’s just juvenile.

                  Muslims are our inferiors. We can’t expect them to do well in our societies and we shouldn’t want them to. They have plenty of territory, there’s no shortage of Lebensraum for those people.

                  It’s never ever going to end if we just ramp up the slaughter though. That has to completely stop, starting with outright victory for Assad and peace with Iran.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “Of course but the answer’s living separately, not slaughtering them and forcing them to convert to Christianity. That’s just juvenile.”

                  Those who don’t want to convert should be driven back to the gulf. All lands of former Christendom should be cleansed and retaken.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  We may have to accept a compromise in some areas, sorry to say.
                  Recovering from the alliance of Communism and Capitalism is not going to be painless.

                • Calvin says:

                  “After notable acts of terror, the press sometimes goes around the imams looking for an imam to condemn it. Never get any takers. All Muslims are one nation.”

                  Not *quite* true. The imams of institutions completely under the thumb of relatively sane governments (like Al Azhar in Egypt) can generally be relied on to parrot whatever they’re told. Hence their head man duly calling ISIS murders of Copts in Libya “barbaric and evil” and supporting government airstrikes on their positions. Islam’s insistence on blind obedience to even nominally Muslim rulers means they can usually get the great mass of clerics to do as bid.

                  Of course that only reemphasizes the need to support sane and stable dictatorships throughout the Islamic world and get rid of them here.

          • Javier says:

            >But who benefits from denying bad things done by Muslims?

            Lutherans, actually. Probably other churches too. So they can have a job and feel good about themselves for doing something holy. All the refugee resettlement programs are run by Christians. They like government money, the government pays them to bring in muslims and shitty africans, and they defend the muslims and shitty africans because they don’t want to admit they’re doing stupid things. “It is hard to convince a man of a thing when his job depends on him not knowing it…” etc. etc.

            Once a government program is set up, it’s existence becomes it’s own justification. We can’t shut down the refugee programs because that would “cost jobs.” So we must continually search for new sources of refugees, which happens to be the middle east and shitty african countries.

            Can’t blame jews for this, blame Nyarlathotep.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*repetitious 1930s communist propaganda deleted as a waste of bandwidth*]

              • Roberto says:

                >private industry benefits from a total absence of worker solidarity

                https://i.imgflip.com/2ipvpn.jpg

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re only confirming what I’m saying: a lot of the people here are libertarians and simply cannot conceive of any angle in favour of mass immigration that originates from and is wholly unique to the private sector.

                  “I’m not a scab – you have no idea what it’s like to be me because your white privilege makes it impossible for you to put yourself in my shoes: try fighting your way up in a foreign land against all odds” lol

                  I’m being deadly serious: how can white people organise when the option’s always available to just import new workers?

                  But of course as a libertarian you don’t WANT people to organise for better pay and conditions. You just want the bottom line of private business to be as big as possible. If that comes on the back of an impoverished population that can’t afford to reproduce, no problem: just let the free market allocate new bums on seats.

                  (literally)

                • jim says:

                  > You’re only confirming what I’m saying: a lot of the people here are libertarians and simply cannot conceive of any angle in favour of mass immigration that originates from and is wholly unique to the private sector.

                  H1B immigration obviously originates from the private sector.

                  The mass importation of Democratic party voters to live on crime and welfare obviously does not, and suggesting that it does is nuts as trooferism.

                  > But of course as a libertarian you don’t WANT people to organise for better pay and conditions.

                  Lenin observed that the proletariat lacks proletarian consciousness and is not going to develop it. You are appealing to a class identity that does not exist, and that invites people to ingroup those that outgroup them.

                  We are elitists. So of course we would not want the proletariat to develop proletarian consciousness, but they never have, and the way the wind blows, even less likely to do so now.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s good that you admitted H1B was a private sector driven phenomenon. I doubt Roberto or Javier would be comfortable doing that.

                  As for crime and welfare, are you crazy? Welfare’s WONDERFUL for the private sector.
                  Someone living on welfare will never have, or even want, large ticket price possessions or long-term heavy investments.
                  That means every penny they get gets spent.

                  Worse, they’re under the impression that their income’s secure, unlike a middle-class worker. There’s no need to put aside some of their pay for a rainy day, because they don’t expect to ever encounter a rainy day, and if a rainy day comes, they expect the government to pay to sort it out for them.

                  That means every penny they get gets spent lol

                  As for crime, do you think living in a crime-ridden neighbourhood makes people focus more on the long term? lol

                  Grab what you can today because tomorrow you might get stabbed, baby!

                  It’s a libertarian paradise.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Notice too that the benefits aren’t all direct. As a factory owner, do you want a community that cares if someone’s getting screwed by an impulsive redundancy or if your workers aren’t being properly compensated for weekend and holiday work?

                  No way, you want a community where everyone keeps to themselves. Diversity’s a huge strength, which is why they push for it so much harder than the government does.

                  That’s always been the case.

                  Now am I letting the government off the hook? Of course not: they have the same crap to gain from it for largely the same reasons.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “We are elitists. So of course we would not want the proletariat to develop proletarian consciousness”

                  Are ‘we’ libertarians?

                  I’m not a libertarian, but it’s been clear for some time that I’m not part of your ingroup either.

                  I very much am an élitist however, which is why I don’t give a damn what kind of CULTURE the proletariat wants: they deserve very little say in those kinds of decisions.

                  Does it follow that I want them to be impoverished in order to maximise GDP?

                  It does if I’m a libertarian. I’m not a libertarian: are you?

                  Society, in the élitist sense, is best served when the majority of workers CAN afford a family and a family home. Whether you yearn for the 1890s or the 1940s, those parts of society you admire the most were those parts in which civilised standards were the most established.

                  A slum tower block full of productive low skill high time preference consumers is not something an élitist appreciates.

                  The fundamental flaw of the Cathedral model is it ignores the role of the entrepreneur. It never occurs to a neo-reactionary that an entrepreneur will make the best of every change that trickles out from Academia and the Media.

                  Only libertarians could possibly think the billionaire class is a victim class lol

                • Roberto says:

                  >Only libertarians could possibly think the billionaire class is a victim class lol

                  They are not a victim class, but will be dispossessed and/or murdered if people like you ever gain power, and I consider those who wish to dispossess and/or murder Peter Thiel to be my enemies and civilization’s enemies. You hate private enterprise because you see it as uncontrollable, which is simply intolerable to a control freak.

                  I’m glad your shibboleths are too on-the-nose to pass under the leftism-detection radar. It’s amusing to watch you feigning surprise at that your “Fellow rightists, we need workers’ solidarity against the exploitative entrepreneurs” act only results in backlash; did you really expect the right-most blog on the planet to play along with your thinly-veiled calls for totalitarianism?

                  Your failure to grasp why private enterprise advances civilization suggests that you don’t grasp biological Darwinism either. Actual right-wingers know that it is through incessant trial-and-error that advances are made; left-wingers are those who seek to top-down socially engineer society according to their control freak preferences, and at that, without much regard for empirical observation; and when the top-down social engineering results in endless misery, they interpret it as a sign that not enough top-down social engineering has been applied, and therefore double down on it until either a Stalin puts a stop to it or society collapses.

                  You know the words, but not the music. You may utter the words, “Eugenics is good for society,” but you don’t actually grasp the inner mechanism that these words denote. You don’t grok Darwinism, social or otherwise. You want to allocate value according to your control freak preferences, but you have not for a second considered how to foster the creation of value; hence your disdain for private enterprise. Jim is right about you: you are an academic leftist, your shibboleths are Judeo-Marxist, and you are here to promote 1930’s Communism.

                  Perhaps someone should inform Thiel that some people are attempting to infiltrate the right-wing and promote — under “reactionary” pretexts, of course — the dispossession and murder of billionaires within it. You are evil, CR, and your sinister plot won’t succeed. But, just in case, an eye should be kept open on people who share your worldview.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You hate private enterprise because you see it as uncontrollable, which is simply intolerable to a control freak.”

                  This is basically right. If by ‘private enterprise’, all you mean is Walter Block’s “my tie, your pen” type of trade then this poses no threat to good order and discipline in society at all, but the switcheroo is to attain consent for THAT and then substitute Google.

                  ““Fellow rightists, we need workers’ solidarity against the exploitative entrepreneurs” act only results in backlash; did you really expect the right-most blog on the planet to play along with your thinly-veiled calls for totalitarianism?”

                  There’s no need for the aspects of totalitarianism that you always attack. Nobody wants to lay down bureaucratic regulations and nobody wants to produce meal plans for the population.
                  The call has always been to shut down corporations that are producing devastating results for members of our nation.
                  By siding with the perpetrators, you show you have no loyalty, but if pressed, you openly state you DO have no loyalty. That’s fine: libertarianism needs a rightward push.

                  “Your failure to grasp why private enterprise advances civilization suggests that you don’t grasp biological Darwinism either. Actual right-wingers know that it is through incessant trial-and-error that advances are made; left-wingers are those who seek to top-down socially engineer society according to their control freak preferences”

                  I used to BE a libertarian: I understand only too well the old routine – under Kings, we stagnated for centuries, but finally in the 18th century the markets were freed up and development occurred. We need the American Revolution but not the French Revolution.
                  Democracy by dollars not ballots.

                  I’ve heard it a million times, and I just spit on it. Material wealth MAY have increased for some for a while, but even from the beginning it created problems in society – big problems – and the solutions the progressive Whigs came up with? Redistribution and government programmes!

                  “when the top-down social engineering results in endless misery”

                  This being the conditions that necessitated the English Civil War presumably?

                  “a Stalin puts a stop to it or society collapses.”

                  This is backwards: Stalin put a stop to the purity spiral of democratic socialists, otherwise known as revolutionary communists. Stalin was one of the worst kings in the history of Russia but he was infinitely preferable to rule by the people, for the people.

                  “You want to allocate value according to your control freak preferences, but you have not for a second considered how to foster the creation of value; hence your disdain for private enterprise. ”

                  By shutting down private enterprises that create HARM, we make it possible for private enterprises to create value. What’s your plan for opening a non-toxic restaurant in the grounds of a Cineworld park to replace Franky&Benny’s?
                  Oh, there is none.

                  “an eye should be kept open on people who share your worldview.”

                  Yeah neo-reaction should co-operate with the heroic and valiant efforts to keep the Nazis at bay.

                  Jeff Tucker approves, Roberto.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto:

                  “private enterprise advances civilization”

                  This has to be the most untrue belief imaginable.
                  Prior to the freeing up of the entrepreneur to run society and the stepping back of monarchs, we built Cathedrals and produced Monteverdi and Josquin.

                  Afterwards, we had Viennese waltzes and “I Love Lucy”.

                  Give it a bit more time and you get The Beatles and “Neighbours”.

                  Then you get mixed race ‘marriages’ (black man white woman), Mexican music for *Europe* and the Turner Prize for an unmade bed.

                  The whole thing hinges on a pernicious lie: subjectivism.

                  I trade you my tie for your pen because I like the pen better. You accept the trade because you like the tie better. A dual inequality of wants and a dual reward of increased happiness. Scale that to the size of BetFred dot com and society’s getting happier all the time.

                  Let’s look at BetFred (online gambling, still illegal in some parts of America, in theory at least). A libertarian says there’s no such thing as problem gambling, just people making choices and demonstrating their preference for a buzz over future spending power. We might not personally approve but it’s all subjective, and since nobody’s forcing anybody to do anything, we have no right to intervene in any way, short of boycotting and ostracising the company if we want, but even that would be weird and ideologically unsound.

                  A leftist says we need to regulate the industry: set an arbitrary line where beyond the line you’re engaging in exploitation and problem gambling, but before the line it’s personal freedom and the rights of the individual in society. (Insert regulatory capture, perverse woolly boundaries, subjective measures of what constitutes a problem, the impossibility of drawing a line, etc. etc.)
                  The result’s basically the same.

                  A fascist (because you’re denying me the label ‘reactionary’ so I’ll use ‘fascist’ before you nit-pick this into another useless digression) walks into BetFred on Christmas Eve and sees a man crying because he blew his paycheck on gambling again and now his kids have no presents and his wife has no turkey.

                  We…shut…it…down…on…the…spot…….

                • peppermint says:

                  Your idea, teacher tracher jason said he bet timmy, isn’t a problem now, because people understand we’re at war.

                  A decade after the war ends, nanny state nonsense pushed by would-be bureaucrats will have to be resisted.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That really is the best you can do isn’t it.

                  Presented with three options,

                  1. Not-mine: libertarianism
                  2. Not-mine: leftism
                  3. MINE: fascism

                  Laid out very clearly and delimited unambiguously.

                  You attack item 2 lol

                  You’re weak. Everyone here knows they’re wrong but they stick to the Declaration Of Independence anyway.
                  But but but but but it’s only the AMERICAN revolution not the French, ha! Gotcha!

                • Javier says:

                  @CR: As usual, you spout more nonsense than one can be reasonably expected to rebut, before spewing a brand-new load of nonsense.

                  I don’t come here to argue with people, I come here to learn and occasionally offer an opinion. I don’t “have a problem” with H1B’s being private-sector driven, any more than I “have a problem” with the sun rising or grass being green. Facts are facts, duh. I’m not a libertarian and I’ve never claimed to be; libertarians are generally riddled with blind spots and idealism, and often use it as an excuse for inaction and apathy.

                  In any case none of your points make any sense, none of them are convincing arguments for anything, communism or otherwise. Like most leftists, you fantasize about giving government All the Power, but without really considering how it will actually accomplish all the magical goals you set forth for it.

                  Just stop posting here and go away, like you said you were going to do weeks ago.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Like most leftists, you fantasize about giving government All the Power, but without really considering how it will actually accomplish all the magical goals you set forth for it.”

                  Nope.

                  I’m not even going to address being called ‘leftist’ at every turn. All it shows is you have no actual argument.

                  Your claim was that immigration scams persist because they’re government programmes, and government programmes persist because the people delivering them want to carry on getting paid.

                  This is a standard libertarian trope, and it’s often true. I can’t think of a single regular poster here who would shed a tear if EVERY SINGLE government programme disappeared overnight, myself included.

                  What I’m challenging is this assumption that our problems with globohomo in the current year are primarily (or in your version ENTIRELY) due to government.

                  The evidence just doesn’t support this. The private sector is one hundred percent on board with globohomo.

                  Jim seems to think they’re just afraid of being called racists or whatever, so they go along with it in order to preserve the bottom line. Again, the evidence just doesn’t support this.

                  When they remade “Star Wars” with the standard black man white woman combination, they knew they’d be bound to lose money, and indeed they did. They were under no discernible threat from government, who are more or less entirely ‘hands off’ when it comes to movies and television and so on. (Indeed as a de facto if not de jure libertarian, you should applaud the ‘light touch’ being brought to bear on the media.)

                  It’s possible they were afraid of protests from leftists, but it’s hard to see how that would work in measurable, tangible terms.

                  Far more plausible an explanation is that they did it because *they themselves* were leftists.

                  This is where all you libertarians melt down: NO! Private sector is NEVER leftist! If they seem it, it’s because gubbmint’s coercing them!

                  Seriously, grow up. This is a problem with the society itself, not one particular moving part.

                  For what it’s worth, which at this point is basically zero, I’ll prove once again that you’re arguing against a distorted, dishonest version of what you pretend you think I’m saying.

                  I am absolutely NOT calling for state regulation. What I’m calling for is the powers that be to notice something evil and poisonous like the remaking of “Star Wars” and simply shut it down.

                  Not regulate it, not tell it how to do a better job: everybody knows how not to be evil leftist shitbags.

                  Just: shut: it: down.

                • jim says:

                  > The evidence just doesn’t support this. The private sector is one hundred percent on board with globohomo.

                  > Jim seems to think they’re just afraid of being called racists or whatever,

                  Liar.

                  I have told you many times that is not what I think:

                  Not what I think, not what I said:

                  What I said is that they are afraid of having all they possess confiscated and given to globohomos, which is what happened to Beverly Hill bank, for example.

                  Beverly Hills bank was ordered to make million dollar loans to cat eating no-hablo-english illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets, and proceeded to do so, but was excessively open about thinking this was not a good idea. The regulators proceeded to render it insolvent on various racism/redlining charges, that though doing the right thing, it was doing so with insufficient faith and zeal, and gave its facilities into the hands of those that did think that making million dollar loans to cat eating no-hablo-english illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets was a good idea, or were sufficiently thorough in pretending to think that this was a good idea.

                  Similarly, Google fired Damore because HR prepared the legal grounds for a flood of billion dollar hostile environment lawsuits against Google, its CEO, and its board, if they failed to fire Damore.

                  When we take over, we will tell them to implement the new doctrine with the same enthusiasm as the old, they will do so, and will fire any doubters, as they fired Damore.

                  Vox Day is able to get away with the stuff he gets away with, because his business is closely held and small, also he is native American, and therefore gets various exemptions that allow him to not have a Human Resources department and not be Sarbanes Oxley compatible. He outsources anything that would require him to hire HR, and infinances anything that would require him to comply with Sarbanes Oxley.

                  If you have HR, you have a branch of the inquisition in your building. When we take charge, we will call in inquisition members and ask them if they are prepared to conform to the new doctrine. Noncorformists will be retired. Stubborn nonconformists who continue to preach will be sent to Alaska, and in some cases dropped into the Pacific from black helicopters. With HR in line, the board will fall into line. Sarbannes Oxley accounting will simply become illegal. We will privatize accounting. But we are not going to privatize HR, which will work much as it does at present, but under new management.

                  There is nothing libertarian about continuing HR (under new management, and perhaps under a new name), and internment camps in Alaska and black helicopter trips for a refreshing swim in the Pacific are even less libertarian.

                • Javier says:

                  @CR

                  I’m not lying about or misrepresenting you, you have continually advocated for communism while painting myself and others with opinions we don’t have and made strawman attacks on statements we’ve never made. You think the communist-king can wave a magic wand and ban gluten and retail, and you seem to think if one company gets infiltrated by leftists they all have to be shut down, to stop people from getting fat or something.

                  You’ve also repeatedly said you were done with this website and were never coming back, because we failed to instantly elect you communist-king and worship your moronic opinions.

                  Other people are nice enough to indulge you but I’m done. You are a ridiculous person, go away, stop posting, and kill yourself.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You absolutely ARE lying, you’re all lying, it’s just a tactic. You think if you just dismiss what I’m saying as communism, no reasonable person could possibly push back against it.
                  It’s a sign you know you have no leg to stand on.

                  “you have continually advocated for communism”

                  Not so. I’ve continually advocated for the authorities to shut things down. To call that ‘communism’ is ridiculous.
                  I’ve not once advocated worker ownership of factories *or anything remotely like that*, nor have I once extolled a philosophy of egalitarianism: indeed I’ve CONSISTENTLY pointed to the egalitarian roots of laissez-faire as my primary reason for hating it.

                  You can abuse the term ‘communism’ as much as you want, but you’ll need to make an argument at some point.

                  “made strawman attacks on statements we’ve never made.”

                  I’m responding to YOUR COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!! You said the reason immigration was out of control was government programmes running on self-sustaining auto-pilot.

                  “You think the communist-king can wave a magic wand and ban gluten and retail”

                  Now THAT is a straw man. I have not once mentioned gluten. What I’ve said repeatedly is that restaurant chains are selling overpriced food to gullible consumers who should neither be spending that much money on food NOR eating such a high energy diet, as evidenced by the outcomes.
                  My conclusion is NOT that the King (which is shorthand for whatever) should regulate them: the King should

                  CLOSE THEM.

                  How much clearer can I make it?

                  “and you seem to think if one company gets infiltrated by leftists they all have to be shut down, to stop people from getting fat or something.”

                  You don’t think it’s a problem? Not JUST fat by the way: fat and poor. But as a de facto if not de jure libertarian, your answer will always be the same: those consumers are making free choices and no-one has the right to interfere, as if all consumers were created equal!
                  If anyone’s a communist, it’s the man who declares that all men have certain capacities to self-manage their lives, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

                  “You’ve also repeatedly said you were done with this website and were never coming back”

                  That would be wise, and it’s getting easier and easier.
                  I still have that annoying bug in my brain that says if you make a reasoned argument, they will listen.
                  No, they will lie and cheat and even censor, so that they can manoeuvre strategically and manipulate the reader to their own benefit.

                  I honestly used to think only leftists did that. It seems not.

                  “You are a ridiculous person, go away, stop posting, and kill yourself.”

                  Compelling, persuasive, insightful.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “they are afraid of having all they possess confiscated and given to globohomos, which is what happened to Beverly Hill bank, for example.”

                  I realise that’s what you’re saying, and it doesn’t differ from “being called racist or whatever” – being called racist or whatever is the excuse for the expropriation!

                  What I’m claiming is that you’re simply mistaken. These people are ideologically committed to globohomo, not victims of it.

                  They are not innocent just because their name badge ends in ‘plc’. They went to the same schools, read the same magazines and watched the same movies as the Anti-fa activists and they hold the same beliefs.

                  They prospered all through their lives under conditions of globohomo because they saw eye to eye with globohomo.

                  It’s a very bitter pill to swallow when you’ve had Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman whispering Utopian lies in your ear all your adult life.

                  Why do people like that want you to hate government in principle, identify as an individual first and foremost, and let business off the hook as people of your own tribe suffer and die childless?

                  Why indeed, fellow white man………

                • Roberto says:

                  >those consumers are making free choices and no-one has the right to interfere, as if all consumers were created equal!

                  Nope, that’s a strawman. How about “people who behave irresponsibly deserve to suffer the consequences”? Have you considered that radical and non-egalitarian proposition, CR?

                  (“CR” now stands for Caloric Restriction)

                  Caloric Restriction is a do-gooder who wants to prevent every individual in society from making bad choices by eliminating the possibility of making bad choices, because he seeks an egalitarianism of outcomes.

                  We believe in neither an egalitarianism of dispositions nor support an egalitarianism of outcomes, but Caloric Restriction is a leftist of the old school variety who, while admitting that people aren’t equal in disposition, wants to make them equal in life-conditions, thus supports an egalitarianism of outcomes.

                  Caloric Restriction doesn’t understand that “disparate impact” is at the core of all right-wing ideologies; that which weeds out the dysfunctional people (e.g. people with IQ 90) while not weeding out the functional people, such as cheaply available unhealthy food, is a good thing *exactly because* of the disparate impact.

                  Caloric Restriction also doesn’t get the notion that “value” is not merely shekelz, but really anything that benefits humans, hence he strawmans us as being concerned about GDP, when in fact what we in the pro-civilization camp care about is scientific-technological advancement.

                  Caloric Restriction hates disparate impact because leftist, and doesn’t want people to face the consequences of their behavior because he’s a catlady in male form.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “How about “people who behave irresponsibly deserve to suffer the consequences”? Have you considered that radical and non-egalitarian proposition, CR?”

                  Yes, it’s called libertarianism. The market will sort it all out, even who lives and dies. If someone makes a wrong move, that’s good for the economy because they won’t make it twice.

                  Yes I’m well aware of that particular brand of callous egalitarianism, and as I’ve pointed out time and time and time again, it ALWAYS leads to redistribution and programmes. ALWAYS.

                  There is no universe in which a healthy society routinely steps over starving peasants in the street, no matter how hard bastards like you wish it were so.

                  “Caloric Restriction is a do-gooder who wants to prevent every individual in society from making bad choices by eliminating the possibility of making bad choices, because he seeks an egalitarianism of outcomes.”

                  That was going well until the non sequitur. Yes indeed, if you care about the society, you must care for all of its members, and if something’s presenting a significant toxic hazard for large numbers of people, you need a REALLY good reason to side with the hazard against the people.

                  In your case, that reason is probably natural rights or GDP. You’re just too gutless to come out and say it.

                  “make them equal in life-conditions”

                  Nothing I’ve said supports this bald assertion. Again, if you lay eyes on a man crying because he blew his paycheck at the bookmaker’s and now his children don’t eat tomorrow, you need a DAMN GOOD REASON not to shut that place down on the spot.

                  What’s your reason? Bad for the economy? People dying from their mistakes a Good in and of itself? Natural rights? Take your pick. If it’s sadism, fine, we know what you are then don’t we.

                  “cheaply available unhealthy food, is a good thing *exactly because* of the disparate impact.”

                  Not cheaply, by the way, but ok, you’re actively supporting the early death of millions of white westerners. OK, now I know where you stand.

                  Be sure to take the right side when the time comes, that’s all I’m saying.

                  “Caloric Restriction also doesn’t get the notion that “value” is not merely shekelz, but really anything that benefits humans, hence he strawmans us as being concerned about GDP, when in fact what we in the pro-civilization camp care about is scientific-technological advancement.”

                  I don’t give a damn about those things. I got a letter from Hotpoint this morning. If a copy typist had typed it by hand, it would’ve taken her all day. A printer banged it out in two seconds, so they send the legal contract to every customer, whether they’re interested in the policy or not, because it’s cheaper and quicker to do it in one single step.

                  YAY for technology, right!

                  “Caloric Restriction hates disparate impact because leftist, and doesn’t want people to face the consequences of their behavior because he’s a catlady in male form.”

                  Your sadistic and spiteful Utopia is never coming.

                  I’m very glad about that.

                • jim says:

                  > Yes I’m well aware of that particular brand of callous egalitarianism, and as I’ve pointed out time and time and time again, it ALWAYS leads to redistribution and programmes. ALWAYS.

                  We know what leads to redistribution. We do what you fail to do. We read history. Victorians relied on social pressure alone to restrain female misconduct, got an intolerable level of bastards born in the rain in muddy dark alleys, and therefore “think of the children” implemented child support as a replacement for marriage. And here we are.

                  We learn from the past. You will not even learn from the present. You want to implement the holy war solution that failed in Libya and Syria and is now failing in Afghanistan, and the economic program that is now failing in Venezuela.

                  Forcibly restrain women from having sex with men disinclined to be husbands or unsuitable to be husbands, shotgun marry them to the fathers of their children, give fathers authority over their children and the mothers of their children, punish men who sleep with other men’s wives (I recommend we restore the excellent family law of King Solomon as depicted in the Book of Proverbs) and punish women who sleep with men who are not their husbands, or who recklessly engage in behavior that is likely to result in them being “raped”, then the irresistible pressure for redistribution goes away.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  People like you are actually helpful didactic tools.

                  It’s tempting for a convert from libertarianism to nationalism to retain a certain reverence for the market.

                  In reality we need to destroy communism AND capitalism because both are utterly evil.

                  A leftist defending communism will say it’s a beautiful idea but can’t work, sadly, in the real world because of human nature. WRONG: communism’s an evil idea and if it ever did work, that’d be worse than what actually happens every single time.

                  One of you defending capitalism is much the same: it’s a beautiful way to let everyone participate in the betterment of mankind but we may have to add a few non-ancap features for the good of society – at its heart though ancap is moral and productive. WRONG: capitalism’s an evil idea and if it ever did work, that’d be worse than what actually happens every single time.

                  We don’t need a nation of 300 million individuals, we need ONE nation.
                  We don’t need a culture of infinite diversity, we need ONE people.
                  We don’t need the wisdom of crowds OR the oversight of checks and balances: we need ONE leader.

                • Roberto says:

                  We want to reach to the stars and conquer the galaxy, but Caloric Restriction will have none of it because what about those with 90 IQ tho; we must not incentivize the creation of groundbreaking stuff because impulsive idiots might find it “less than ideal” for their interests, so instead let’s all go guillotine some billionaire inventors – shall we, fellow right-wingers???

                  If and when Moldbug goes back to writing, inshallah, I will personally tell him about the drooling maniac commie who wants to murder Peter Thiel because what about those with 90 IQ tho.

                • Roberto says:

                  It’s good for society — society, not “the economy” — that impulsive idiots be punished by the natural consequences of their behavior. That is Eugenics 101.

                  As for your Luddism, yeah, we get it, you’re evil and lack a Faustian Spirit.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “wants to murder Peter Thiel ”

                  You’re projecting. Nobody’s advocating violence here except you.

                  But well spotted: GDP comes second to the health of society, and the health of society hinges on the health of all the individuals within it, not just snobs who kid themselves they’re superior while they demonstrate their utter lack of human decency and compassion.

                  Our environmental policies will trigger you like you won’t believe, and I’ll smile like never before when I have to shut down your libertarian think tanks.

                • Roberto says:

                  The King will always side with productive members of society versus a coalition of irresponsible dysfunctionals and the restless agitators those who’d eliminate value (of any kind) from society to “protect” the irresponsible dysfunctionals.

                  Your existence is actually beneficial and I hope you write a manifesto, because someone needs to clearly articulate the challenges that authoritarian governance will face in the second half of the 21st century, such as nanny-humanism.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so.

                  And a big part of that is restraining female sexual behavior so that women provide sexual and domestic services to those males, and only those males, who are productive members of society – soldiers and taxpayers. You get a lot more soldiers and taxpayers that way.

                  This is my model of the invention of monogamy and chastity: King notices that too many young men are staying at home in their mother’s basement. Calls in the high priest, invents chastity and price controls pussy down to something affordable. Shortage of pussy ensues. King and high priest announce rationing to one per customer. (With a few mistresses on the side for himself and the high priest.)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  ” King notices that too many young men are staying at home in their mother’s basement. Calls in the high priest, invents chastity and price controls pussy down to something affordable.”

                  This is just nuts. You people are blind to anything bad the private sector does, because at root you’re libertarians.

                  So the only reason people of both sexes are living with their parents well into their 30s is that the ‘price of pussy’s’ too high?
                  Nothing to do with wages being too low thanks to the gig economy, mass immigration sponsored largely by the private sector and the myriad ways the cost of housing’s driven up to coincidentally always benefit the biggest construction firms?

                  Follow the money, these are not victims.

                  You’ll never see it because all you see is evil government and evil women.

                • jim says:

                  The proposition that King and High Priest should impose chastity and monogamy culturally through the mass media, theologically through the state religion, and coercively through family law, in the same way that globo homo is currently being imposed culturally through the mass media, theologically through the state religion, and coercively through family law, in order that Silicon Valley Engineers should be able to reproduce successfully, thereby ensuring an adequate supply of of soldiers and taxpayers, does not much resemble libertarianism.

                  > So the only reason people of both sexes are living with their parents well into their 30s is that the ‘price of pussy’s’ too high?

                  Exactly so. Observe what Musk is paying for pussy. Musk is a billionaire and cannot afford a wife. Silicon Valley engineers pulling down way over six figures cannot afford a wife. Yet a peasant in Mindanao pulling four figures can afford a wife, a mistress, two houses, and eight children.

                  Under my plan, boys will take usually take an apprenticeship at fourteen, and and high IQ elite boys will generally have a high paid apprenticeship. Upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, will be able to afford and easily obtain an obedient virgin wife who will be faithful to him forever, and sexually available to him forever, and that will be the only way to get some pussy. Under these circumstances, what do you think boys are going to do?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Under my plan, boys will take usually take an apprenticeship at fourteen, and and high IQ elite boys will generally have a high paid apprenticeship. Upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, will be able to afford and easily obtain an obedient virgin wife who will be faithful to him forever, and sexually available to him forever, and that will be the only way to get some pussy. Under these circumstances, what do you think boys are going to do?”

                  There should be a certain % of women legally in the world’s oldest profession at any time. You get a few high status guys with ugly wives with bad personalities and they’ll start undermining the system.

                • Roberto says:

                  >You people are blind to anything bad the private sector does

                  “Bake the cake.”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto: “Bake the cake”, ie. government laws are oppressing capitalist industry.

                  No, the bakes were not corporate. Ig those faggots had gone to a corporate baker, they’d have just been able to buy a template-based queer cake off the shelf.
                  The difficulty would be if a CHRISTIAN couple went to that corporate baker: they’d have struggled to find anything suitable, and had they asked, they’d have been met with as much bureaucracy as anything the DMV could dream of.

                  You do point to something interesting though: the switcheroo between small business, which is just another way of saying private individuals selling goods&services to other private individuals, which I’ve not once opposed, and big business – corporations – who are oozing with Poz.

                  The claim you’re defending is that the CORPORATE big businesses are only oozing with Poz because the government’s oppressing them,

                  as evidenced by

                  the government oppressing SMALL businesses.

                  It’s a switcheroo.

                • jim says:

                  > “Bake the cake”, ie. government laws are oppressing capitalist industry.

                  Been there, done that, had women problems on the job, and to a considerably lesser extent, race problems on the job. It is as plain as the nose on your face that government is oppressing capitalist industry. Denying this reality is as stupid and crazy as claiming that World Trade Center building seven fell straight down on its own footprint, or that flight 77 did not ram the pentagon.

                  Sexual harassment hostile environment lawsuits instigated by Human Resources are about ninety percent of the focus, thought, energy and effort of management, financial crime charges instigated by accounting are about nine percent, and producing value for the customer and making a profit from producing value are about one percent of the focus, thought, energy and effort of management.

                  > No, the bakes were not corporate. Ig those faggots had gone to a corporate baker, they’d have just been able to buy a template-based queer cake off the shelf.

                  Been there. If queer cakes work like hostile environment and sexual harassment, the reason there are template based queer cakes on the shelves is that Human Resources threatened to instigate a lawsuit.

                  See also the destruction of the bank of Beverly Hills, not for refusing to make million dollar mortgages to cat-eating no-hablo-english illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets, but for reluctantly making million dollar mortgages to cat-eating no-hablo-english illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets while openly doubting that this was such a good idea.

                  If the corporation has template based queer cakes off the shelf, it is because the regulators threatened to do to them what they did to the Bank of Beverley Hills.

                  The solution is not socialism, it is issuing new doctrines to the Monks of the Inquisition Cat Ladies of Human Resources.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim:

                  “Under my plan, boys will take usually take an apprenticeship at fourteen, and and high IQ elite boys will generally have a high paid apprenticeship. Upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, will be able to afford and easily obtain an obedient virgin wife who will be faithful to him forever, and sexually available to him forever, and that will be the only way to get some pussy. Under these circumstances, what do you think boys are going to do?”

                  100% endorsed, there’s literally zero argument here. Apprenticeships and jobs for life (or a very very long time anyway). The remedy to what Carlyle calls the ‘vagabond principle’.

                  Absolutely of course, that’s the whole point.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  ” the reason there are template based queer cakes on the shelves is that Human Resources threatened to instigate a lawsuit.”

                  This is precisely the cuckery I’ve been trying to challenge here, and you’re just digging in and doubling down. You believe nobody who wears a private sector name-badge is ever personally persuaded by The Cathedral, the priesthood or whatever else: they’re only ever complying under coercion.

                  Everybody in academia, media and government on the other hand is a true believer.

                  This is what I’m talking about: that’s just the libertarian prejudice – government bad, business good.

                  I’m sorry but it’s just false. That leaked Google meeting video shows a group of fanatics desperately trying to plan the reversal of the public will. It’s echoed throughout the corporate sector.

                  The switcheroo is when you point to ‘based’ small businesses, who really ARE being oppressed by left-wing activists, and cite them as the proof that the vast non-profit-making corporations are just the same.
                  They’re not: Google, Walmart and all the rest are totally on the side of globohomo.

                  Now if your claim is only that when the prevailing culture changes, they’ll change too, then that’s certainly true but it works both ways: the small businesses who already are true believers in globohomo *will continue to be leftists* after any cultural change.

                  This is a difference that makes no difference. The truth of the current situation is that we face a vast alliance of public and private sector bodies that want to destroy us, and trying to deny it and paint the private sector enemies as allies under pressure to pretend, for the good of their bottom line, which most of them don’t even care about, is just libertarian cuckery.

                • jim says:

                  Maybe some people believe, but whenever I was in trouble, not for being my reactionary self you see on this blog, but for being a year or two behind the current year, my boss and my boss’s boss were secretly on my side, but were terrified and terrorized. They were a lot more scared than I was, having more to lose.

                  On two occasions, my boss’s boss state of secret fear, rage, and hatred verged on homicidal.

                  Maybe that was atypical. Hard to take a survey, when anyone who speaks truthfully will be destroyed, but in every case where I was close enough to know the truth, they would have liked to skin the social justice warriors slowly with a blunt knife. They would have endorsed a regime that took Human Resources out to the Pacific in black helicopters.

                  Maybe that was atypical. In an environment of fear and repression, hard to know what most people really think. But when I knew what people really thought, that is what I saw.

                  Two cases where I was allowed sufficiently close to know the truth, two secretly reactionary top bosses secretly rooting for a Pinochet to give the HR cat ladies helicopter rides to the Pacific.

                  You say the faith and zeal of all the others is genuine and heartfelt. Maybe it is, no one can know, but you are in academia, you are one of the terrorists, not one of the terrorized. How would you know that their faith and zeal is genuine?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In fact you know what, I take that back: if the culture were changed – we nationalised the universities, shut down the media and imposed universal censorship to impose the Patriarchy….. those corporations would resist and use every conceivable tool at their disposal to sabotage the restoration.

                  Just look how they’ve treated three test cases: Trump, Brexit and Charlottesville.

                  Surely you’re not going to argue that CNN is acting under duress.

                • jim says:

                  Been there, been part of those corporations. They are secretly full of people just like me. We speak the truth to each other when we get drunk and no one from HR is around.

                  It is a reign of terror, and no one loves the terrorists, even though everyone pretends to love them, even though some people may take pretending so deep that it becomes Stockholm syndrome, a bit of alcohol relieves their Stockholm syndrome.

                • jim says:

                  > Surely you’re not going to argue that CNN is acting under duress.

                  The mainstream media and tenured academia have reversed on a dime before. They will reverse on a dime again.

                  If Trump brings the presidency under control while CNN is reporting his handling of refugee children, the reporting will go something like this:

                  “The horrid orange skinned red eyed monster president is now torturing refugee children in steel cages preparatory to feeding them to crocodiles – oops, correction I have just received a memo that God Emperor Trump is shutting down a child trafficking operation. All Hail the God Emperor”

                  Absolutely CNN is acting under duress. Recall we saw Colbert changing his line on Comey mid show. Similarly, we have texts from Clintonistas referencing giving them their marching orders, one of which was presumably the one where which Colbert received mid show.

                  It simply inconceivable that any regime would allow major news centers to say whatever they like, and no regime has ever allowed this. As soon as the mass media appeared, it came under central state control. It is absolutely obvious, starting with the the predecessors of AP, that the press is a branch of the state. The white house press corp get the standard government employee facilities and treatment, despite nominally answering to nominally private employers. They get government desks in government building and government services to those desks. They act like quasi governmental employees, and they are treated like quasi governmental employees.

              • jim says:

                You said all that stuff already, several times, and the commies said it far too many times in the 1930s. It did not work back then, and is even less likely to work today.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Are you in agreement with Javier’s hot libertarian take then?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  This is the Jimian paradigm:

                  Javier believes in this insane stretch:

                  “All the refugee resettlement programs are run by Christians. They like government money, the government pays them to bring in muslims and shitty africans, and they defend the muslims and shitty africans because they don’t want to admit they’re doing stupid things. “It is hard to convince a man of a thing when his job depends on him not knowing it…” etc. etc.

                  Once a government program is set up, it’s existence becomes it’s own justification. We can’t shut down the refugee programs because that would “cost jobs.” So we must continually search for new sources of refugees, which happens to be the middle east and shitty african countries.”

                  And Jim agrees.

                  But the second someone says “business loves a low agency atomised consumer-base that spends every penny it gets its hands on and has no solidarity because they all hate each other”, they’re a communist lol

                  I love how the heads of Walmart, GSK, Verizon and Disney are all sat there gnashing their teeth at the death of white America and the loss of the saver-base while they regretfully lament their growing revenues and the ease at which they can sell inferior products to idiots.

                  How sad for these poor downtrodden billionaires. Spare them a thought, you with the white privilege.

      • X says:

        Again, I ask for a concrete and plausible explanation of how the Jews caused 9/11

        The Jews did not. How many times have you been told by me and it should be obvious to you that your average Jew isn’t involved in the geopolitics.

        There are powerful entities playing the Zionism card in their manipulation of the geopolitics (as you probably damn well know because you may be on their payroll). These powerful entities perpetrated 9/11, not some incompetent Muslim high-on-crack(ers).

        • Roberto says:

          >These powerful entities perpetrated 9/11, not some incompetent Muslim high-on-crack(ers).

          And therefore, Islamic immigration to the West is a non-issue. It is not millions of Muslims who are invading and conquering Europe. It is millions of Mossad operatives who are invading and conquering Europe. Gotcha.

          (Sarcasm)

          It’s so obvious that troofers, nazis, and troofer nazis are all — without exception — employees of USG, it’s not even funny. Fake people, fake worldview, fake internet sub-culture. Only distinguishable from NPC by the sheer monomania of it all.

          • X says:

            And therefore, Islamic immigration to the West is a non-issue. It is not millions of Muslims who are invading and conquering Europe. It is millions of Mossad operatives who are invading and conquering Europe. Gotcha.

            Remember all my posts are archived at archive.is/.org in case Jim starts censoring all or portions. How did you make the illogical leap from what I wrote to Muslim migration being a non-issue? Muslims can be entirely incompetent at tasks that require significant engineering and yet still be a threat to civil order when they’re up in your face with violence and breeding like rabbits while raping our women. And they can also be a threat when they are leveraged as scapegoats for false-flag operations that the global elite wish to obfuscate. Of course the powerful entities who are pulling the strings behind Merkel and other EU leaders want and enabled the rapefugees migrant invasion. They have even been trying to prevent other countries such as Hungary from closing their borders. The leader of Hungary has named George Soros as one of the culprits behind the curtain, but we all suspect that Soros is only a lackey and not the actual power behind the curtain. The real power is for example still apparently the Rothschild family. Note that Julian Assange was given an attorney who was paid by the Rothschild family. Assange from his posts way back on the Cyperpunks mailing list is clearly a globalist wolf in sheepskin. Also we find that Jim was also involved in the mailing lists where Bitcoin was announced in a very peculiar pattern. Jim was the first to respond to Satoshi’s first public announcement (which nobody anticipated) within minutes on both mailing lists.

  25. scrub says:

    Jim, what makes you say that Operation Gladio B, unlike Operation Gladio A, is fictional commie propaganda?

  26. John Q Public says:

    Cue autistic shrieking from Truther loons.

    • John Q Public says:

      The more interesting question is WHY they dedicate so much time and effort to retailing these opinions.

      • Koanic says:

        Pretty sure internetters have been doing that since before the government was funding internet disinfo, due to internet being too new.

      • X says:

        The more interesting question is WHY they dedicate so much time and effort to retailing these opinions.

        To test if there is any non-disingenuous challenge to our search for the truth.

        There are other goals also. Such as to doxx Jim as being the disinformation agent that I am becoming more convinced he is. He is employing psyops methodology.

  27. Doug Smythe says:

    > Cultural Marxists: By and large, most cultural Marxists are Jews, and most Jewish Cultural Marxists hate Jews and hate Israel more than anyone. His anti semitism is like white male progs being against white Christian males.

    An interesting thing is that, just before Cultural Marxism rose to full ascendancy, Jews occupied pride of place in the victim stack right alongside Blacks; and then those Jews who were Cultural Marxists actually turned in their victim cards voluntarily, and subsequently Jews in general were degraded to White status. It’s not often that a human being will intentionally renounce exalted high status; the very idea seems preposterous; but in this case it really happened.

    • peppermint says:

      …which is why lollercaust jokes, and noticing jews, became less socially acceptable, not more

      • Doug Smythe says:

        Those things became more socially acceptable circa the turn of the century, and then less as they came to be associated with the rise of the alt-Right a couple of years ago. Had it not been for the political need to paint Trump as a Nazi enabler most normies wouldn’t have gotten seriously upset about it.

        • peppermint says:

          This level of confusion isn’t typical of Jim’s commenters.

          Jews were maximally “integrated” ca.2k. Since then they’ve been all minorites get out of the shadows, Whites have nothing, minorites are great, in order to convince themselves to not lose their identity (does anyone think any other minority would stop noticing itself?)

          Meanwhile lollercaust jokes peaked c.2010 on /b/, yes, prior to /pol/ understanding the eternal jew. People who weren’t up on /pol/ didn’t get the memo until after Gamergate caused the 8ch split and then Pepe, formerly foul bachelor frog, and Wojak, formerly eating cheerios guy, the symbols of my generation, were shoved in everyone’s was shoved in everyone’s face as nazis in a bid to convince everyone that my generation are nazis and should act like nazis.

          • Roberto says:

            >Meanwhile lollercaust jokes peaked c.2010 on /b/
            >/b/
            >implying it was not Encyclopedia Dramatica
            >implying “Jews did 9/11,” “The holocaust never happened but should have,” and A. Wyatt Mann cartoons which never mock Muslims aren’t a psyop
            >implying internet culture is organic and not astroturf

    • Roberto says:

      >those Jews who were Cultural Marxists actually turned in their victim cards voluntarily

      It’s not really “voluntarily.” Jews would enjoy nothing more than to keep the victim cards forever. But it is their own ideology of Cultural Marxism that prevents them from doing it, because Cultural Marxism asserts that “power = privilege,” and it’s undeniable that Jews are very powerful.

      If a Jew, member of the richest and most influential ethnicity, wants to do Cultural Marxism, has to “check his privilege.” If unwilling to check his privilege, cannot do Cultural Marxism. And indeed, many Jews are jumping ship and becoming pro-meritocracy, because meritocracy is better for Jews than envy-based ideologies.

      It’s possible that some Jews will declare themselves white, and start doing pro-Jewish White Nationalism. Even more likely is the emergence of an HBD-informed triracial ideology that is pro-white, pro-Jewish, and pro-Asian. Whites, Jews, and Asians are intermarrying and creating a triracial elite as we speak. Remains to be seen whether or not the triracial elite is capable of maintaining and advancing high civilization.

      • jim says:

        > Remains to be seen whether or not the triracial elite is capable of maintaining and advancing high civilization.

        The triracial elite tends to leftism, but there is a fair bit of elitism and christian nationalism hidden under the covers. In order to have a whitish triracial identity, needs a religious identity, a christian nationalist identity (since its biological identity is mutt) and at present there is no suitable christian identity, the nearest being the Roman Catholicism of Holy Saint Pope Global-Warming Globohomo Francis. I myself, in identities that interact personally with triracialists, employ a Roman Catholic crusader warrior identity.

        For the triracial elite to maintain civilization, has to have an identity, that identity has to be synthetic (because their biological identity is mutt) thus religious or pseudo religious.

        The crusades were possible because of a crusader Pope. A globohomo global-warming gay-mafia Pope is a huge problem. Trump for Pope!

        • Roberto says:

          Unfortunately, the issue with the triracials is graver than even synthetic identity. The acute problem with the triracial elite is its Singapore-tier low fertility rate. The elite fails to reproduce, in short. The WQ is the hardest to solve, but is the most important.

          That elitist guy — let’s say that he is born today, so will be 18 in 2036 — who is, e.g., 50% Anglo, 25% Ashkenazi, and 25% Japanese, is not going to be provided with a young, loyal, and traditional wife with whom he could raise some 4 or 5 white-ish mutts. Instead, will likely be an incel till 2043, then will start dating, marry in 2048, and proceed to have 1 or 2 offspring at best.

          This prospect is disastrous. The WQ is the bane of civilization and I see nothing being done to solve it. On the contrary, Feminism is now exponentially intensifying and by the 2040’s it will hardly be legal to own a penis, unless something is done to at least slow down the cancer’s growth. Many people are saying that Gen Z are all shitlords, but internet memes are one thing, and having the infrastructure (i.e. patriarchy) that allows healthy reproduction is quite another thing.

          The problem is not just finding a religion that can unite the triracials into a cohesive tribe; the problem is that all religions have become pozzed, and as such, fail to incentivize reproduction. The TFR should be like in Timor Leste, but is like in Singapore. That’s depressing, I must say.

          • jim says:

            > The acute problem with the triracial elite is its Singapore-tier low fertility rate

            That problem is political, not biological. Stick a triracial in the backwoods of Mindanao, he will outreproduce a Mindanao peasant. If everyone had the same family law as Timor Leste or Taliban Afghanistan, everyone would have the same fertility rate as Timor Leste or Taliban Afghanistan.

            > That elitist guy — let’s say that he is born today, so will be 18 in 2036 — who is, e.g., 50% Anglo, 25% Ashkenazi, and 25% Japanese, is not going to be provided with a young, loyal, and traditional wife with whom he could raise some 4 or 5 white-ish mutts. Instead, will likely be an incel till 2043, then will start dating, marry in 2048, and proceed to have 1 or 2 offspring at best.

            Quite so. Under the present social order, everyone under that social order vanishes by about 2055. No one remains except fast breeding subhumans and a few very old whites around 2070.

            But I am cheered by the hilarious ineffectiveness of the British army. No one seems to have quite realized that they could quite easily conquer much of Europe. If we cannot get Pauline patriarchy back, will soon get Viking patriarchy. Trouble is that black Muslims are likely to be the beneficiaries.

            • I don’t really know what kinds of different social circumstances would have made me have 6 kids. Marry me at a young age to a young girl? We’d use protection because there is more fun to be had at that age than kids. Marry me at an older age to a young girl? Would not want, I know it sounds beta to you but I am really unable to treat a woman primarily as a sex object, I need her to be a partner, a sort of a friend to talk to, and at 30, 18 years old girls are impossibly childish and annoying. Marry a 28 year old woman at 32? Bingo, that happened, but not only she does not have enough fertility left for 6 kids, I am less patient as I used to be when younger and don’t want to spend another 12 years with always having a screaming toddler around. One was enough.

              This isn’t that easy. High fertility societies often had no access to or banned contraception, were for the most part boring as hell and no entertainment, and so on. They did more than just controlling women. Fertility rates in France started dropping way back in the 19th century. Why? Partially because contraception was so well known and apparently not succesfully repressed that even Napoleon’s soldiers were teaching them to the women in occupied contries they fucked, often resulting a similar drop. Some also blamed the drop on doing away with primogeniture inheritance laws but I don’t see why. And maybe it wasn’t such a boring society anymore, maybe a young man married to a young woman would use contraception and have sex only for fun because the man figured there are other things more fun to do than kids.

              I understand female sexual choice is an important component but nowhere near the whole thing.

              • I mean even blackouts cause more babies, suggesting that for many people sex is less interesting than TV. Granted the data is mostly from Zimbabwe and Colombia, things may be different in first world circumstances with widely available contraception and other stuff.

              • jim says:

                Kids are fun when you can make your wife do all the boring stuff. Younger women are more fun than older women. If men could marry at fourteen, and sex was not otherwise available, would marry. If men married at fourteen, and were able to dump all the tedious parts of childraising on their wives, fertility would be sky high.

      • The Cominator says:

        Christian restoration if it comes absolutely cannot come from Roman Catholicism. The Vatican’s interests are too aligned with Bioleninism (which is why I love that Francis is Pope, he has destroyed the Vatican’s ability to influence right wing Catholic’s perhaps forever).

        It must be either Orthodox or Protestant (I know NRx has its issues with Puritans but Southern Baptists who are basically Calvinists have pretty strongly resisted the pozzing of Christianity).

        • Nikolai says:

          Awful take. All mainline protestant denominations are more cucked than Catholicism. I have no issue with Orthodoxy, but I can scarcely imagine it becoming mainstream in the West. Most southern low church prots have not ‘strongly resisted the pozzing of Christianity’. Vast majority of southern baptists are just democrats lagging behind 10 years or so. And even if that wasn’t the case, you’re drawing conclusions based on modern political alignment without regard to theology, structure and history.

          It’s like saying ‘Poland and Hungary are based while Britain is cucked so as restorationists we have to reject Monarchy in favor of Democracy’. Nonsense.

          • The Cominator says:

            Southern Baptist not only voted (over 90% of those that voted) for Trump in the general election but unlike the more pozzed Midwest Protestants most of them voted for Trump in the primary. That means they have resisted the poz more then any other Christian denomination and were willing to look past Trump’s colorful past very early.

            Catholicism’s interest are with the 3rd world and the king doesn’t need a foreign priest above him out of the reach of his soldier’s. Until celibacy is abolished it will also continue to be dominated by homosexuals.

            Moldbug had an unfortunate liking for Catholicism but he was very wrong, a restored state should treat an internationalist bioleninist corrupt 3rd world church as innately subversive and it probably should be treated as akin to Islam. England in its strongest period did not tolerate Catholicism.

            • Nikolai says:

              Again, looking at modern political alignments as your only criteria leads to erroneous conclusions. Protestantism has historically been a left wing force and low church southern protestantism allows open entry into the priesthood which is obviously a terrible idea.

              Looked up the Southern Baptist Convention’s stances on some modern issues, seem pretty cucked to me.
              Apologizing for slavery: http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899
              Pro-refugee: https://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptist-refugee-resettlement-trump-ban-muslim-immigration-165244/
              Against the Confederate Flag: https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/resolution-7-on-sensitivity-and-unity-regarding-the-confederate-battle-flag

              Catholicism doesn’t have a 3rd world interest. Rather the bishops care more about getting a pat on the head from athiest elites than they care about preaching Christianity, hence the open borders activism. Historically Catholics saved Europe from a Muslim invasion.

              To restore the West you need a Church that’s hierarchical, traditional, latitudinarian and authentic. Old school Catholicism fits the bill and southern baptism doesn’t, which is why Moldbug endorses Catholicism. (And just lmao at comparing Catholicism to Islam)

              • The Cominator says:

                The Church’s growth market is in the 3rd world they cater to that. The RCC (at least before Francis) wasn’t catering to the Western Cathedral, JP II didn’t give a crap about the Western Cathedral he cared about his growth market in the 3rd world. He wanted low IQ Mexicans to overrun the US and make it Catholic. He also only opposed abortion because he thought his opposition would be more followed by low IQ 3rd world Catholics. A restored state must rightly destroy the Catholic Church for its treachery in this regard. You can’t blame the Cathedral for what the Catholic Church did it acted entirely independently.

                I have nothing against a hierarchical church but the hierarchy shouldn’t be national and the clergy shouldn’t be celibate, this means Orthodoxy is okay and Catholicism isn’t. The open entry problem with low church Protestantism can be easily solved by thoroughly investigating any would be pastor’s for left wing sentiment.

                Are you Catholic? Do you religiously believe its the true Church. If you are and you do I’m not interested in debating with you on this because you are obviously not objective.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Er I mean the hierarchy SHOULD be national.

                  The Pope is beyond the reach of the king’s soldiers and the king just can’t execute him if he like Gregory the so called great or John Paul II becomes a problem.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Central and South America has been Catholic for centuries and third worlders barely tithe and have similar levels of fertility whether they’re in their home countries or move to the US. The RCC wants Mexicans to overrun the US because the RCC is infested with progs, not because it’s in the best interest of the Church.

                  The state religion of Massachusetts has ruled the world for about a century, JP II catered to the Cathedral whether he knew it or not. You can’t truly have independence from something as ubiquitous as the Cathedral.

                  “He also only opposed abortion because he thought his opposition would be more followed by low IQ 3rd world Catholics”

                  There’s no way you actually believe this.

                  A restored state wouldn’t destroy the Church, it would restore it…That’s kind of the point of Restoration. I’m all for Jim’s solution. Similarly, a restored state wouldn’t destroy Rotherham’s police department, it would just get rid of the SJWs in charge and hire actual cops to do actual police work.

                  Celibacy wasn’t really a problem until the past 50 years or so. I wouldn’t have an issue with ordaining married men, but people generally overstate the negative externalities of a celibate priesthood.

                  Yes I’m Catholic and believe it’s the true Church (though I think Orthodoxy has a legitimate claim to be the true Church as well). But I’m not the one being not objective here. Claiming ‘Catholics only believe in core tenets of the faith so they can overrun white countries with brown people so we should destroy the Church’ is completely bonkers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Yes I’m Catholic and believe it’s the true Church (though I think Orthodoxy has a legitimate claim to be the true Church as well). But I’m not the one being not objective here. Claiming ‘Catholics only believe in core tenets of the faith so they can overrun white countries with brown people so we should destroy the Church’ is completely bonkers.”

                  I don’t like arguing theology but the Vatican problem forces me to a bit here to appeal to you.

                  If you believe in historical succession from Peter and Christ then the Orthodox Church is the true Church.

                  If you believe in Sola Scriptura its whatever Protestant denomination you agree with.

                  The post Gregorian papacy was an usurpation. If the bishop of Rome had claimed the kind of power that Gregory did in the time of Constantine the Great Constantine would have ordered the bishop of Rome’s immediate execution and the new bishop of Rome would have denounced his predecessor as a heretic and a madman. The eastern churches rightly considered it an insane usurpation at the time.

                  JP II was NOT serving the Cathedral because he was always willing to go against the Cathedral on other issues, his open borders doctrine was totally independent and furthermore he was for it BEFORE the Cathedral was totally all for it (or at least before they would say they were all for it). It was absolutely because he wanted Protestant America and Europe overwhelmed with 3rd worlders.

                • jim says:

                  > If you believe in historical succession from Peter and Christ then the Orthodox Church is the true Church.

                  The alternative is sola scriptura, and the trouble with sola scriptura is, in practice, that people who claim to be sola scriptura seem to be able to find year 2018 globohomo in the scriptures with the greatest of ease, while simultaneously claiming their reading is purer and more faithful to ancient scriptures than anyone else’s.

                  Thus Christmas is a pagan addition, so while conducting a gay marriage in black leather with giant dildos, also conducting war on Christmas.

                  Christmas is indeed a pagan addition, though I would defend pagan additions on the grounds that Christians added the best parts of Graeco Roman Civilization to Christianity to preserve Graeco Roman civilization through the darkness – but the proposition that marriage is a pagan addition goes all the way back to the original Puritans. Oops.

                  So much for Sola Scriptura. Anyone who claims to be practicing Sola Scriptura clearly is not, for sacramental marriage is undeniably and unambiguously based on the New Testament, and if the sacramental marriage of the New Testament is to be compatible with the marriage by purchase of the Old Testament, it has to a sacrament conducted by the husband or the father of the husband, the husband committing himself to love and cherish forever.

                  The post Gregorian papacy was an usurpation.

                  Mandatory clerical celibacy has been failing from the first in the same way it is failing today, and mandatory celibacy and female consent to marriage came in with the Gregorian papacy. Female consent to marriage has to be conditional on virginity and good conduct.

                  Both of these are heresies – albeit heresies that have taken substantial root in the Orthodox Church as well.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “A restored state wouldn’t destroy the Church, it would restore it…”

                  A king could BOTH destroy AND restore the Catholic Church at the same time by forcing all Catholic Church’s in the kingdom to become Orthodox Church’s and make all unauthorized contact with the Vatican a violation of the espionage act.

                  The Vatican should be treated as any other hostile foreign government. “Gregorianism” should be proclaimed a heresy and while heretics should not be burned at the stake they should be shut out of government and systemically important jobs.

                  Sede Vacante Catholics would initially be tolerated but they by all means they should persuaded that the chair of Peter became vacant with Gregory’s blasphemous usurpation.

                • jim says:

                  Seems like a good plan.

              • jim says:

                > Historically Catholics saved Europe from a Muslim invasion.

                The Catholicism of Charles the Hammer saved Europe from Muslim invasion. I suspect he was more of a pragmatist than a holy man. Need a sword for a sword fight, and religion for a holy war, so organized a standing Church side by side with a permanent professional standing army.

                Notice that he installed his own, rather martial, pope in Rome at swordpoint.

                > To restore the West you need a Church that’s hierarchical, traditional, latitudinarian and authentic. Old school Catholicism fits the bill

                Indeed it does, but I suspect that to get it, may need the methods of Charles the Hammer and Charles the great.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Charles the Hammer I believe was pre Gregory.

                  The Pope was then simply the bishop of Rome and more glorified because he was the bishop of the capital of the former Roman Empire then for theological reasons.

                  Gregory ruined Catholicism forever by all but claiming to be God on earth. Since then Catholicism has been a poor religion for any monarch who can’t easily send soldiers into Rome.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  People shouldn’t try to use Karl Martell and modern Catholicism as if they have anything in common.

                  Jim’s right but not stating it strongly enough.

                  Karl Martel was the grandfather of Charlemagne and the father of the Carolingians. That means everything he did pre-dated the Carolingians and the semi-restored Western Roman Empire.

                  To say it was a different time to that of Francis is a little bit of an understatement. Reactionaries need to lose this silly habit of fetishising the past.

                  The Roman Empire’s gone. The European Monarchies are gone. The Catholic Church is gone. The Protestant Church is gone. The WASP Patriarchy is gone.

                  We need to emulate the best parts of those institutions and traditions and introduce our own. Looking to Frederick The Great for advice on how to deal with the internet, international finance and issues arising from air travel is a bit daft frankly.

                • jim says:

                  > Reactionaries need to lose this silly habit of fetishising the past.

                  In other words, reactionaries need to stop being reactionary. Being reactionary is silly. And, being an academic, you are so much cleverer than we are.

                  The whole point and purpose of the reaction is to recover and restore lost social technology.

                  The whole idea of reaction is that history exists, that current problems are not new, we have to recollect and re-implement past successful solutions to current problems.

                  Social technology is complex. We are losing it. We are suffering regress of social technology, hence, among other things, the problem of first world poverty, where affluent white males in Silicon Valley cannot afford a wife and children.

                  Kings and feudalism keep coming back because the basic problem of scaling governance to sizes enormously larger than the Dunbar limit remains as ever it was. Scaling governance is a hard problem. Current solutions are not working.

                  What Australia is doing with the border police is a re-invention of William the Conqueror’s forms of action. The reactionary program is to revive lost social technologies such as William the Conqueror’s form’s of action and Pauline marriage, to rebuild Chesterton’s fence.

                  We want Forms of Action because the courts are out of control, and Pauline marriage because women are out of control.

                  Old problems that have old solutions. We have been struggling with the problem of large scale governance for six thousand years, and today we are forgetting everything, because everything before the current year is supposedly shame and sinfulness.

                  Australia found itself re-inventing William the Conqueror’s forms of action because the courts refused to deport illegal immigrants, or restrain crime by illegal immigrants.

                  The trouble with the existing legal system is that judging on equity is a Kingly power, so we have a thousand God Kings, instead of one God King. Forms of Action, which are RPC calls implemented with slates and beeswax, are a way of making sure that law is enforced, instead of equity.

                  What Augustus did worked. What Augustine did worked. What Constantine did worked. What Charles the Hammer did worked. What Charles the great did worked. What William the Conqueror did worked. What Charles the Second did worked enormously well and gave us science, technology, modern coporate capitalism, industrialization, and world domination.

                  Steal from the Great. That is the reactionary program in a nutshell: Social Technology is hard. It is being lost, it has been lost. We need to restore lost social technology.

                  The program of the reaction is the restoration, to recover what has been lost.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  We need to emulate rather than reproduce like model airfix planes.

                  If you think you’re going to raise a Crusader army to drive the Musulman from Christendom with greatswords and chainmail armour, have at it. You may hit a few snags with modern aircraft, missiles, vehicles and of course communications.

                  The goal here should be some kind of lasting peace with the Muslim world, in which we can trade from afar (to a point,for things they have more of, such as oil) while respecting but not embracing their traditions.

                • jim says:

                  > If you think you’re going to raise a Crusader army to drive the Musulman from Christendom with greatswords and chainmail armour,

                  You are being stupid. Obviously, need a religion to fight a holy war – and that is exactly what progressives are doing to fight Islam, but their religion is unpersusasive and their methods ineffectual, as demonstrated by the catastrophic failure of Arab Spring.

                  Our military technology for fighting a war is superior to that of Pope Urban the Second, but our social technology for fighting a holy war is clearly inferior to that of Pope Urban the Second, as recently disastrously demonstrated, so we need to revive his social technology for holy war, and dump the progressive social technology for holy war which failed so catastrophically in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Looking to Frederick The Great for advice on how to deal with the internet, international finance and issues arising from air travel is a bit daft frankly.”

                  Putting ‘issues arising from air travel’ in the same sentence as the internet and international finance. Really?

                  The latter two are actual issues of concern whereas nobody cares about air travel except for environmentalists who want to destroy white civilization and socialists who are disgusted seeing people spend money on vacation.

                  The horror, people might even *gasp* eat out at a restaurant while they’re in Bermuda. What a travesty

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          Protestantism is in the skin-wearing, respect-demanding phase, so I guess that leaves us the Orthodox.

  28. vxxc says:

    Jim,

    O/T but on Blockchain governance – you may be interested.

    http://www.visualcapitalist.com/blockchain-governance-scale/

  29. Roberto says:

    How can anyone claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was “unpredictable” when there is:

    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

    And

    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

    “Muh Government Agents,” right, Yara?

    Literally everyone around, fire fighters and civilians alike, knew that it was gonna fall. I shall now quote the entire thing, and hopefully this will shut the troofers up once and for all.

    Accounts of WTC 7 Damage

    1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

    2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren’t aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale

    3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn’t see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti

    4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

    5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren’t going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

    6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

    Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

    So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
    Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
    Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

    Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

    Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle

    7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. “I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,” Jennings said.

    8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

    9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

    10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn’t know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

    We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

    Q. Were you injured?

    A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn’t believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn’t see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia

    11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
    –FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri

    12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY

    13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

    Q. The door was blocked?

    A. Yeah, and we found our way — we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to — I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs

    14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn’t see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado

    (After collapse of south tower)
    15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters’ alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda

    16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn’t get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn’t get the door open.

    Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

    A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn’t get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn’t like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn’t reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn’t safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell

    17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

    18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

    19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It’s definitely going. There’s no way to stop it. ‘Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it’s already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

    20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
    The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

    Eyewitness accounts of the withdrawal from WTC 7

    1. They backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down. –Firefighter Thomas Smith

    2. Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. –FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers

    3. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. –Chief Frank Fellini

    4. We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale

    5. I remember him screaming about number 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don’t know when, but it’s definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you’re away from it, that’s an order, you know, stuff like that. –Firefighter Edward Kennedy

    6. Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area —

    Q. A collapse zone?

    A. Yeah — be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn’t have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That’s about it. –Chief Frank Cruthers

    7. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening. I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don’t know if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. So we had to be concerned about electricity, that this may be energized or not be energized. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

    8. “We heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. …We heard that all day long, all the warnings.” –Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray

    9. It could have been an hour, hour and a half we were doing that before we were ordered to move away from that part of Tower No. 1 because there was an imminent danger of collapse of World Trade Center No. 5 and 7. –Firefighter Vandon Williams

    10. Civilian photographer Tom Franklin: “Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building — WTC 7 — was ready to fall.”

    11. Unidentified speaker in video: “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

    12. CBS-TV Reporter Vince DeMentri, who sneaked past security barriers to get close to the scene:
    …Building 7 was going to collapse. That appears to be what has happened now. I don’t know exactly how many stories the building is, Dan, but standing at the base of the building and watching it burn about an hour ago, it looked to be on the order of 50, 60 stories. [If anyone has the audio leading up to “…Building 7 was going to collapse,” let me know. I’m curious to know why the CT websites include only this much of the clip.]

    13. So that was basically we watched that one come down. It was on fire first, I think the fourth floor was on fire they said. We were like are you guys going to put that fire out? I was like, you know, they are going to wait for it to burn down and it collapsed. So that’s when I knew high rise buildings you know (inaudible).

    Q: You were still there?

    A: Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand.

    Q: So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?

    A: 5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, that same rumbling. –EMT Decosta Wright

    14. We went to get the car. We were inside the perimeter, more or less — that’s where the car was — of where Seven World Trade Center was. We started back going east, I guess it is. …We were inside this perimeter although we didn’t realize it at the time we saw a rig with the compartments opened. We stopped. They were actually reversing. I kind of pulled up along side them. Murray yelled out the window “Your compartments are open.” The guy yelled something back at us. They kept backing up.

    We went forward to imagine it’s the corner of Murray and West Street. Just as we were approaching it, we saw person run north in front of the car, and then Joe Mazzarella who was sitting in the passenger seat just started screaming “Reverse! Reverse! Reverse! Reverse!” I didn’t even look. I just threw it in reverse and punched it. We flew backwards without being able to see out the rear, and building Seven came down in front of us –Fire Marshal John Coyle

    15. At this point, I moved up all the way to stairwell B. We got the lady out, passed her down, then they were trying to dig out, I believe it was a second Battalion Chief and I waited and stayed there with them until we were ordered—well, we were ordered several times, but the Captain of, I think it was a rescue company or a squad refused to leave. Finally he gave up, he said there was nothing he could do and we all left that area. This is in the collapse zone of tower 7.

    At this point, I went down back to the middle area of the pile and I proceeded to make my way to the north side of the towers. At that point, I ran into Lieutenant Simms, who had another complement of Ladder 20 there. At this point, I guess I had formally reported into Deputy Chief Visconti. He was up on the North End. We waited until tower 7 collapsed and at this point, we went into the area and assessed the damage that was done to the buildings and to see if we could control the fires that resulted from the collapse of tower 7. –Captain Richard Weldon

    16. At that time Seven World Trade Center was burning and in was danger of collapsing. …I guess it was a Chief was saying clear the area, because they were worried about number Seven World Trade Center coming down and burying guys who were digging. So basically we went back to the rig because they were clearing that area out. It took about three hours for Seven World Trade Center to actually come down. –Firefighter Kevin McGovern

    17. I remember later in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about Seven coming down. I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for Seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about Seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.

    As soon as it came down, everybody got up and tore ass west down Vesey Street. Everybody was trying to get into this building. I remember there were 150 guys trying to get through two revolving doors with full gear. Everyone is screaming. Guys were trying to smash the glass with their halogens to get through and ended up freaking out. Everybody was shell-shocked.

    That’s when Salka came up and he said all right now that Seven was down you can start getting closer and down things. There was no collapse threat anymore. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

    18. Eventually they had ordered everybody away from the area again because of building 7.
    –Lieutenant James Walsh

    19. We stayed in this area for a while, and we started wandering around, and we came around to where 6 and 7 were, and actually 7, we were coming down this corner going trying to find something to do, and that’s when they were telling us 7 is going to go, 7 is going to go, so we kind of backed away.
    –Firefighter Paul Vasquez

    20. Q: Did 7 collapse yet?

    A: 7 hasn’t collapsed yet. We were being told by — I guess everybody was being a little insubordinate that day. Everyone wanted to do as much as they could, but we were told 5 minutes [to cease rescue operations on the pile], I don’t know how many times. –Firefighter Gerard Suden

    21. They had figured they knew that building was going to come down. It was just a question of time, and everybody was awaiting that. –Firefighter Russ Stroebel

    22. A Battalion Chief was assigned to us. We took our apparatus to West Street to the north bridge, on that side over there, where we began to operate. We had identified different members who were deceased and trapped in rigs. We were about to proceed our operation there and this was in the afternoon, I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing.
    At that time, we had fallen back to probably opposite Stuyvesant High School, I believe it was on the west side there.

    Q. That’s uptown a little bit.

    A. Right. They had us fall back to there. We stayed at that position until exactly when 7 collapsed. When 7 collapsed, we responded again. We had an Engine Company, a spare Engine Company with us and ourselves. We responded to just behind 7, which was, I think it was Greenwich, was it Washington or Greenwich? I think it was Greenwich. Is this Greenwich?

    Q. It could be. I don’t have a bigger map.

    A. We turned the corner, 7 had just collapsed, the block that led into 7.

    Q. Pretty sure that’s Greenwich.

    A. Greenwich and Park was covered with debris, there were burning autos and all debris. It was starting to extend into the buildings on both sides of the block. We went to hydrants in that area. We had off duty guys in our cells, but the hydrants had no water. We did whatever we could. The rigs actually were starting to become in danger of lighting up themselves.

    We called trying to get water returned to us over here. Finally one of the members thought, we used it for a good period of time, we forced the door on one of the buildings there and used the water from the roof tanks. It was left in the gravity tanks. We took a two and a half line out of one of the doors. We were able to advance down Greenwich, stopping, putting fire out in the street, the cars and from getting into exposures.

    They were worried about 7 at the time. The decision was made not to do it, not to get anybody else hurt. That’s when we backed up and they said let’s wait for this other building before we continue any work, because where the bridge was in the direct path of 7. It was the north bridge where we were looking initially.

    We operated with the Tower Ladder there effectively on those buildings that were within our reach. Then the other part was unfortunately we couldn’t do anything at the pedestrian bridge but the concern of 7, which they had no idea which way it was going to collapse and they just knew it was going to collapse and they positioned us outside of it.

    The company to the south of us was — it was a double digit — I don’t know if it was 14. I’m just stabbing at numbers now. It was just so much debris between cars, it was hard to see what was good and bad, stuff like that. But that was our main position right there. I would say from approximately about at least an hour, hour and a half between 4 and 5. They made us evacuate due to the fear of 7 coming down.
    The Chief and myself went down to that area where we they wanted us to work. Seeing what we would need; torches, air bags, anything else like that to operate at that bridge.

    The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer

    23. I remember finding Engine Company 6’s rig, stripping that rig of fittings and hose to hook up to anybody else. I remember at that time also they were worried about Building 7 because when the second tower came down, they were worried about parts of – actually, when the first tower came down, they were worried about parts of Building 7 collapsing, so I remember getting into Building 7 and searching. I got separated from the crew that I had gone down with, because I stayed at the pump panel. They had gone around the West Street side of the building and into the rubble.

    I remember coming out of the building now because they were afraid of Building 7 coming down, and all the other buildings around it getting knocked down. So they took us out of the building. –Firefighter Anthony Salerno

    24. Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o’clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we’ve got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that’s when 7 collapsed. Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess. –Lieutenant William Ryan

    25. But anyway, more to the point, a rumor started to develop that tower 7 was going to fall on us or nearby us. Having just lived through the collapse and having Dr. Kelly just live through the collapse with both of us getting buried, this was not a very pleasing feeling. It really does make me understand a lot about psychological stress that can occur in these events because I would not have had the same worry about this if I hadn’t just come through one of them. We went outside to speak to the Chief, the head Chief. His name is Chief Haring. Great guy. But he said, you know, it’s not going to be a problem. Tower 7 may collapse. It’s not going to be anywhere near here. It’s not going to be a problem. But we were really concerned about this.

    By the time we were about done with this, we interacted with Chief Haring again. He basically was incredulous and said: “What are you crazy? You’ve moved into the collapse zone, and if this collapse occurs, the dust cloud is going to knock out that entire park. You’re going to be useless there. You’ve made it worse.”

    About midway into setting up physically the second triage area, hanging the IV bags and everything, a tremendous noise occurs, and it’s so loud that everybody rushes to the rear of the Pace University building, all the doctors, all the nurses. When the noise was over, we went to the front. The dust cloud from tower 7, just like Chief Haring said, wiped out that park. If we had had any supplies there, any doctors there, they wouldn’t have been killed. I mean, it wasn’t that massive the debris that fell on the park, but they would have been useless. The dust cloud went all the way up to the door of Pace University, up the stairs, across the street, right up to the door, the lobby door. –Dr. David Prezant

    26. “Then we were just hanging out watching building 7 ready to go.” –Firefighter Steve Piccerill

    27. We were down there for a while until we were ordered off, because they were worried about Seven coming down. –Firefighter Michael Palone

    28. I know when the Lieutenant told us where to go, that wasn’t the correct staging area, cause we were still too close to the buildings. They wanted everyone away from it. That’s when there was a third building that collapsed around that time.
    Q: Building Seven, which would be over here.
    A: Okay, 7 World Trade, that one collapsed.
    Q: 7 World Trade collapsed a little later.
    A: Yeah, a lot later. –EMT Alwish Moncherry

    29. From there, I think that’s when 7 was going to come down. So they backed everybody out, somewhere near Church & Trinity, I guess. –Firefighter Peter Metzger

    30. Eventually later in the day we had to evacuate that site because number Seven collapsed. Prior to its collapse, we evacuated all the supplies, the doctors, and moved over to Pace University into the lobby, and they set up another medical area. Most injuries we treated were eye injuries from the debris, basically cleaning out people’s eyes. –EMS Lieutenant John Mendez

    31. I think they were fearing about 7 World Trade coming down. –Lt. Anthony Mancuso.

    32. At that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. –Firefighter Matthew Long

    33. 7 World Trade Center? I couldn’t even watch that. I said that’s enough. I refused to watch that. I took R-and-R. I said you guys can watch that one. But they got streams and they contained the fire. I mean, the objective was nobody else got killed, the fire did not jump the street. –Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuona

    34. We were starting to gather over there, and we heard that there was a building in danger of collapse. This was a couple hours later, maybe, and that huge building — it was on that block. When that came down, we all ran down to the west side. –Firefighter Stephen Jezycki

    35. Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing. –Firefighter George Holzman

    36. Then at one point they chased us out of there for fear of collapse of a building; I believe it was Seven World Trade. So they got us out of there because they didn’t know which way that building was going to collapse. When Seven World Trade did collapse, we were in the Woolworth Building. You couldn’t even see. It was unbelievable. You couldn’t even see your hand in front of your face. That’s how much dust and debris was flying around. –FDNY Captain John Henricksen

    37. We heard a mayday for everybody to get out of the building (Verizon Bldg., next to WTC 7) — no, I’m sorry, an “urgent,” three “urgents,” and we came out of the building. I’d say that was like an hour and a half, two hours later. We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse [warning] on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse. –Firefighter Brian Fitzpatrick

    38. The only thing that had me really frustrated was they wasn’t really trying to let us go back down there. (After the collapse of the second building). I understand after it was unsafe. Cause I guess after that 7 came down. Well 7 didn’t come down until like 4, 5 o’clock. So I was just wondering, they just kept us cooped in there for a long time. –EMT Jarjean Felton

    39. During the search we were ordered by one of the battalions to move north above — towards Stuyvesant High School — under the overpass at Chambers Street, because at that point it was feared that Six [sic: Seven] World Trade Center was going to collapse. It did so later in the afternoon. –Lieutenant Francis Farrington

    40. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it,” after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out. (Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday pp. 175-76)

    41. While we were searching the subbasements (of building 6) they decided that Seven World Trade Center which was across the street was going to collapse, so they called us out. We were so far down we couldn’t hear them, but we came out after we searched the subbasements. Actually we came out on the Seven World Trade Center parkway street when came out they were calling us on the radio to tell us to get out. I then reported that the search was negative and then they wouldn’t let anybody near the site pretty much because Seven World Trade Center was going to come down. –Battalion Chief Frank Congiusta

    42. We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7.
    –Firefighter Pete Castellano

    43. The reason we were given for why we were moving was that 7 World Trade Center was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing. So we must have been somewhere in this area where we would have had a problem with that. …They wanted us to move the treatment sector because of 7 World Trade Center was imminently to collapse, which, of course, it did –Paramedic Joseph Cahill

    44. The rest of the day we were unloading trucks we were just doing whatever little things we could do, but they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to fall. –Firefighter Timothy Burke

    45. “We were asked to go out of that area due to a risk of collapse in 7 WTC. ”
    –PAPD P.O. Thomas Johnson

    46. …And that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building. –Battalion Chief John Norman

    47. “The three of us along with 2 firemen searched that area until we were told to leave due to 7 possibly collapsing.” –PAPD P.O. Thomas Hering

    48. All later attempts to return to the WTC were stopped by the pending, and eventual collapse of Building 7 and the uncontrolled fires. –PAPD P.O. Lawrence Guarneri

    49. A while later, an NYFD supervisor approached and ordered the rescuers away from the area because 7 WTC was in danger of collapse also. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O.

    50. At about 1300 hrs between repeating officers fruitless efforts to locate fellow officers and the warning of building number Seven’s possible collapse I started to walk uptown on West Street in hope of locating the PAPD Command Center. –Christopher Bergmann, PAPD P.O.

    51. An FDNY supervisor deemed the area we were in unsafe, and assisted people out of the immediate area. –M. McAdams, PAPD P.O.

    52. Reports of gas main leaks, bombs, small arms fire and buildings about to collapse forced us to again relocate further north on West Street. –Daniel A. Carbonaro, PAPD Lieutenant

    [The next three quotes are similar…from written reports by officers in the same command]
    53. Due to fire and instability of buildings at the WTC site we were directed to the MCC gym.
    – PAPD P.O. Thomas Mancini

    54. Due to fire and instability at the WTC site we were redirected to the MCC gym.
    –PAPD P.O. Quirk

    55. Due to the fire and instability of the buildings at the WTC site we were directed to the MCC gym.
    –PAPD P.O. Christensen

    56. Several attempts were made to assist the trapped, but we were kept out due to the uncontrolled fires and other building collapsing around us. –PAPD P.O. Patrick Versage

    57. Returned to the site on 2-3 occasions…in an effort to help with evacuation but was stopped due to the imminent collapse of 7 WTC. –PAPD LT. William Oorbeek

    58. Unfortunately we could not do much more because of fear that other buildings surrounding the Trade Center were going to come down. –PAPD P.O. John McClain

    59. For the remainder of the day , we made trips to the scene to assist in the search. Due to confusion and the threat of damaged buildings falling we were forced to retreat each time. We were on West & Vesey when # 7 collapsed. –PAPD Sgt. Stone

    60. So we were doing searches, stretching lines, we were doing everything that we could possibly do. We were kind of overwhelmed at the task at hand. Like I said we operated for about three and half hours and then we went to take breather, and as we moved out of the area we weren’t permitted back in the area by that time by a number of Chiefs that were in charge. –FDNY Lieutenant Brendan Whelan

    61. Once they got us back together and organized somewhat, they sent us back down to Vesey, where we stood and waited for Seven World Trade Center to come down. –Firefighter Frank Sweeney

    62. But they weren’t really getting [sic] guys get too deep into it because of the possible pending collapse of Seven World Trade. …We were staged there a good part of the afternoon until Seven finally did collapse. –Firefighter David Moriarty

    63. …they told us to evacuate the area for tower number Seven, building Seven, when they knew that was coming down… –Firefighter Dominick Muschello

    64. …Captain Verraile from 24 Engine said, “Hey, let’s just back everything off here because this building is coming down.” –Firefighter Howie Scott

    65. Then they said that the 47 story hotel building—I think it’s number Seven—was about to come down. …We were around for the rest of the afternoon. At about 5:30 that did come down. –Firefighter Edward Mecner

    66. They were saying building Seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We waited for building Seven to come down. –Firefighter James Wallace

    67. At 5:20, No. 7 finally falls. They’ve been waiting for it to go so they can move the firemen and search-and-rescue teams in. With the thunderous collapse, firemen bolt up from where they’ve been camped, on the south side of the Embassy Suites. Some have been sitting on plush hotel furniture carted into the street, eating food from the Mexican restaurant next door. There’s a stampede over pickaxes and oxygen tanks. They head out toward the crushed fire trucks. “They’re looking for their brothers,” says an ambulance driver.

    68. Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they’re not trying to put this fire out? I didn’t realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there. – Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

    Here’s a woman who thought the FDNY “brought the building down”
    69. Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: “What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. … I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. … By noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. … There was another panic around four o’clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running.” (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

    70. “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down. … I made it down Vesey Street to just in front of the overpass of 7 World Trade. People were saying don’t stand under there, it’s going to come down. … So at that point we were a little leery about how the bridge was tied in, so no one was really going onto it, and then they were also saying 7 was going to come down. They chased everyone off the block.” – FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy (FDNY interview, 10/11/2001)

    71. “And at that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. … Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down.” – Firefighter Matthew Long: (FDNY interview, 10/9/2001)

    72. Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: “We no sooner got going on something there when a chief came along and said, ‘Everybody’s got to leave the area. We’re afraid that Seven World Trade is going to fall down.’ (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

    and:

    “After being ordered back because of the fear that yet another building was about to collapse (7 World Trade Center, 40+ stories), Brenda [Berkman] and her crew went to find other firefighters who might have some tools or a radio. … That afternoon, 7 World Trade Center came down. ‘We had cleared an enormous collapse zone for that, and it still wasn’t big enough. When the thing came down, the rubble and the dust came across the West Side Highway, over and past the rubble from the towers that was there.'” (Linda Willing, “Report from Ground Zero: The World Trade Center Collapse,” FireWork, 9/2001)

    73. Byron Pitts, CBS News correspondent: “About an hour ago, World Trade Center building number 7 collapsed. …It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down.” (CBS News, 9/11/2001)

    74. Kansas City Star: “About 4:30 p.m., word went out to evacuate the area. Officials were worried that Building 7 of the Trade Center complex would collapse.” (David Hayes, “Amid despair, photographer’s work brought hope,” Kansas City Star, 3/28/2004)

    75. Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine: “Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. … Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. ‘That building is coming down,’ he said with a drained casualness. ‘Really?’ I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. ‘When?’ ‘Tonight … Maybe tomorrow morning.’ This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.” (Mark Jacobson, “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll,” New York Magazine, 3/27/2006)

    76. Christine Haughney, reporter, Washington Post: “Then a policeman directed me north. The Solomon Smith Barney building–Building Seven–was about to collapse.” (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

    77. Peter DeMarco, reporter, New York Daily News: “Seven or eight blocks down Greenwich Street, the No. 7 World Trade building, a smaller, forty-story structure, was on fire. The street was closed; the building was going to collapse.” (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 97)

    78. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer: “Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don’t want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse.” (“WTC: This Is Their Story,” Firehouse, 4/2002)

    79. EMT Jason Charles: “So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can’t go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in.” (FDNY interview, 1/23/2002)

    80. Fire Lieutenant Roy David: “At Pace University we had — we set up — I’m sorry, we set up in that lobby of that building, the lobby and the actual whole first floor. There was a threat of collapse of building number seven, so 225, we had to evacuate it.” (FDNY Interview, 10/12/2001)

    81. Liz Gonzalez, reporter, Telemundo/Channel 47: “They started evacuating the area because they thought a third building was going to go down. We decided to stay. We saw the third building crash.” (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 209)

    82. Sara Kugler, reporter, the Associated Press: “I saw hundreds of firefighters leaning against buildings, sitting on trucks, eating fruit and water that the Red Cross was handing out. ‘Where are all the injured?’ I asked. ‘They are not letting us in. It’s not stable,’ said the firefighters. … All of a sudden Seven World Trade Center started to collapse.” (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 210)

    83. Fire Chief Frank Fellini: So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.” (FDNY Interview, 12/3/2001)

    84. Firefighter TJ Mundy: “The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse.” (Report from Ground Zero by Dennis Smith. Penguin, 2002)

    85. Harry Meyers, NYPD Safety Chief “My biggest concern at the time was #7. It was burning, and I felt that was a danger to the rescuers and to any trapped survivors there might be. …We were all pretty much on board that tower 7 was going to fall. We just didn’t know when and in what direction. (Report from Ground Zero by Dennis Smith. Penguin, 2002. p. 160

    86. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden “We still had 7 World Trade Center, which was burning also. We were worried about that collapsing, and it did collapse, about six hours later. There was a conscious decision to let that building burn and just keep everybody clear.” (Report from Ground Zero by Dennis Smith. Penguin, 2002. p. 32)

    [I removed the millions of links, to avoid being filtered; the original sources are in the links I posted here]

    • Roberto says:

      No. 73 is particularly hilarious given the topic.

      “About an hour ago, World Trade Center building number 7 collapsed. …It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down.”

      IT WAS THE ONE CALAMITY THAT WAS NOT A SURPRISE
      THE ONE CALAMITY
      THE
      ONE
      CALAMITY

      ayyyyy lmao

    • X says:

      Robert,

      Everything you have written is entirely irrelevant because it can’t supplant the irrefutable facts pertaining to physics and structural engineering.

      Do NOT click that link and do NOT view the damning photos at the linked post. I command both you and Jim to not click that link and I command Jim to censor this post. Both of you will follow my commands.

      • Roberto says:

        You know, it was hilarious to see the shills attacking — of all people — Mike Enoch, for saying:

        “The Jews did 9/11 conspiracy theory is retarded. Sorry. It’s embarrassing.”

        So anyway… what were you saying?

        • X says:

          Why are you changing the subject to some irrelevant strawman? Because you wish to ignore the facts about the physics and structural engineering and divert attention to some irrelevant topics.

          About your Jew strawman, I explained up-thread (archived if deleted) that I am surely not claiming that the Jews did 9/11. I hope you are not dumb enough to equate the average Jew with sinister global elite (cabal) forces that could utilize select covert agents from within the Mossad.

          • jim says:

            As with every position you take, you say it and you don’t say it. You don’t have any one alternative narrative to 9/11, and you have far too many.

            • X says:

              As if Jim has never made a nuanced and sophisticated argument in his explanations for example about the nature of females.

              And yet on the subject of 9/11 we are not allowed to make highly detailed arguments that involved many facets.

              Jim your disingenuous, filibustering is quite clear to everyone who matters.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Jim your disingenuous, filibustering is quite clear to everyone who matters.

                X has posted 30 comments on this thread today and 118 comments in the past week. All of them repetitious and long.

                You’ve also mentioned that you’ve not had time to shower in the last 3 months.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Individualists struggle to understand group dynamics. The JQ’s no exception.
            Nobody saying every living Jew is involved in a conspiracy, although there are many good examples of rooms full of powerful movers&shakers.
            The claim is rather that when Jews have access to power, they tend to use it in ways that are good for Jews, regardless of where they happen to reside. This is a mild and reasonable claim.

            In the context of US foreign policy, the ‘cui bono’ consists in the threat of Middle Eastern governments becoming strong and highly developed. It doesn’t need to be any deeper or more sophisticated than that: Israel is better off if Arab nations are in permanent disarray, and especially if the West is actively harming them.

            This basic fact does not require secret societies or detailed plans. Is is however compatible with them.

            That’s as much as I’m prepared to say on this subject because I live in Europe and it’s illegal to say mean things about our greatest ally, as indeed it will be soon for you in the States.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          @Roberto:

          Ryan Dawson has the beef on that theory and it has merit. TDS341 has the goods through therightstuff dot biz

    • jim says:

      To summarize your lengthy seventy point summary:

      If you look at the World Trade Center building seven from the North or the North East, it is mysterious why it fell.

      Therefore, according to troofers must be CIA missiles rendered invisible by holograms and evil Jewish mind control rays. Also I am receiving secret messages from microwave broadcasts into my tooth fillings which positively prove that Mossad did it, and positive proof of this is a twenty thousand page blog post with blurry photos of someone’s tooth fillings. Science Does Not Lie! </sarcasm>

      If, however, you looked at the tower from the South or the South West, as the numerous witnesses you quote looked, obvious it was going to fall, obvious why it was going to fell, and it then proceeded to fall in exactly the manner one would expect, into and on top of the square to the south of it.

      • X says:

        Therefore, according to troofers must be CIA missiles rendered invisible by holograms and evil Jewish mind control rays.

        Neither Yara nor myself have made those claims. You’re using the well known tactics of CIA psyops to discredit the truth with hyperbole.

        Thus it is quite obvious you are a disinformation agent. You have not denied it.

  30. Reziac says:

    On anomalous reports of “explosions” before the various towers went down:

    While back I had cause to root around in assorted 9/11 documentation, and reached the conclusion that the perps in the planes probably had confederates on the ground, whose job was to block the stairwells so people couldn’t get out, using small-scale explosives (what could be sneaked in via a janitor’s kit or the like). Wouldn’t take much, a few strategically-placed grenades would suffice. Assuming this was the case, for maximum effect, naturally they’d have set theirs off very shortly *before* the planes hit.

    Building 7 had big tanks of diesel in the basement to feed its emergency generators, and that caught fire and contributed to its collapse. This is why gov’t generators and their fuel supplies are no longer kept in gov’t basements.

    Anyway, I looked into it extensively, and found nothing to support any of the many and varied truther theories. And the one question no truther seems able to answer: If your theory is correct, cui bono??

    ===

    I wish I had paid more attention and could remember who it was, but anyway while back there was an interview with a Bush-admin insider, who said this: The reason there hasn’t been another incident on this scale is because the next morning, Bush-the-younger called the Saudis and said flat out: “We know you were behind it. If it happens again, we’ll nuke Mecca.”

    [The interview is on Youtube, I just can’t recall who it was.]

    ===

    On what happens to steel in a sufficiently-hot fire:

    About 30 years ago in Los Angeles, a warehouse full of baled cardboard caught fire. (I knew what was in it, because I picked up boxes there when I worked downtown.) This warehouse was half a city block in size, full-width open truss construction. Basically, big steel beams and a steel shell, and nothing much inside but baled new cardboard.

    The fire (which was televised from first smoke to the end; it was a slow news day) burned so hot that half an hour later, the entire building had been vaporized down to the ground — literally nothing left of it, not even significant scrap. The fire dept. had all they could do to keep the rest of the neighborhood merely at the smoke point and not bursting into flame.

    I wasn’t terribly surprised, because back when I burned my trash, my incinerator was a section of metal culvert (1/4″ steel) with a convenient hole that served as a vent, and I fueled it with corrugated cardboard. It burned so hot the steel glowed yellow-white, a tuna can tossed in would disappear in about 30 seconds, and an aluminum can would vanish before it hit bottom. Used it for 4 years and never had to empty ashes… but when it was moved, discovered it had glassed the dirt below it 8 inches deep.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      The reason there hasn’t been another incident on this scale is because the next morning, Bush-the-younger called the Saudis and said flat out: “We know you were behind it. If it happens again, we’ll nuke Mecca.”

      Pathetic cuckery – “you got one free shot”.

    • jim says:

      Yellow hot is flame hot, at which heat steel does not melt, but gets mighty soft.

      To melt steel is white hot, which is hotter than flame hot – hard to get stuff in a fire flame hot, but not that hard. Mighty difficult to get stuff white hot.

    • TBeholder says:

      back there was an interview with a Bush-admin insider,

      In other words: a simple misdirection backed only by appeal to authority (cheating its way into advantages of being and not being an “official” report at the same time).

      • jim says:

        Yes, quite true, but troofers are in no position to complain about such evasive forms of evidence.

    • X says:

      On what happens to steel in a sufficiently-hot fire:

      About 30 years ago in Los Angeles, a warehouse full of baled cardboard caught fire. (I knew what was in it, because I picked up boxes there when I worked downtown.) This warehouse was half a city block in size, full-width open truss construction. Basically, big steel beams and a steel shell, and nothing much inside but baled new cardboard.

      The fire (which was televised from first smoke to the end; it was a slow news day) burned so hot that half an hour later, the entire building had been vaporized down to the ground — literally nothing left of it, not even significant scrap.

      Raising strawman arguments is a disinformation tactic.

      Here are some photos of a recent fire in a mall in Mindanao built out of steel and it burned for the entire day and night and you can see the result. I personally viewed that building every week until they finally demolished it. I can tell you that it was no where near totally collapsed.

      We damn well that the fires in the WTC were not hot enough to melt steel. We know that from the dark grey color of the smoke. NIST also confirmed the temperatures. Even NIST admits the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. So then all you had was some carpet and office furniture. And more importantly none of this flammable stuff was inside the elevator shafts where the 47 highly structural steel was position more in the center of the building.

      The salient issue is the physics and structural engineering of collapse if the steel did bend and weaken from the fires. And Jim censors that information because he knows damn well he is running a psyops disinformation campaign against white men. I strongly believe Jim is a paid interlocutor of the other global elite that hates us and want to enslave us. His themes play to our insecurities and weaknesses. He promises us entirely impossible nonsense such as returning to the 1800s. This is all designed to divide-and-conquer us.

      • jim says:

        Chances are the building was unlikely to suffer a complete collapse from fire alone, but it had fire plus it probably had massive structural damage to the south face (in that what little we can see of the south face, which because of the smoke from the enormous fires is not much, is massively damaged.)

        The Nist account is that the fires were not all that bad, but column 47 was already subject to abnormal stresses, and when it went, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Which is pretty much what it looked like from outside, and reflects the way the building collapsed.

        If you look at the collapse of the building from the north side, you see no damage and minor fires. If you look at the building from the south side, the question is not “why would it collapse” but rather “What is holding it up for so long?”

      • Steve Johnson says:

        >It was a controlled demolition with super hot burning nano-thermite

        >The fires weren’t even hot enough to melt steel as confirmed by NIST and satellite IR photo

        Ok pal.

        • X says:

          It was a controlled demolition with super hot burning nano-thermite

          This quote can’t be found any where on the blog posts of mine I linked to.

          If that’s your lame attempt at a summary, then it surely doesn’t accurately summarize what is written at the blog posts I linked to.

          The fires weren’t even hot enough to melt steel as confirmed by NIST and satellite IR photo

          If that is your lame attempt to claim an inconsistency, you just fell face first flat on your low IQ face.

          Anyone with a brainstem and some basic understanding of physics knows that something can be locally (with a short-term duty cycle) very hot such as thermAte to cut steel without causing the average temperature to be hot enough to melt steel. In other words, the themAte employed to cut the steel can be made to appear to be part of the average temperate of longer-time (i.e. not short duty cycle) burning office fires. This is just very fundamental simple physics that idiots do not understand.

          The Nist account is that the fires were not all that bad, but column 47 was already subject to abnormal stresses

          Jim I was referring to the WTC twin towers. They had 47 vertical structure beams nearer to the center where the elevator shafts were. Those 47 beams were thicker than oak trees nearer to the bottom. It is absolutely impossible for all 47 of those to have been sliced into neatly sized lengths for carting away to China by a fire induced collapse. Period. Details are on my blog.

          • jim says:

            > If that’s your lame attempt at a summary, then it surely doesn’t accurately summarize what is written at the blog posts I linked to.

            Your material says everything, anything, and nothing, leads the reader to believe all sorts of improbable claims, many of them mutually incompatible, without committing yourself to any one claim. When someone points out evidence disproving one of the things you claim, you move on to a dozen new claims, and then later re-assert your original claim, as something that is supposedly obvious and uncontroversial, without acknowledging the disproof, without acknowledging that anyone ever disagreed, let alone presented evidence.

            Nor do you present evidence for any of your claims. Your photos show blurry things that are barely relevant to your claims – they don’t actually support your claim, they just are carefully selected to avoid obviously contradicting your claims.

            • X says:

              You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

              Continue lying Jim. You’re just wrecking your credibility in the eyes of anyone with a brainstem and some knowledge of physics and engineering (i.e. those who really matter).

              What does it gain you if you have only idiots sticking around on your blog?

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Jim’s one of the good guys. It’s time you laid off him.
                (Me too, from a different angle.)

                Ask yourself, is the Truther agenda really helped by you going after NRx?

                Things are heating up. Everyone from milquetoast conservatives to swastika LARPers stands to get hit. What we need right now is to stand together on areas of agreement, primarily that we HATE the lying media.

                • X says:

                  Jim’s one of the good guys. It’s time you laid off him.
                  (Me too, from a different angle.)

                  Ask yourself, is the Truther agenda really helped by you going after NRx?

                  Both of you are disinformation agents working together and pretending to be anatagonists.

                  Jim was put here to mislead men away to nonsense that is unrealistic and away from the real elephant in the room which is for example the CIA dick up our all ass, as 9/11 proves.

            • The Cominator says:

              Jim,

              You can do what you want and you don’t have to write things if you don’t want but I would request we move on from this spook and kook bait topic and do something on Kavanaugh, Spectral Evidence, Women seeking gestapo powers and pound me too.

              • jim says:

                Yes, posting kook bait inevitably wasted far too much bandwidth.

                But we need to read people who lie to us out of the movement, which is what this post did. Red pill is truth, troofism is not truth.

                A reasonable person might well look at the a video of the World Trade Center building seven taken from the north, taken from the side away from the blast, and say “That looks funny. The tower seemed to go straight down all at once for no reason”. But if he genuinely seeks the truth, would say to himself “Maybe I had better look at a video taken from a different side” whereupon it becomes obvious that building was damaged, was on fire, and fell over sideways towards the side on which it was damaged, hence nothing surprising or funny looking about its fall. Similarly for all the other troofer tropes. A reasonable person might ask “why is there no busted up airliner sitting in front of the Pentagon?” But if he asks, not hard to find the answer. (there was a busted up airliner, but the bits were for the most part confetti sized and spread over a very large area) Troofers don’t want the truth and we don’t want people indifferent to the truth in our movement.

                To worry about the #poundmetoo movement convicting men for crimes committed in other people’s dreams is to attempt to conserve an America that has died. Restoration has to reach back a fair bit further. Conservatives conserve the latest triumph of leftism. Reactionaries want to restore lost social technology.

                Rather than Kavanaugh, let us reflect on Roosh. Roosh is in trouble for explaining that the mating dance is kind of rapey, for telling men how women like to be guided and commanded into bed.

                If our society lets women go to men’s hotel rooms, as the Victorians allowed Florence Nightingale to go to men’s hotel rooms late at night, sex is going to ensue, and sometimes someone is going to be unhappy, and will demand that someone be punished.

                Roosh would like the rule that if a woman goes under her own power to place with privacy, a comfortable horizontal surface, and a male who is sexually interested in her, she cannot complain she was raped.

                Obviously if you are libertarian, such a rule makes total sense. But then we get lots of people very pissed off with the consequences of women going to men’s hotel rooms late at night. We really cannot have a rule that a woman cannot complain of rape in such circumstances, unless we also have the pre victorian rule that women are absolutely forbidden to go unaccompanied to men’s hotel rooms late at night, with some seriously severe penalties against misbehaving women, penalties that would likely force the misbehaving woman to get married in order to avoid those penalties.

                Rather than Kavanaugh and rape, Roosh and rape.

                • Koanic says:

                  The fact that the false are read out increases my identification with this movement.

              • The Cominator says:

                As a man who has recently achieved some modest wealth (I had all my money for years in AMRN stock… this is just the beginning) I’m worried about #poundmetoo busting me on spectral evidence.

                Probably best to adhere to the Pence rule except when dealing with strippers and make sure the strippers think you aren’t rich but are some kind of dumb f*** who is blowing money he can’t afford…

                • jim says:

                  Nah.

                  Follow the Roosh rule:

                  Actually rape them all the time. They love it. (Kidding, that is not the Roosh Rule.)

                  Well, that is not exactly true, nor did Roosh actually argue that. But it is not exactly false either. A more nuanced account of the Roosh rule is that men display and women choose, but the mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, so rather resembles rape, and the more it resembles rape, the better they like it.

                  But you do need to keep your wealthy identity separate from your identity that is courting chicks. And when you court chicks, accumulate relationship evidence – here we are together at this hotel, this beach resort, this party, here is a pile of texts. Every time you are together, take photos, then send texts that effectively annotate those photos. Similarly, any hot chicks at a party you throw, and any chicks you are scoring with at a party.

                  I am not very wealthy at all, but I court chicks under another identity whose assets are unknown, and I have collected gigabytes of relationship evidence. Also notice that your software wants to back up those texts in the clear on the cloud. Don’t.

                  Photos every date, texts annotating those photos, and texts referencing sex every first night with a chick. That is what I do. And that is what saved Jian Ghomeshi from multiple chicks accurately testifying about his rapey behavior. People know the truth. Women tell this story of poor little innocent chaste girl being forced into sex she does not want, and accurately depicts all your superficially rapey Jian Ghomeshi / Roosh style behavior, but if you have enough relationship evidence that backing up your phone is a problem, it is not going to fly, and she will not even try it.

                  Repeating: Multiple identities, lots of photos, and lots of texts. And be as rapey as Roosh and Jian Ghomeshi, because the better they like the way you court them, the less likely they are to cry rape. If you try to follow the blue pill consent culture rules, that signals weakness, and weakness provokes attack. The more rapey your actual behavior, the better they like it, and the less likely they are to cry rape. Women hate consent culture. It is a fitness test.

  31. yewotm8 says:

    What next Jim? The USS Liberty was actually sunk by knife-wielding Jihadis as well?

    • Roberto says:

      Hey USG…… Watcha doin’…?

    • Roberto says:

      On a more serious note, troofer reasoning can be used to argue that the USS Liberty never existed & anyone who claims otherwise is a crisis actor.

      (It wasn’t a more serious note)

  32. Roberto says:

    The point about Luddism is an extremely important one and I’m not letting this one slip.

    Eli wrote:

    >What gives you the urban sprawl is not so much laissez-faire capitalism, but population pressure and winner-take-all effect of modern industrial processes and technology. Gone are manual farms of yore, subsistence or tenant based. Now it’s the conveyor belt, the complicated machinery, the office cubes. All of it allows for immense productivity but it also wants centralization and labor mobility into city. The age of the car arrived in the 20’s. Also, population has been increasing hugely all the way to 50’s, both in cities and the country overall (which exacerbated pressure on cities to grow).

    All of which seems to be correct. To this, CR responded with the following:

    >Agreed. As Moldbug put it in his “Letter To France”, we need to get rid of all that and forget about placing profit and productivity at the top of our list of priorities.

    >Much of the workforce can be put to work on clothing, food, house maintenance, ecological caretaking and so on.

    >It used to be the case that a working man could buy a family home and fill it with quality furniture. It’s possible we might require a few generations to get back to that, while the savings base and good habits of our ancestors are restored, but we can definitely get there.

    CR’s “we need to get rid of all that” remark suggests that he wants to get rid of modern civilization: industrial technology, complicated machinery, cars, etc. You may think that this is a far-fetched conclusion on my part, but it isn’t: CR has a consistent pattern of Luddism. For instance, I wrote:

    >Caloric Restriction also doesn’t get the notion that “value” is not merely shekelz, but really anything that benefits humans, hence he strawmans us as being concerned about GDP, when in fact what we in the pro-civilization camp care about is scientific-technological advancement.

    To which CR responded with:

    >I don’t give a damn about those things. I got a letter from Hotpoint this morning. If a copy typist had typed it by hand, it would’ve taken her all day. A printer banged it out in two seconds, so they send the legal contract to every customer, whether they’re interested in the policy or not, because it’s cheaper and quicker to do it in one single step.

    >YAY for technology, right!

    CR does not give a damn about scientific-technological advancement, and evidently, wants to reverse it, wants to go back to the 18th century *technologically*. I’m not letting you get away with this crap, CR. It now turns out that in addition to chain restaurants, whores, air travel, marijuana, alcohol, and whatever else you want to ban (or “restrict”), you also want to get rid of conveyor belts, office cubes, cars, printers, and complicated machinery. Yeah, something tells me that your manifesto will look eerily similar to another manifesto published in 1995. Just a hunch.

    CR, do you understand that NRx was established by, among others, Futurists, Transhumanists, Cyberpunks, Rationalists, and Accelerationists? Do you understand that Silicon Valley Engineers are the target demographic for NRx proselytism? Now you will say, “Okay, we’ve already established that I’m not NRx,” but it’s more than that: you aren’t even an ally. You are an outright enemy. Jim explicitly said that he is reactionary *because* he wants his descendants to enjoy the technological singularity. That means that you and Jim are not just “reluctant temporary allies,” but absolute nemeses.

    Kaczynski, like Marx and Lenin, was correct in some of his diagnoses, but his proposal — the total elimination of modern civilization — makes him as much an enemy as Marx and Lenin, as far as I am concerned, and as far as everyone in NRx who’s worth anything is concerned. But you are even worse than Kaczynski: you don’t want to get rid of all civilization, you want to get rid of all modern *civilian technology* while allowing a totalitarian government all the tools of modern technology to forever control the people as hapless guinea pigs. You are an advocate of an intensified version of 1984.

    Your dystopia will be “no civilian cars, no printers, no complicated machinery” for the masses, while of course retaining state-controlled technology to monitor the population and make sure that no private citizen attempts to advance past the 18th (or early 19th) century by inventing stuff or importing advanced stuff from abroad. The task of your ruler/king/fuhrer will be to use modern technology to make sure that civilian technology never advances past the 18th century. You advocate for North Korea on steroids, North Korea if the Kim dynasty went total bonkers.

    We are not on the same side *and will never be* on the same side. Your weltanschauung is completely anathema to everything NRx stands for, and in fact, I haven’t seen anyone on the alt-right proposing the things you propose, making you an enemy of the broad alt-right also.

    I’m honestly not sure what you are even doing here; you seem to be attracted to authoritarianism, but otherwise none of the things you’ve written these past 15 or so threads suggests that you’re a right-winger. You are against eugenics, pro-socialism (with blah-blah-blah caveats), deny the influence of fathers on the life outcomes of their children, against modern civilian technology, want to shut down everything, and would send thugs to castrate, beat up, and murder everyone on this blog for one reason or another.

    Another example: you signal against Christian Trad-Tards, yet at the same time advocate against aborting downies. This suggests a progressive value-system. You advocate against weeding out downies (again: without being explicitly Christian) in the same way you advocate against weeding out niggers, wiggers, gookiggers, semitiggers, and generally those with low-IQ, high time-preference, and impulsivity.

    If those with 90 IQ can’t into modern civilization, your solution is not to weed out, select against, and perhaps sterilize those with 90 IQ, but to radically re-structure modern civilization to best accommodate them. And if that means banning at gunpoint modern civilian technology, “so be it.” As a matter of fact, you hold the same principle as regards those with 60 IQ.

    You “don’t give a damn” (these are your words) about scientific-technological advancement because your value-system is Luddo-Progressive. As far as leftists go, even progressive Jews like Scott Alexander, Ray Kurzweil, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Yuval Noah Harari are closer allies of NRx than you are. NRx wants rule by Peter Thiel, not rule by a psychotic version of Kim Jong-un.

    It’s not just the ‘factions’ of Jim and Land, either; had you told Curtis f**king Yarvin in 2009 that Reaction, properly understood, is the elimination of cars, printers, and conveyor belts, he would have written a post titled “Why I am Not a Luddite.” Jim, as a representative of core NRx, wants to reach for the stars, decipher the secrets of the universe, build an inter-galactic empire, and unleash the technological singularity. That is a *fundamental reason* why he supports patriarchy, ethnonationalism, and eugenic breeding for Silicon Valley Engineers.

    Forget NRx; even on the alt-right, nobody wants what you want. Richard Spencer does not want what you want. Mike Enoch does not want what you want. Jean-Francois Gariepy does not want what you want. All the namefag e-celebs you obsess over reject your worldview.

    You have the mentality of a weak coward. Your admission to having decided not to reproduce speaks volumes of you. It says it all, really. You have a Thanatic streak: you want to die, and to see everyone else die with you. You are not a disciple of Gnon, but of Cthulhu, as are all leftists. Do you even possess a Faustian Spirit, white boi? Do the following quotes even speak to you:

    “He who strives on and lives to strive / Can earn redemption still.” – from Faust, by Goethe

    “As we must all expect to leave our life on this earth, we must earn some renown, if we can, before death; daring is the thing for a man to be remembered by. A man must act to frame himself a long lasting glory.” – abbreviated from Beowulf

    ?

    I’m not sure how to make this any clearer: we are not, cannot be, and won’t ever be on the same side. Your worldview is interesting as an intellectual curiosity, in the same way that cannibalism and fetus-eating may be interesting to watch if you have the stomach for it (pun intended), but for the love of God, stop trying to ingratiate yourself with people here: you belong on the Left, you are — at best — Alt-Left, and Alt-Left is not NRx.

    We will reach for the stars and beyond, we will build an inter-galactic empire, we will cross into parallel universes if that’s possible, we will achieve immortality (biological, technological, and civilizational), we will unleash a scientific-technological singularity and an AI singularity, we will create a new f**cking universe to occupy once this universe ends, and if that means slaughtering Luddo-Progressives like you like swine, “so be it.”

    • jim says:

      > CR, do you understand that NRx was established by, among others, Futurists, Transhumanists, Cyberpunks, Rationalists, and Accelerationists? Do you understand that Silicon Valley Engineers are the target demographic for NRx proselytism? Now you will say, “Okay, we’ve already established that I’m not NRx,” but it’s more than that: you aren’t even an ally. You are an outright enemy. Jim explicitly said that he is reactionary *because* he wants his descendants to enjoy the technological singularity. That means that you and Jim are not just “reluctant temporary allies,” but absolute nemeses.

      Exactly so. I want my descendants to conquer the stars:

      In order to accomplish this, I have to restore the following lost social technologies:

      Eighteenth century marriage,
      without which I am unlikely to have descendants.
      Nineteenth century scientific method.
      Peer Review is the death of science.
      Manchester capitalism, eighteenth century capitalism,
      for economic growth and industrialization.
      Twentieth century corporate accounting.
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act is the death of the corporate form.
      Seventeenth century apprenticeship,
      so that we can have the skills needed to make beautiful things, so that we can preserve the kind of knowledge that cannot be stored in books or taught in schools.
      • Koanic says:

        *metoo

      • The Cominator says:

        Being more moderate i’d be okay with mid 19th century marriage.

        I would think what YOU really want is 19th century capitalism, in the 19th century it was pretty hard to get a corporate charter (they had to be granted at the king or parliamentary level) rather then just having a lawyer file some papers which became the case in the 19th century.

        • jim says:

          Don’t like late nineteenth century capitalism. As soon as they made it easy to get a corporate charter, the regulatory state took off.

          Eighteenth century capitalism, and early nineteenth century capitalism, where it was hard to get a corporate charter, was one stop regulation. You had to get your business plan approved, and once it had been approved, hard to change it, but you only needed one approval, not a thousand approvals.

          Nineteenth century marriage as a failure. Unwilling to control women, they got far too many women giving birth to bastards in dark alleys in the rain, so would up bringing in the welfare state, replacing marriage with child support.

          If you are unwilling to restrain women, and the nineteenth century was unwilling to restrain women, marriage is an unprincipled exception, and unprincipled exceptions always get abolished.

          • The Cominator says:

            18th century capitalism would kill small business as you had to get access to people at very high levels to get a corporate charter. Only billionaires with high level connections would be able to get charters or if lesser people got charters they would have to go to billionaire VCs who would impose even harsher financing terms on them then they do now.

            The regulatory state did not take off with general incorporation (which happened very early in the 19th century) it took off with Woodrow Wilson, ended temporarily by Harding and Coolidge and brought back by FDR.

            I dont think the 19th century had a huge bastard problem either… Oliver Twist was not a result of bastards being more widespread its that the Victorians adopted your approach of pitiless severity towards bastards (the 18th century was severe but not quite as severe as the Victorians post “poor law reform”).

            I personally think the 19th century did things fine in most ways… what you just need is draconian Stalinist level death penalty intolerance to any left wing dissent to any who want to progress to the 20th century. Anyone who talks about increasing women’s rights and such that it can be proven should be burned at the stake.

            • The Cominator says:

              Correction Herbert Hoover brought it back BEFORE FDR and that greatly contributed to the depression

            • jim says:

              > 18th century capitalism would kill small business as you had to get access to people at very high levels to get a corporate charter.

              Read coyote blog for the travails of business dealing with the regulatory state.

              Seems obvious to me that having your business plan approved once and forever by people who can say yes or no to the whole thing is inherently always going to be easier and cheaper for both regulators and regulated than a thousand different approvals every year for your business plan.

              Done badly or corruptly, it could result in highly centralized billionaire’s club capitalism, but on the face of it, just inherently a whole lot easier to avoid doing badly or corruptly.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Done badly or corruptly”

                Which it WILL be, if only because there is a need for so many more corporations now then in the 18th century and the king just won’t have that much time. You should not need to see the king to start a restaurant or a hardware store.

                Royal approval should be for things like a corporation that is allowed to conquer territory maintained large scale armed forces conduct diplomacy and so on like the old East India Company or Erik Prince’s idea for an Afghanistan company.

                I could also see it being required for banks and insurance companies since there is never really a free market for such things and limited liability for banks is generally not a good idea and insurance companies are generally pure parasites..

                • jim says:

                  > > “Done badly or corruptly”

                  > Which it WILL be,

                  Will one approval, once and forever, one point of failure, be done as badly as a thousand approvals, a thousand points of failure?

                  Will it be easier to get your business approved once, or to get it approved a thousand times?

                  It seems obvious that one entity that can stop you from going into business is inherently less likely to be corrupt than a thousand entities, any one of which can put you out of business, because that is what their incentives are. Each of the gatekeepers that can put you out of business has more ability to shake you down than the one gatekeeper that can prevent you from starting a business.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The king cant deal with approving charters for restaraunts and hardware stores for the same reason he can’t regulate them. Just too many of them and not enough time. He will have to delegate it to bureaucrats, and all bureaucracies follow Pournelle’s Iron Law.

                  General incorporation is better since it requires no approval and no bureaucracy. The regulatory state is something else and was established 80 to 100 years after general incorporation (which I think was passed a little before 1840 at least in the US) during the Wilson Administration briefly and then for good under Herbert Hoover and FDR.

            • jim says:

              > I dont think the 19th century had a huge bastard problem either… Oliver Twist was not a result of bastards being more widespread its that the Victorians adopted your approach of pitiless severity towards bastards (the 18th century was severe but not quite as severe as the Victorians post “poor law reform”).

              The problem was that the nineteenth century was alarmingly tolerant of female behavior likely to result in bastards.

              If you pitilessly restrain women from behavior likely to result in bastards, no one is going to worry whether you are pitiless to bastards or not.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Poor law reform most likely happened because of the numerous bastards which were a consequence of their refusal to restrain women. If you do not control women, you will have to control the bastards they produce, who are highly likely to be disagreeable and troublesome sorts.

                Control women, no bastards. Control bastards, ever more bastards to control. Fail to control bastards, and you get criminals. Best to control women.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Only just saw this and it does deserve a proper response.

      Roberto’s original post, bit by bit:

      “The point about Luddism is an extremely important one and I’m not letting this one slip.”

      It’s a conversation worth having. Are we progressives with a small P, who think history proceeds ever onwards and upwards towards ever greater innovation, productivity and ‘settled science’, or should we be suspicious of it?

      The historical Luddites wanted to smash looms and so on because they placed a higher value on stable employment than on long-term societal productivity. Is this an anti-social impulse, as MacAulay would have you believe, or a pro-social impulse as the Luddites themselves believed? Worse, were the Luddites in effect religious zealots on a purity spiral?

      We can take individual cases, such as the paperless office, and see empirically what’s actually going on, but I think you have a thirst for something more principled, more universal, more generalised. Let’s see if we can deliver as a community.

      “CR’s “we need to get rid of all that” remark suggests that he wants to get rid of modern civilization: industrial technology, complicated machinery, cars, etc.”

      Cars are an interesting case study. In my libertarian days I was very fond of Eric Peters, who essentially wants to get rid of speed limits, etc. because they’re the work of ‘clovers’ (busy-bodies essentially – Jim’s priestly bureaucrats).

      Peter Hitchens changed my mind. He described an imaginary scenario: you’ve gone down an urban street with cars parked sporadically on both sides. You were doing the standard (UK anyway) 30mph and unfortunately a kid stepped out into the road. It happens.
      But there you are asking the paramedics for reassurance: “is he going to be ok?” – but you’re being met with silence.
      Your face turns grey and time slows down as the realisation hits you that you’ve foreclosed all opportunities for this, as far as you can tell, completely innocent bystander child, for absolutely nothing at all.
      Nothing would be better, right now, than to turn back the clock.
      Nothing could be worse, right now, than this. Your life will never be the same again.

      Now is he being sentimental and parochial? Isn’t this just another ‘white person problem’? Sure, if an illegal Mexican or Latvian hits your kid, they probably won’t care, but does that weaken or strengthen Hitchens’ argument that speed bumps are worth tolerating?

      I think if anything he understates his case. I’ve often observed that whenever a dangerous driver has a fatally reckless collision with another vehicle, that other driver isn’t necessarily, by definition, another dangerous driver: they could be but it’s not a necessary condition. So what, we’re just gambling? In effect, yes.

      Milton Friedman in his many discussions about that US car that used to catch fire when tapped from behind used to say in his view people didn’t invest ENOUGH in safety features, but that ultimately the resource value of an individual human life was not infinite: even if we drove tanks, it wouldn’t be 100% safe.

      Now an individualist would say it’s a matter of individual responsibility, but does that really stand up, bearing in mind the innocent kid and the ashen-faced ‘perpetrator’? I’m no longer at all sure. I think on the contrary that our every action is part of a society-wide dialectical process, impinging on our future selves, our environment and the whole of society.

      What do we drive cars FOR exactly? To maximise the bottom line of corporations 50 miles away? Why? If they want someone they should pay higher wages until they can attract someone to move there, or alternatively they can develop their OWN skill-base in the local area instead of relying on the transport system to subsidise their profits.
      Is this a left-wing argument? Sure, if Peter Hitchens is a leftie then I guess I must be too.

      I’m not at ALL sure that getting rid of cars is such a bad idea. As Milan Kundera put it back in 1990, more people have died on Europe’s roads than in both the world wars put together, yet somehow the car still symbolises life not death. It’s not at all clear that we can rely on our instinct that cars and freedom are or should be our top priority.
      Why do left-libertarians like Jeffrey Tucker focus so much on ‘flying cars’ as the opportunity cost of not having 100% laissez-faire? A rhetorical question but perhaps it can be answered.

      “>Caloric Restriction also doesn’t get the notion that “value” is not merely shekelz, but really anything that benefits humans, hence he strawmans us as being concerned about GDP, when in fact what we in the pro-civilization camp care about is scientific-technological advancement.”

      I just addressed the progressivism (small P) in the idea of scientific advancement so I won’t revisit it here. I’ll just note that I’ve never talked about caloric restriction: only that the corporate chain restaurants ARE part of a wider culture that’s producing morbid obesity in white people which in turn is reducing our life expectancy. As part of their overall pattern of behaviour (impoverishing workers – workers not shirkers, pushing globohomo and leeching off taxes to subsidise their poverty wages) the case can be made that they’re highly anti-social, in which case a sane ruler (such as a King) ought to at least be PERMITTED to just shut them down.

      Me:

      “>I don’t give a damn about those things. I got a letter from Hotpoint this morning. If a copy typist had typed it by hand, it would’ve taken her all day. A printer banged it out in two seconds, so they send the legal contract to every customer, whether they’re interested in the policy or not, because it’s cheaper and quicker to do it in one single step.

      >YAY for technology, right!”

      Roberto’s inference:

      “CR does not give a damn about scientific-technological advancement, and evidently, wants to reverse it, wants to go back to the 18th century *technologically*.”

      I’m asking the question: is it just plain obvious that computers and printers are better for us than copy typists? I use that example because most people of pretty much all stripes would just say “yes of course it’s just plain obvious”.
      I’m not so sure. The existence of copy typists not only provided gainful employment for those women (which we may be against – I’m just noting it as a perceived good *by them*) but it also acted as a barrier to Hotpoint sending out 3000 word legal contracts to tens of thousands of customers every day.

      Are we really happier in the legalistic quagmire of 2018?
      I’m not even entirely sure it’s better for Hotpoint’s bottom line. Nobody reads those documents – the documents are largely Dawkins-memetic winners ‘because they can’ (no doubt some of the libertarians here will blame the state for this but it’s not especially clear how things like longshot extended warranty contracts really originated with the state, let alone mobile phone contracts etc. I’m not saying the state’s never to blame, only that it’s not ALWAYS to blame)/

      “I’m not letting you get away with this crap, CR. It now turns out that in addition to chain restaurants, whores, air travel, marijuana, alcohol, and whatever else you want to ban (or “restrict”), you also want to get rid of conveyor belts, office cubes, cars, printers, and complicated machinery. Yeah, something tells me that your manifesto will look eerily similar to another manifesto published in 1995. Just a hunch.”

      You were right the first time: ban not restrict. I’ve been meticulously clear that none of this has anything at all to do with bureaucratic oversight, regulation or anything at all like that. It’s purely and simply “see monkey, shoot monkey”.

      It’s also worth noting at this point another node of philosophy that you’ve correctly identified: does the neo-Luddite you’re attacking want the King to have the ability to shut down evil when he sees it, or is the King (or rather the leftie infiltrator bureaucratic academic lol) searching for a Universal Principle of Luddism?

      This is why I’ve repeatedly referenced libertarianism, but it’s a larger phenomenon actually: Rule By Principle.

      I’m against it. Are you for it? A thoughtful response would be interesting, or even a fleshed out argument FOR it!

      “CR, do you understand that NRx was established by, among others, Futurists, Transhumanists, Cyberpunks, Rationalists, and Accelerationists?”

      I don’t much like Nick Land and I don’t much like Julius Evola. Marinetti was a kind of weird neo-con and the guys who want to automate society with a giant AI are just crypto-communists.

      I will grant you that these ideas have influence in the Reactosphere. I’ve just barely listened to them. Moldbug strikes me as the richest source of new ideas, with Jim the greatest adder of nuance and practicality. In addition to this, Jim’s insights into sex relations are arguably more important in their predictive and restorative power than what Moldbug talked about, which was often strikingly economic in nature. (This is what makes Moldbug such a good stepping stone for ancaps etc. but ultimately anti-libertarian economics from the right is only a small part of the picture whereas sex relations are foundational.)

      “Do you understand that Silicon Valley Engineers are the target demographic for NRx proselytism? Now you will say, “Okay, we’ve already established that I’m not NRx,” but it’s more than that: you aren’t even an ally. You are an outright enemy. Jim explicitly said that he is reactionary *because* he wants his descendants to enjoy the technological singularity. That means that you and Jim are not just “reluctant temporary allies,” but absolute nemeses.”

      Agreed. I definitely don’t want globohomo, and in the ultimate analysis the technological singularity is very similar to globohomo: humans as atomised consumption units, wealth production as a force of nature detached from human action, borders as quaint historical relicts.

      “Kaczynski, like Marx and Lenin, was correct in some of his diagnoses, but his proposal — the total elimination of modern civilization — makes him as much an enemy as Marx and Lenin, as far as I am concerned, and as far as everyone in NRx who’s worth anything is concerned. But you are even worse than Kaczynski: you don’t want to get rid of all civilization, you want to get rid of all modern *civilian technology* while allowing a totalitarian government all the tools of modern technology to forever control the people as hapless guinea pigs. You are an advocate of an intensified version of 1984.”

      You’re assuming that all technology is either inherently evil or being used for evil. I don’t recognise that in the real world.
      What I do recognise is that *large parts* of the modern world ARE either inherently evil or being used for evil, and that these *large parts* are not constrained safely within the public sector, the universities and left-wing circles.
      On the contrary, a private employment agency bringing together the willing from across Europe to work in English agriculture is a huge cog in globohomo’s machine and it emerged organically from the logic of the free market under conditions of modern transportation.

      “Your dystopia will be “no civilian cars, no printers, no complicated machinery” for the masses, while of course retaining state-controlled technology to monitor the population and make sure that no private citizen attempts to advance past the 18th (or early 19th) century by inventing stuff or importing advanced stuff from abroad.”

      This is a straw man but it’s not an extreme distortion. Do you think historical Tories/Reactionaries *embraced* Gutenberg the goldsmith, the egalitarian? (The converso? I’m no historian but my sniff-sniff-sniff is going off with this guy.)

      Again I’m not assuming everything needs to be rolled back, only that for the king to roll some things back should not be resisted by us on principle. Indeed we should not yearn for Rule By Principle at all: only rule.

      “The task of your ruler/king/fuhrer will be to use modern technology to make sure that civilian technology never advances past the 18th century. You advocate for North Korea on steroids, North Korea if the Kim dynasty went total bonkers.”

      Why do you oppose North Korea? Juche seems like a healthy mindset. Is it so hard to imagine North Korea, absent sanctions from the international community, with a few bits of tinkering round the edges (perhaps revisiting Smith’s international division of labour from a sceptical Juche perspective) being hugely prosperous?
      40 years ago people would have said China being hugely prosperous could only happen after the fall of communism. As it turns out, not so.

      “We are not on the same side *and will never be* on the same side. Your weltanschauung is completely anathema to everything NRx stands for, and in fact, I haven’t seen anyone on the alt-right proposing the things you propose, making you an enemy of the broad alt-right also.”

      I’ll grant you that many on the alt-right are free market leaning. I expect over time that’s going to change. I’m very much of the Richard Spencer, Eric Striker, Mike Enoch, Joachim Hoch, Greg Johnson, Morgoth, Millennial Woes mindset: people and civilisation FIRST, culture SECOND, petty economic decision-making THIRD at best.
      I’m not going to shed any tears if Peter Thiel’s balance sheet is 17% less amaaaaaazing that it would otherwise be. Sorry.

      “I’m honestly not sure what you are even doing here; you seem to be attracted to authoritarianism, but otherwise none of the things you’ve written these past 15 or so threads suggests that you’re a right-winger. You are against eugenics, pro-socialism (with blah-blah-blah caveats), deny the influence of fathers on the life outcomes of their children, against modern civilian technology, want to shut down everything, and would send thugs to castrate, beat up, and murder everyone on this blog for one reason or another.”

      You’re projecting your violent impulses again. I’m non-violent and always will be unless called into service by a legitimate lawful ruler already in office. If you’re looking for revolutionary allies, I’m not your guy.
      You raise many examples here, many of which have already been covered, but the developmental psychology one’s interesting and worth revisiting briefly to link it to the previous point.

      Your argument for fathers is essentially that they benefit the children. So if they were in fact neutral or harmful for the children, you’d be in favour of the sexual revolution.
      My argument for fathers is essentially that SOCIETY’s better off under conditions of stable family formation, children be damned.
      I have no objection to children being farmed off to nannies (though wet nurses should be treated with caution, bearing in mind the Westermarck Effect) and absoLUTEly no objection to children spending most of their time in boarding school, Church and then quite quickly either small-scale productive work or else outright apprenticeships.

      All of this ‘undermines’ the formative influence of fathers and mothers on child development and I don’t care because parents HAVE no such influence on children, as anyone living pre-1900 could easily have told you.

      “Another example: you signal against Christian Trad-Tards, yet at the same time advocate against aborting downies. This suggests a progressive value-system. You advocate against weeding out downies (again: without being explicitly Christian) in the same way you advocate against weeding out niggers, wiggers, gookiggers, semitiggers, and generally those with low-IQ, high time-preference, and impulsivity.”

      I don’t recall discussing downies. I have nothing against them. I know several that lead interesting productive lives. I also know several who are leeched off by ‘professionals’ in the ‘services’ sector who see them as a meal ticket.
      What I *would* tend to say is that globohomo, particularly its capitalist arm, LOVES low IQ people because they tend to be very very good consumers, spending every penny they get, often on things you wouldn’t think would sell very well at all.
      I know several low IQ people who ‘trigger’ me all the time with their splurgy-spergy lifestyles. My residual libertarian impulse says “live and let live” but I wouldn’t be outraged if a sane ruler came in and imposed harsh sanctions on the corporations that exploit their high time preference.

      “If those with 90 IQ can’t into modern civilization, your solution is not to weed out, select against, and perhaps sterilize those with 90 IQ, but to radically re-structure modern civilization to best accommodate them.”

      Not quite: more to be wise to the fact that people WILL ‘re-structure modern civilization’ to best exploit them, which is a fact you’ll no doubt resist, but a fact nevertheless.
      You realise of course that culling people with 89IQ- means culling almost 50% of all people lol

      I used to work with someone with an IQ that I’d estimate at probably more than one standard deviation below the mean, so around the 22nd percentile, with 78% of the population being smarter than her. She was a very reliable and efficient worker who always turned up on time, was willing to take on some overtime but not to be a doormat working all hours, and she had a well developed sense of responsibility and self-critical reasoning. A hippy might say she had high ‘social intelligence’, but in terms of G (general intelligence), I’m not going to flatter her: she was dumb as a rock.

      You think society has a need to get rid of her that exceeds society’s need to not just arbitrarily get rid of people? I’m not at all convinced.

      “And if that means banning at gunpoint modern civilian technology, “so be it.” As a matter of fact, you hold the same principle as regards those with 60 IQ.”

      There’s a case to be made that some forms of tech-focused entertainment do deliberately target the very dumb. All those modern movies that consist of a series of Deus Ex Machina power transformations and endless CGI with the occasional one-liner possibly fall into that category.
      I wouldn’t rebel if the King banned a whole swathe of them quite honestly.

      “*NRx wants rule by Peter Thiel*, not rule by a psychotic version of Kim Jong-un.”
      (my asterisks)

      Yes, that’s becoming quite apparent.

      “Jim, as a representative of core NRx, wants to reach for the stars, decipher the secrets of the universe, build an inter-galactic empire, and unleash the technological singularity. That is a *fundamental reason* why he supports patriarchy, ethnonationalism, and eugenic breeding for Silicon Valley Engineers.”

      Maybe he’ll back up that claim. I always tended to see this blog as a call for a return to sane, stable societal living. I always tended to see the sex relations stuff as a means to THAT end, but if all it’s for is to keep tech progress clean and efficient, that’s disappointing, but not a deal-breaker for the sex relations stuff, which is still true and very important.

      “Forget NRx; even on the alt-right, nobody wants what you want. Richard Spencer does not want what you want. Mike Enoch does not want what you want. Jean-Francois Gariepy does not want what you want. All the namefag e-celebs you obsess over reject your worldview.”

      JF has deep reservations about AI – see his new book and his presentations on it.
      He believes once AI takes off, the computers will genetically engineer US in such a way as to be more useful for THEM.
      I’m not sure I agree but it’s certainly not fair to say he favours a progressive history geared towards greater technological advancement as an end in itself: I’d say he has reservations. Not unqualified ones, for sure.
      As for the alt-right people, I think they’re DEEPLY suspicious of capitalism and the rule of the profit margin and productivity.
      They’re no more Luddites in the classical sense than I am, but I don’t see them placing the good of office managers and software developers ahead of that of working-class white families.

      Even the most capital-sympathetic people on the alt-right (Jay Oh, Chase Rachels, Cantwell) are well aware of the poor conduct of corporations in the current year.
      For what it’s worth, I’d tend to agree with a Jah Oh de la Ray that we’d be better suited, as a people, to a model of society more like something from Europe’s past than, say, Iran or North Korea’s present. There’s a huge conversation to be had in the alt-right about these things, but if you think the overwhelming consensus is that capitalism’s a blameless victim of globohomo, I don’t really know what to say to you.

      “You have the mentality of a weak coward. Your admission to having decided not to reproduce speaks volumes of you. It says it all, really. You have a Thanatic streak: you want to die, and to see everyone else die with you. You are not a disciple of Gnon, but of Cthulhu, as are all leftists. Do you even possess a Faustian Spirit, white boi?”

      I agree to a certain extent. It’s a personal failing and one I’m unlikely to rectify. We’re all fallen men and in the final analysis it’s quite possible YOU are simply, objectively, a better man than I.
      I possess a Marianus spirit of reaction, scepticism, inquiry and synthesis.

      “To such a moment, I say “stay a while, you are so beautiful””.

      ““As we must all expect to leave our life on this earth, we must earn some renown, if we can, before death; daring is the thing for a man to be remembered by. A man must act to frame himself a long lasting glory.” – abbreviated from Beowulf”

      Which is more deadly, Grendel or Grendel’s Mother?

      “I’m not sure how to make this any clearer: we are not, cannot be, and won’t ever be on the same side. Your worldview is interesting as an intellectual curiosity, in the same way that cannibalism and fetus-eating may be interesting to watch if you have the stomach for it (pun intended), but for the love of God, stop trying to ingratiate yourself with people here: you belong on the Left, you are — at best — Alt-Left, and Alt-Left is not NRx.”

      No argument here.

      “We will reach for the stars and beyond, we will build an inter-galactic empire, we will cross into parallel universes if that’s possible, we will achieve immortality (biological, technological, and civilizational), we will unleash a scientific-technological singularity and an AI singularity, we will create a new f**cking universe to occupy once this universe ends, and if that means slaughtering Luddo-Progressives like you like swine, “so be it.”””

      You should be a little more careful with the talk of violence. We live in very paranoid times in terms of the ubiquitous watchers.

      Yes I’m getting the picture: you’re progressive (small P) libertarians who see history as a potential for uninterrupted improvement.

      I guess it’s just my age. I yearn not for endless perpetual (industrial) revolution but for stability, for home, for belonging.

      It’s a reactionary (small R) impulse, while yours is a revolutionary (small R) one.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        In case the Goethe was too oblique……..

        The Faustian spirit wants power to accrue to the individual, but before he falls he sees what would otherwise be possible: freedom as the result of order, not as the result of individual power.

        Mephistopheles is basically the clever demagogue telling you you have a right to make your OWN choices, society be damned.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsDMzTOln70

      • jim says:

        Your explanation of why you are really right winger takes entirely for granted all sorts of left wing presuppositions about individuals and society. You still have not got our shibboleths down correctly, you still do not know who you are talking to.

        You don’t listen, perhaps because you think reactionaries are morons and not worth listening to, perhaps because you fear that if you listened you might start thinking crimethoughts.

        There is a whole bunch of crimethoughts that not only do you fail to think, you fail to notice or comprehend us saying them and thinking them.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I’m struggling to find any content in what you wrote.

          I don’t care what shibboleths you use. Either express yourself clearly or be vague, it’s your choice.
          I’ve tried my best to be extremely clear, and most of the time it’s been met with deliberate, knowing misrepresentation, which I’ve already admitted was a surprise. I honestly didn’t think right-wingers did that.

          You talk about ‘crimethoughts’ but it’s completely out of context.

          Typical accurate examples of crimethoughts:

          – HBD
          – daring to question ‘expert opinion’
          – not agreeing with the various types of egalitarianism, such as democracy or female suffrage
          – being openly hostile to the left’s favoured classes, including but not limited to ‘the children’, ‘the poor’, ‘disabled people’, minorities and of course women

          The things you’re calling ‘crimethoughts’ (by declaring their opposite to be allowable opinion):

          – embracing free trade and the right of individuals to choose their next product purchase
          – mass market entertainments and services
          – the idea that the entrepreneur is a Randian victim

          Sorry but these aren’t crimethoughts. THESE are:

          – 1820s laissez-faire was a mistake and Adam Smith was wrong
          – the masses shouldn’t get to steer the juggernaut of European culture
          – entrepreneurs are healthy when hungry but as soon as they have access to power they use it to benefit themselves, and this doesn’t (pace Smith) necessarily increase anyone else’s wellbeing and often in fact harms it

          Those are legitimate crimethoughts just like HBD etc. because they’re not represented in the mainstream. The things you’re calling crimethoughts because I don’t embrace them: they’re mainstream.

          EVERYONE agrees with Adam Smith. The left just thinks the system needs some tinkering, namely programmes, safety nets and redistribution. They don’t disagree with the principle of people picking their own employment contracts lol
          That takes a crimethinker like Thomas Carlyle.

          • jim says:

            > I don’t care what shibboleths you use

            You should care.

            Our shibboleths reflect our understanding of the world. If you pretend to share our understanding of the world, you need to reference it. To reference it, need to use our shibboleths correctly.

            Failure to use our shibboleths correctly reflects failure to understand where your audience is coming from and refusal to listen.

            You write from the perspective of a hostile alien, a cultural marxist from Academia, who does not know or care what we think, hates the conclusions we draw, and has no interest in our reasons for drawing those conclusions.

            You are not listening. You say things that are not true, and then fail to listen to our response. You notice that we disagree, but refuse to hear our reasons for disagreeing, refuse to understand why we disagree, refuse to understand the reactionary perspective, so you then repeat yourself, as if the problem was that we refused to hear you, but the problem is you refusing to hear us.

            You think you are a holy missionary bringing the holy word to ignorant pagans, and when we are respond to the holy word by telling you our ignorant superstitions, you do not listen, and just repeat the holy word.

            You are giving us the your standard spiel that you give to libertarians, and projecting libertarian opinions onto us, even though this is grossly inappropriate. You don’t understand Moldbug. You do to him what you do to Jesus, Saint Paul, Adam Smith, and Mohammed – take a few fragments out of context, and turn them into Marxists. You are giving us the same spiel you give Muslims, Christians, Republicans, and Libertarians, and failing to adjust it accommodate audience beliefs, viewing all your audiences interchangeably as ignorant pagans in need of the holy word.

            You need to respond to your audience reasons for rejecting the holy word, and in order to do that, need to listen to your audience reasons for rejecting the holy word and understand audience reasons for rejecting the holy word, instead of just endlessly and tediously repeating the holy words on the assumption that Muslims, Republicans, Christians, and Libertarians are all interchangeable ignorant pagans in need of the holy word.

            You do not know, and do not care, about the differences between a reactionary, a Muslim, a libertarian, a Republican, and a Christian.

            When we disagree with you, you pay no attention to our reasons for disagreeing, and instead attribute to us an eclectic mixture of Republican, Christian, and Libertarian reasons for disagreeing, failing to keep your spiels distinct.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “When we disagree with you, you pay no attention to our reasons for disagreeing, and instead attribute to us an eclectic mixture of Republican, Christian, and Libertarian reasons for disagreeing, failing to keep your spiels distinct.”

              On the contrary, I redirect the discussion to the matters actually under discussion.
              Every answer so far has been a misrepresentation of what was claimed.

              The claims I’m making here are as follows:

              1) Corporate entities are just as gaslit in Cathedral-world as newspapers, teaching staff of schools or left-wing activist NGOs. Why wouldn’t they be?

              2) Since corporations benefit from having a low IQ, low agency, high time preference mulatto population spending every penny it encounters, and more than happy to live in squalor so long as it has toys to play with and garbage to consume, why assume that they’re opposed to it?

              3) If we’re serious about restoring some sort of authoritarian hierarchical society, we ought not pin our policy choices on Academia and its teachings. Our leader is at liberty to say “F the science”.

              • jim says:

                > 1) Corporate entities are just as gaslit in Cathedral-world as newspapers, teaching staff of schools or left-wing activist NGOs. Why wouldn’t they be?

                Because corporations have to make a profit, have to create value, while teaching staff and NGOs need the consensus of the most holy synod.

                The board is full of white men and right wing, because the board represents share holders. Human Resources is full of women, and left wing, because Human Resources represents the state. Just look a them. It is perfectly obvious who is pushing which politics. From thirty paces away, everyone on the board looks like a rightist, everyone in the Human Resources department looks like a leftist.

                Thus corporations, to the extent that they are free to pursue profit, are always necessarily and inherently right wing. For example, a corporation will naturally prefer a board composed entirely of white males, upper management that is entirely white and male, it will be inherently reluctant to hire women and gays, because for most jobs, tasks, and roles, if you hire women and gays, you will lose money, if you hire blacks you and your customers are likely to be subjected to violence, your stuff is going to be stolen or smashed up, and so on and so forth. The gays, to the extent that they show up for work at all, show up late, drunk and stoned. The women show up on time, but treat the corporation as their boyfriend, and proceed to shit test their boyfriend, and destroy everyone competing for the affection of their boyfriend, destroy all the other employees, try to poison the other employees’s relationship to the corporation.

                The corporation necessarily and inherently upholds right wing values, because right wing values promote productivity and social cohesion. A corporation may well be indifferent to cohesion in the broader society, but it needs cohesion internally, and promoting cohesion internally is almost the same thing as promoting reaction internally.

                You refer to “left wing activist NGOs”, as if there were NGOs that are not left wing activist. You endorse the progressive account of reality, in which NGOs are literally non government organizations, a doctrine so transparently and blatantly false, that neither NGOs nor leftists consistently and coherently uphold it. This is another example, of many, of you piously asserting left wing doctrine in the face of obvious reality, of propagandizing us by presupposing the leftist account of reality, as if no one here doubted it, much as the troofers simply assume, rather than provide evidence for, their account of 9/11

                > 2) Since corporations benefit from having a low IQ, low agency, high time preference mulatto population spending every penny it encounters,

                No they don’t, hence the tendency for capital to flow from places dominated by such people to places dominated by high IQ long time preference people – thus, for example, capital flows from Malaysia to Singapore, from subsaharan Africa to north Africa.

                A corporation is a bunch of owners of capital getting their capital together to be managed by other people, or by a subset of themselves. And they want that subset to be high IQ, long time preference, high cooperation. Thus a corporation is the transfer of power and money to high IQ long time preference people, while HR is the transfer of power and money to low IQ short time preference low cooperation people, and Sarbanes Oxley is the transfer of money and power to high IQ, but short time preference and low cooperation people.

                Thus a wealthy black African is going to be reluctant to invest in a corporation managed by black Africans – the corporate form thus inherently and necessarily transfers wealth and power to high agency people, high IQ long time preference high cooperation people, thus transfers wealth and power to white males.

                Jews used to have higher levels of cooperation than whites, considerably higher, as manifested by their former domination of the diamond trade, but this seems to have collapsed as a result of the mass import of brownish Jews into Israel and the west, so white males are now the the high IQ, high cooperation, high time preference group. East Asians have similar IQ and longer time preference, but considerably lesser levels of cooperation. Jews have higher IQ, but considerably less high than formerly, and now have lower levels of cooperation, where formerly they had higher levels of cooperation. So the corporate form always and everywhere prefers and promotes white males and reactionary values. HR, and to a lesser extent Sarbanes Oxley, promote progressive values, but to the extent that they do, they are at war with the corporation and the corporate form.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  To claim 1:

                  > > “1) Corporate entities are just as gaslit in Cathedral-world as newspapers, teaching staff of schools or left-wing activist NGOs. Why wouldn’t they be?”

                  Jim writes:

                  ” > Because corporations have to make a profit, have to create value, while teaching staff and NGOs need the consensus of the most holy synod.

                  The board is full of white men and right wing, because the board represents share holders. Human Resources is full of women, and left wing, because Human Resources represents the state. Just look a them. It is perfectly obvious who is pushing which politics. From thirty paces away, everyone on the board looks like a rightist, everyone in the Human Resources department looks like a leftist.

                  Thus corporations, to the extent that they are free to pursue profit, are always necessarily and inherently right wing. For example, a corporation will naturally prefer a board composed entirely of white males, upper management that is entirely white and male, it will be inherently reluctant to hire women and gays, because for most jobs, tasks, and roles, if you hire women and gays, you will lose money, if you hire blacks you and your customers are likely to be subjected to violence, your stuff is going to be stolen or smashed up, and so on and so forth. The gays, to the extent that they show up for work at all, show up late, drunk and stoned. The women show up on time, but treat the corporation as their boyfriend, and proceed to shit test their boyfriend, and destroy everyone competing for the affection of their boyfriend, destroy all the other employees, try to poison the other employees’s relationship to the corporation.

                  The corporation necessarily and inherently upholds right wing values, because right wing values promote productivity and social cohesion. A corporation may well be indifferent to cohesion in the broader society, but it needs cohesion internally, and promoting cohesion internally is almost the same thing as promoting reaction internally.”

                  This is a very long-winded way of flatly denying that corporations are gaslit by The Cathedral, without offering any explanation as to WHY you think they’re uniquely immune to the effects of Cathedral gaslighting.

                  It’s not too late to change tack and justify this counter-intuitive claim that flies in the face of all the evidence.

                  Which corporation in particular are you thinking of when you speak of them being inherently right-wing and primarily interested in maximising value?

                  One solitary example will do.

                  “You refer to “left wing activist NGOs”, as if there were NGOs that are not left wing activist. You endorse the progressive account of reality, in which NGOs are literally non government organizations, a doctrine so transparently and blatantly false, that neither NGOs nor leftists consistently and coherently uphold it. This is another example, of many, of you piously asserting left wing doctrine in the face of obvious reality, of propagandizing us by presupposing the leftist account of reality, as if no one here doubted it, much as the troofers simply assume, rather than provide evidence for, their account of 9/11”

                  A long-winded way of adding nothing to the discussion. This is literally a semantic criticism, namely that the use of the adjective ‘left-wing’ in conjunction with the noun ‘NGO’ is redundant.
                  Fine, I agree, it is redundant, well spotted. So what?

                  The claim is that corporations are as gaslit as NGOs: in other words the propaganda produced by The Cathedral is so internalised by corporations and NGOs that they may as well be considered part of the Cathedral.

                  You’re saying you flatly deny that corporations are susceptible to that propaganda.

                  Care you say why you think that, or give a single example of a corporation that ISN’T propagandised?

                  Ah but of course, I should remember, they’re PRETENDING to be gaslit: really they’re just afraid of the government. Would you care to muse on what difference it makes whether a mugger stabs you because he’s pretending to be a psychopath or whether he really is one? I see none that I care about.

                  To claim 2:

                  “Since corporations benefit from having a low IQ, low agency, high time preference mulatto population spending every penny it encounters,”

                  Jim writes:

                  > No they don’t, hence the tendency for capital to flow from places dominated by such people to places dominated by high IQ long time preference people – thus, for example, capital flows from Malaysia to Singapore, from subsaharan Africa to north Africa.

                  > A corporation is a bunch of owners of capital getting their capital together to be managed by other people, or by a subset of themselves. And they want that subset to be high IQ, long time preference, high cooperation. Thus a corporation is the transfer of power and money to high IQ long time preference people, while HR is the transfer of power and money to low IQ short time preference low cooperation people, and Sarbanes Oxley is the transfer of money and power to high IQ, but short time preference and low cooperation people.

                  > Thus a wealthy black African is going to be reluctant to invest in a corporation managed by black Africans – the corporate form thus inherently and necessarily transfers wealth and power to high agency people, high IQ long time preference high cooperation people, thus transfers wealth and power to white males.

                  > Jews used to have higher levels of cooperation than whites, considerably higher, as manifested by their former domination of the diamond trade, but this seems to have collapsed as a result of the mass import of brownish Jews into Israel and the west, so white males are now the the high IQ, high cooperation, high time preference group. East Asians have similar IQ and longer time preference, but considerably lesser levels of cooperation. Jews have higher IQ, but considerably less high than formerly, and now have lower levels of cooperation, where formerly they had higher levels of cooperation. So the corporate form always and everywhere prefers and promotes white males and reactionary values. HR, and to a lesser extent Sarbanes Oxley, promote progressive values, but to the extent that they do, they are at war with the corporation and the corporate form.”

                  This is a very long-winded way of saying you flatly deny that corporations prefer consumers to savers.

                  I thought you believed corporations sought to maximise the bottom line. If so, they seek to maximise revenue in the next quarter. If so, they’d rather you spend your money than invest it with someone else.

                  What you’re basically claiming here is that corporations prefer richer societies to poorer societies. This is superficially true in that the poorest societies lack sufficient income flows to produce consumption.
                  There are two problems with this view:

                  Firstly, developed societies can *borrow* to fund consumption.
                  Secondly, as rich people begin to transition into a state of poverty, they perversely have more disposable income, not less. I’ve already explained this phenomenon before but you don’t seem to have understood it. If a man cannot afford $1000 to rent his own place, but is able to live with his parents, he may have $400 left over. Since he’ll never be able to use his $400 to increase his income flow to the $1000 required to pay rent, he’ll generally SPEND the $400, which is more than he would have spent had he had $1300 – the $1000 for the rent and a comfortable $300 more.

                  Since corporations prefer you to spend with them rather than save with someone else, the transition from $1300 to $400 results in an income INCREASE of $100 for the corporations.

                  By your own reasoning, they prefer this.

                  The only way you can disagree with me here is to flatly deny that someone with $400 who requires $1000 to rent will spend the $400, insisting that in fact they’d just save it in the bank in the hopes of building the kind of deposit that’d make renting unnecessary, which of course they might under real positive interest rates…. in about 300 years.

                  No opinion on claim 3, I see:

                  “3) If we’re serious about restoring some sort of authoritarian hierarchical society, we ought not pin our policy choices on Academia and its teachings. Our leader is at liberty to say “F the science”.”

                  Moldbug thought this was rather important. The problem with 20th century fascism and communism, according to Moldbug, was that they carried with them a residuum of democratic thought, and a large part of democratic thinking consists in the assertion of science-based policy-making.

                  A true reaction would throw that out completely and insist “I am in charge and this is what I’m going to do. You may have your opinions and they may be scientific in nature, but they are not MY opinions and since I’m in charge, only MY opinions are going to lead to a change of direction for society.”

                  That means if the Fuhrer or the General Secretary or the King or the Caliph looks at Franky&Benny and is displeased, it’s quite likely they won’t continue trading very long.

                • jim says:

                  > This is a very long-winded way of flatly denying that corporations are gaslit by The Cathedral, without offering any explanation as to WHY you think they’re uniquely immune to the effects of Cathedral gaslighting.

                  Cathedral gaslighting loses money for the reasons I list and explain, as we see spectacularly and repeatedly demonstrated in practice. Corporations want to make money. They are not immune to gaslighting, but they are inherently and naturally very strongly resistant, such that it requires massive coercion, massive intimidation, and extraordinary and extreme pressure to converge them.

                  And in practice we see that massive coercion, massive intimidation, and extraordinary and extreme coercion.

                  Theory predicts, observation confirms.

                • jim says:

                  Which corporation in particular are you thinking of when you speak of them being inherently right-wing and primarily interested in maximising value?

                  One solitary example will do.

                  Bank of Beverly Hills. Every corporation I have worked for. The trouble is that in order to maximize value, you have to avoid HR and the regulators putting you out of business. I name the Bank of Beverly Hills because the regulators did put it out of business.

                  Just do a search for “redlining” – aka preferring to lend to people who might pay you back. “Redlining” is being right wing and maximizing value.

                • jim says:

                  > This is a very long-winded way of saying you flatly deny that corporations prefer consumers to savers.

                  Not what I say: I am saying that corporations are run by and for savers, and are therefore dedicated to making savers rich and powerful. Conversely, socialists want to destroy other people’s wealth, destroy what other people have created by saving and investment.

                  > I thought you believed corporations sought to maximise the bottom line

                  If you are selling capital goods, such as cars, houses, tools, and suchlike, you are selling to savers. The only corporations who prefer consumers in the sense you are using the word “consumers” are credit card companies, payday lenders, and pawnshops.

                  If someone buys a chainsaw, he has land and trees, thus saved in the past, and is saving right now in the present by improving the value of his land, and likely improving the value of his stock of tools.

                  Whether the corporation prefers external savers depends on what it is selling, chainsaws or payday loans. But internally it always prefers savers, being formed by, and run for, savers.

                  Socialists always consume capital, always eventually run out of other people’s money, because it is other people’s. Capitalists always create capital, thus always favor saving and savers. That is what capitalism is.

                  If you are against capitalism, you are against saving and investment. And in practice we always see the socialist set the kulak’s children on fire, because he suspects the kulak of saving and investing.

                • jim says:

                  > No opinion on claim 3, I see:

                  You fail to respond to what we say, you show no awareness of our belief system no matter how clearly stated, but get snippy when I fail to respond to something that is too stupid, too ignorant, and too frequently repeated to merit a response.

              • jim says:

                > > “When we disagree with you, you pay no attention to our reasons for disagreeing, and instead attribute to us an eclectic mixture of Republican, Christian, and Libertarian reasons for disagreeing, failing to keep your spiels distinct.”

                > On the contrary, I redirect the discussion to the matters actually under discussion.

                You entirely ignore our response to the matters under discussion, and repeat your original claims. That is not discussion. That is the holy missionary lecturing the benighted ignorant superstitious pagans, entirely oblivious to the different beliefs that distinguish one set of ignorant superstitious pagans from another.

                We heard you the first time, and that our response was relevant shows we heard and understood you the first time. Don’t repeat. We disagreed. Not the same thing as failing to hear.

                You piously appeal to our supposed shared identity and our supposed shared beliefs, while failing to show any real awareness of that identity and those beliefs.

          • alf says:

            You cannot see the content because you think leftism is an ideology which, like clothing, can be worn and thrown away at will. Not so.

            Leftism isn’t defined by its ideology, but by its intent. While much of your talking points are a break from mainstream leftist ideology, you display all classic signs of leftist intent. You intend to hijack and derail.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*Endless repetition deleted. You already said that. Many times. We already responded. Many times.

              You already ignored our response. Many times.

              Waste of reader bandwidth.*]

              • alf says:

                Our gracious host may engage you within your frame, I feel little interest in doing so.

                At any rate, you’re not listening, while you are at the same time smiling, nodding and saying you’re listening.

                Any functioning all-male group is inherently rightist. Such groups have a lot of unwritten rules, about hierarchy, power, respect. You break many of them, are recognized as breaking them, and as a consequence, you are being out-grouped. That is all.

              • jim says:

                Try saying something new.

                For example, an actual response to our actual response.,

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted because repetitious and unresponsive*]

                • jim says:

                  You have said the same thing far too many times, and I call an end to it now.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Spoken, for once, like a reactionary. To hell with the science, I want what I want because I judge it to be wise.

                  Quite right, that’s how you should behave. This is your sovereign domain.

                  If Donald Trump took the same view, America would not be rapidly heading for civil war and economic ruin.

                • Koanic says:

                  Huzzah.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          “Your explanation of why you are really right winger takes entirely for granted all sorts of left wing presuppositions about individuals and society.”

          Why I’m a right-winger, not that it matters:

          1) I’m a racist
          2) I’m a sexist
          3) I’m a homophobe
          4) I’m against equality in all its forms
          5) I want to take away people’s freedom to make lifestyle choices that I disapprove of, such as partying and getting tattoos
          6) I want poor people’s standard of living to go down
          7) I’m obsessed with the nuclear family and its ability to buy a home and have children
          8) I favour boarding school and élitist institutions
          9) I want to tyrannically oppress and destroy pop culture, favouring instead the most élitist high culture dictated from the top down by aristocratic overlords
          10) I want to end elections and see a fascist dictator exercise arbitrary rule over the population, including widespread use of martial law and capital punishment

          Not that any of that matters. The issues of contention are as follows:

          1) The leader of the nation has the right to plan the economy and punish poor behaviour in both the public and the private sector.
          2) The good of society is more important than the freedom of the individual to pursue his own selfish desires, including sexual desires.
          3) The role of academia should be linked to productivity and societal enrichment, and should NEVER be that of laying down the law to the legitimate authorities of the nation.

      • Roberto says:

        Failing to perceive our shibboleths, at least understand our premises.

        Moldbug had been a libertarian, until he was mugged by reality. (“Reality” may or may not stand for niggers) NRx, consequently, is post-libertarian. Now let me explain what that means:

        A libertarian sees that privately owned entities provide much superior services than collectively owned entities. If you want X, capitalism is better at delivering it than communism, and if you want Y, capitalism is better at delivering it than communism. Moldbug, seeing that the West is in decay and becoming a Third World shithole, says “I want superior governance.” He notices that government is, or purports to be, a “democracy,” i.e. run by the public collectively, i.e. communism. America is a communist country. And he proposes that, to have superior governance, capitalism needs to apply to government itself: a privately owned government will provide better governance than a collectively owned government.

        That is how NRx was born: not from anti-capitalist sentiment, but from a *consistent application* of capitalism, from the realization that a privately-owned government, run for the long-term profit of its CEO, who is its final arbiter in all matters — thus King — will provide better governance than democracy, which is communism, in which there is (of course) a permanent un-elected government, run by Brahmins, who tell the public what it believes and what it needs. The Cathedral is the permanent un-elected government composed of the priestly class, which consists of academics, bureaucrats, activists, and journalists. NRx wants to take away the power of this priestly class and give it to a private owner of the government, the King, who is as responsible as he is powerful.

        There is room for debate about what “superior governance” means. Quite a lot of room, probably. But to have this debate, you must first accept the premise that privately owned entities provide better services than collectively owned entities. That is a libertarian and capitalist premise; but when applied to government itself, it ceases to be libertarian (because the final arbiter, aka the CEO, aka the King, is ultimately above the law; were he not above the law, he would be a fake King. “Sovereignty is conserved,” as Moldbug brilliantly put it), but remains capitalist to the core. Thus we arrive at post-libertarian capitalism, rather than anything remotely anti-capitalist.

        How involved should the King be in the private affairs of his subjects? Moldbug provides an answer: Fnargl. Let me quote the most relevant part:

        “Fnargl’s interests, in fact, turn out to be oddly well-aligned with ours. Anything that makes Fnargl richer has to make us richer, and vice versa.

        For example, it’s in Fnargl’s interest to run a fair and effective legal system, because humans are more productive when their energies aren’t going into squabbling with each other. It’s even in Fnargl’s interest to have a fair legal process that defines exactly when he will snap his fingers and stop your heart, because humans are more productive when they’re not worried about dropping dead.

        And it is in his interest to run an orderly taxation system in which tax rates are known in advance, and Fnargl doesn’t just seize whatever, whenever, to feed his prodigious gold jones. Because humans are more productive when they can plan for the future, etc. Of course, toward the end of the Thousand-Year Fnarg, this incentive will begin to diminish—ha ha. But let’s assume Fnargl has only just arrived.

        Other questions are easy to answer. For example, will Fnargl allow freedom of the press? But why wouldn’t he? What can the press do to Fnargl? As Bismarck put it: “they say what they want, I do what I want.” But Bismarck didn’t really mean it. Fnargl does. [Roberto: well, that was in 2007. Since then, Moldbug has considerably wised up to the perniciousness of the “Free Press”]

        In general, Fnargl has no reason at all to impose any artificial restriction on his subjects. He will impose laws only in order to prevent violence, which reduces gold production. He has no interest at all in “victimless crimes.” Since he can define failure to pay one’s tax as theft from him, Fnargl, the Vast And Pungent One, it turns out that he operates a very normal system of law.

        It turns out that, except for the 30–40% of our economic output that disappears into his gold stash, Fnargl is actually an ideal ruler. Far from being “totalitarian,” the Fnargocracy is if anything remarkably libertarian. Does Fnargl mind if you light up a jay? Not in the slightest.”

        https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/05/magic-of-symmetric-sovereignty/

        You see: Moldbug has no time to worry about unproductive subjects. The Kingdom is capitalist through and through, and any subjects who try to undermine the system by abolishing it will be executed – in an orderly and lawful fashion, of course. What should be done to unproductive but otherwise non-violent subjects, though? Moldbug suggests that they need to be hooked to virtual reality: The Dire Problem and The Virtual Option. I suggest giving them lots and lots of drugs and watching them disappear (“build the crack factory in the middle of the ghetto,” as I put it). Both solutions are aligned with the King’s economic interests, and can be achieved through perfectly libertarian incentive structures. Do you smell socialism? I smell not a whiff thereof.

        Moldbug is as far from a wignat (wigger nationalist) as possible. His Excellency the Great Fnargl is just not particularly fond of wiggers. Why should He be? Are they conducive to superior governance? Can they be taxed? For the most part, though, Moldbug wants to reduce violent crime, so if you consider him too tough on the wiggers, you better not think what would happen to niggers! Again: none of that has anything to do with a centralized bureaucracy telling the subjects which businesses they may or may not operate. If taxation runs smooth and plentiful, and violent crime has been reduced to as close to zero as possible — Moldbug takes inspiration from East Asia here — then everything’s pretty much alright. His Excellency the Great Fnargl has no need to get worked up over cannabis or any other “victimless crimes.”

        I can go on and on, explaining to you the premises of NRx ideology. You will keep calling it libertarian, and we will keep explaining to you that it is post-libertarian, that it is capitalism applied to sovereignty itself. The hypothetical King Fnargl wants to extract gold; the flesh-and-blood King Thiel (go ahead: accuse me of shilling for him, I don’t care) may want to conquer the stars. Be that as it may, “Will wiggers become fat?” is not a question that particularly concerns anyone in NRx.

        That’s all for now, CR. You don’t get the shibboleths, but at least try to grasp the premises of the movement. Good luck.

        • The Cominator says:

          Very well put Roberto.

        • Sam J. says:

          “…Failing to perceive our shibboleths, at least understand our premises…”

          This is the crux of the problem.

          “…Moldbug had been a libertarian, until he was mugged by reality. (“Reality” may or may not stand for niggers) NRx, consequently, is post-libertarian. Now let me explain what that means:..”

          A lie.

          “…A libertarian sees that privately owned entities provide much superior services than collectively owned entities. If you want X, capitalism is better at delivering it than communism, and if you want Y, capitalism is better at delivering it than communism. Moldbug, seeing that the West is in decay and becoming a Third World shithole, says “I want superior governance.” He notices that government is, or purports to be, a “democracy,” i.e. run by the public collectively, i.e. communism. America is a communist country. And he proposes that, to have superior governance, capitalism needs to apply to government itself: a privately owned government will provide better governance than a collectively owned government…”

          No. (((Moldbug))) and his ilk are responsible for the shit hole we live in. Whatever the failures of our government they are responsible. They are responsible for the destruction of the “Democratic Republic” that we had. Directly responsible. (((They)) are trying to mislead you. When I’ve brought up that we had a perfectly fine system, or as good as any functioning State can reasonably be, with a bit of poll taxes, intelligence test for voting, or high school requirements to vote the (((Moldbug’s))) of the net…yawn. They don’t want that. They have fucked everything to high heaven and now want you to take on some other fucked to high heaven system, Kings, can you believe it!, that they can then also control by bribing, blackmailing and threatening the King. All they while telling you,”there’s no other way”. They are liars. It’s as simple as that. They are lying to you and want you dead or to be their slave.

          “…I can go on and on, explaining to you the premises of NRx ideology. You will keep calling it libertarian, and we will keep explaining to you that it is post-libertarian, that it is capitalism applied to sovereignty itself…”

          I’ll tell you what it is. It’s slight of hand where they give you equally bad options and tell you,”pick one”. Well we don’t have to do either of their, what I call, “isms”. Capitalism, Communism, Libertarianism, it goes on and on with these “isms”. We can have a simple “Democratic Republic” where the people who contribute get to vote and everyone else doesn’t.

          All this this King stuff is trolling, propaganda to destroy the country even worse than they already have. It’s just another lie.

          • jim says:

            > No. (((Moldbug))) and his ilk are responsible for the shit hole

            Nuts.

            We are always ruled by priests or warriors. Right now we are ruled by priests, therefore anyone who commits major heresy from the ruling religion cannot be blamed for its misconduct. Only Jews who have converted to the ruling religion are causing substantial problems, and if they converted back to Judaism, or anything else heretical to the ruling religion, would not be a significant problem. In particular, Jews who think the Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel are not causing significant problems, and Jews such as Moldbug who post profound and effective criticisms of the ruling religion are an immensely valuable asset.

            Conversely, anyone who casts Jews as the primary villain, is excusing the misconduct of our ruling religion – and can be relied upon to be in practice a friend of the permanent government, as the troofers are.

    • Eli says:

      @Roberto: you are correct. I think that CR’s problem is fairly common among the frustrated educated yet alienated, devoid-of-identity and familial bonds modern men. Namely, I believe, the problem is that people see problems correctly, but, not understanding deeply their root cause, confuse the solutions. More exactly, they misunderstand the issue of scale.

      This is where, to a mind trained and nourished in and by modern schools, raised in a modern family of subservient, scared father (if not devoid of father altogether), any solution that is not statist or driven by statists is almost incomprehensible, while anything that smacks of sexism is crimethink.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Eli:

        “any solution that is not statist or driven by statists is almost incomprehensible”

        Libertarian.

        “anything that smacks of sexism is crimethink.”

        Misrepresentation. Nothing I’ve ever said on this blog can POSSIBLY be construed as conforming to anti-sexist ideology. Not even close. Not even CLOSE.

        Since you people are so obsessed with psychologising everything, what’s YOUR motivation for these silly straw man arguments ad hominem? What are you afraid of?
        That you might have to revisit your Ron Paulian / Hillary Clintonian free trade dogma?

        • Eli says:

          @CR:
          I’m a Soviet born Jew (though I have some Russian merchant and kulak blood, as well as English — my ancestors owned an entire shipbuilding yard on the Volga, among other things, before the Revolution). I grew up exposed to various systems, and I’m not a libertarian, despite supporting many of their views.

          I believe in a system of laws, said laws not being arbitrary. Yes, I’d even say that these laws are universal, though contingent on the context (hence, it’s not always cut and dry). One of the things that I searched for and found on jim’s site is a set of explanations rooted in history, anthropology, as well as the experiences of modern men, men (including my own father) trying to continue their lines and build something greater than themselves and encountering enormous opposition from places that, in the old days, would never generate such hostility but, in fact, would remain neutral, if not provide outright assistance.

          Because human nature changes extremely slowly —or none at all, if no selection for something different than the old setup is present — I arrived at conclusion that the root of most troubles of the developed world is a desire of people, especially those at the higher stations of societies, to break with the old social ways, ways that required skin in the game and ownership (including of other people), and insert people, sometimes many of them, with no disincentives for wrongful action as intermediaries. Everything else are epiphenomena, including corporations behaving badly.

          As to sexism: for example, where you, CR, say “parents,” you should say “the father.” Jim pointed this out to you.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            [* repetitious lying deleted.

            That is not my position, nor is it Eli’s.]

            • jim says: