Libertarianism is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is, or was, the Puritan sect known as the Levelers, who opposed aristocracy, Kings, and Bishops, but supported private property in the means of production, supported natural inequality, opposed socialism and communism, opposed them for a mixture of religious reasons(God ordained private property and capitalism in the fall) and quite modern reasons (price control and debasing the currency has the consequences that it does, therefore wrecking the market does not work)

Trouble with the Leveller-ClassicLiberal-Libertarian theory is that if everyone is equal before the law you have to give everyone the vote, and then someone comes along and says “Vote for me and I will kill all the classic liberals and you can take their stuff”.

The libertarians, the levelers, were of course correct on capitalism. We intend to revert to the most recent known working social order, the one that gave us science, technology, industry, industrialization, and empire, the social order of Restoration England.

Puritan England was capitalist, had been capitalist since a brief interruption to capitalism which ended in the twelfth century, and remained capitalist because Cromwell crushed the Puritan extremists, who wanted communism.  But the restoration introduced corporate capitalism and the joint stock for profit publicly traded corporation, which made possible Rand’s heroic entrepreneur, who uses other people’s labor and other people’s capital to advance technology and make it widely available and widely used.

Without rich people, no mills, no abundant cheap good quality steel, no transistor, no integrated circuits, no computers. Without billionaires, no access to space. You cannot make a pencil unless the boss provides you with custom made tools and tells you how to use them.

Way back in the beginning, the people who were to become what we would later call Classic Liberals believed that blacks were equal to whites, and not only before the law, but in the sense that they were as capable of adhering to contracts and working for a living as free laborers as whites are.

It seemed absolutely obvious to the abolitionists that if you abolished slavery, the former slaves would contract with the former masters to the same work as before, at a fairer reward, and without the very considerable overhead of whips and chains.

This did not in fact happen, because the slaves were an inherently low trust, less trustworthy, group.

The libertarians/classic liberals were unable to realize the problem of keeping low trust peoples away or under control, because of Christian universalism. They were the levelers, and in substantial part, they still are.

Obviously, if you believe in freedom of contract, private property, and all that stuff, then affirmative action and all that is the grossest possible violation. Affirmative action and all that is also wildly unpopular, yet where do you hear libertarians campaigning on that?

Libertarians are not people who believe in private property and Ayn Rand’s account of economic growth and technological advance. They are Puritans.

“I, Pencil” is a libertarian tale about how no one knows how to make a pencil but through the magic of markets lots of people cooperate and pencils get made.

Ayn Rand disagrees.  In Ayn Rand’s version the pencil factory owner understands how to manufacture pencils better than the workers, the lumber company owner understands how to get men to produce lumber in exchange for money, the shipping company owner understands logistics and ships things on schedule even though the parts of his operation don’t have to understand the whole.

On this, Reactionaries are on board with Ayn Rand.  But where Ayn Rand is very wrong is that good governance does not fall from the sky.  Leftists think that goods fall from the sky.  Libertarians think that knowledge and ability to make goods fall from the sky.  And Ayn Rand thought that good governance falls from the sky.

Ayn Rand thought that warriors “mystics of muscle” were dangerous and useless, and priests “mystics of spirit” were merely peddling foolishness, much as commies think that capitalists do not do anything useful, and progressives think that factories and capitalists do not do anything useful.  Supposedly stuff just magically appears on the supermarket shelves, and the evil capitalists cruelly charge people money for stuff that they had nothing to do with.

The entrepreneur has to outsource stuff outside his core competence to the market, which the libertarian version gets right, but he is the business of insourcing his core competence, which the libertarian version ignores.

Rand, unlike the libertarians, got both the outsourcing and the insourcing correct, but neglected the problem of defending property rights. You need warriors to actually defend property rights, and priests to give the warriors cohesion and to get everyone on the same page about what rights are rightly defended by what means.

If libertarians are people who believe that the economy should run on freedom of contract, they would be in favor of feeding low trust people into the wood chipper, feet first, slowly, but observed libertarians are in favor of open borders and less incarceration. Puritanism strikes again.

Today’s leftism is organizationally descended from Puritanism (when the former headquarters of the former state Church of Massachusetts declares that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, every academic everywhere outside of China and Russia instantly and completely agrees, and not only agrees, but is entirely certain without a shadow of doubt that he always has agreed) but while leftism has rejected every tenet of puritanism except war on Christmas and war on marriage, through one heresy after another, Libertarians are descended memetically from the leveler sect of puritanism, pretty much unchanged, their error and their failure being the original error of the levelers, still doing wrong what the original levelers did wrong.

If you are a libertarian, you don’t believe in welfare. So what do you do if someone finds it difficult to get a job because of a past history of misbehavior, and is unmotivated to get a job because he cannot think ahead all the way to payday, and is likely to be fired before payday anyway.

Well if you are a libertarian, you say that there are no such people, abolish welfare for the undeserving poor and everyone will behave well when they get sufficiently hungry. That is the leveler speaking. “No Bishop, No King!”

If you are a reactionary however, you suspect that some people are more likely to try to eat you when they get hungry, and therefore such people need to be enslaved, exiled, or otherwise taken permanently out of circulation.


155 Responses to “Libertarianism”

  1. Anonymous Fake says:

    Corporate elites are low trust, not employees. Elite capitalists want to make lots of money to have lots of sex with lots of women, and they despise Christians who get in their way. Elite motivations are not different from alpha ghetto thug motivations, just their strategy.

    High trust is found in the middle between the thugs and elites, ordinary employees who want a solid career in exchange for objective educational merit that can support a family. Affirmative action is a high/low alliance against the middle class.

    Welfare is a strange beast. It certainly helps the ghetto, but it also helps when employees are fired by sex addict bosses, the elite capitalists motivated by lust, for holding Christian views on family and everything else for that matter. But it’s also the reason alpha capitalists are allowed to indulge their passions, because their extreme work ethic (but for the wrong motivations) does in fact produce great wealth that can be taxed and distributed to everyone else.

    You ask yourself why bosses prefer the disabled, sexual deviants including eunuchs, women, and foreigners over known elite employees like the Mormons or Amish. It’s because bosses despise the sexual morality of the latter, and without sexual liberation these capitalist elites wouldn’t have a reason to put in their 80+ hour coked up work weeks that keep modern enterprises operational.

    Every successful ideology has to learn to embrace anti-liberal leftism. Doesn’t matter if communist or Christian or anything else in between. Without “tankie” leftism, demographic collapse and replacement by virtuous barbarians is inevitable.

    • jim says:

      > Corporate elites are low trust, not employees. Elite capitalists want to make lots of money to have lots of sex with lots of women

      Is Zuckerberg and Bezos having sex with lots of women?

      It is impossible to do business except with high trust people in a high trust environment. (Which is a huge problem in China and the other post communist countries, because communism destroyed trust and social bonds)

      > It’s because bosses despise the sexual morality of the latter, and without sexual liberation these capitalist elites wouldn’t have a reason to put in their 80+ hour coked up work weeks that keep modern enterprises operational.

      The bosses are the primary victims of #metoo, of aging women enraged because of lack of rape and lack of sexual harassment. The bosses hate the progressive puritan sexual morality with a hatred hotter than a thousand suns, but dare not show it for fear that government spies in Human Resources will rat them out to the state. They know that the gays plot with each other to rob the company, but dare not acknowledge knowing what they know, because Human Resources, and for the same reason as Bezos cannot get any good pussy.

      If you twit a feminist with the fact that one hundred percent of sexual harassment complaints and ninety nine percent of rape charges and convictions are obviously ill founded. (Not because actual sexual harassment does not happen, but because they don’t complain about it) she will fly into a rage because of all these horrible horrible awful rapes. But notice her choice of target. She will not complain about Rotherham or Cologne. She will complain about supposed rapes by handsome wealthy famous athletes, revealing that she is not really complaining about the horrible horrible rapes, but the horrible horrible horrible lack of rapes.

      And the bosses live in terror of that feminist.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Find me a single elite CEO who says his motivation to add the next zero on his bank account comes from his desire to serve God or at least his country and family. None of them. It’s Sodom and Gomorrah at the top, with not one good person to be found. They want more money, more drugs, more women, and more organs harvested from Palestinian Muslims and Chinese Christians to keep fueling their vampire squid bodies past 100.

        Conservatives are cucks to these monsters. They bow down to the psychopaths in every corporation/republic (rather than kings, just random men born to be kings) because the greedy beasts produce prosperity for everyone in exchange for souls, and the wives of their employees. Conservatives happily accept cuckery when it improves the fitness of their legitimate children to be associated with the demon spawn.

        The love of money is the root of all evil. Post 1960’s capitalists that came to dominate due to synthetic contraception are ruling the world now. The ideal/autistic capitalist (think Scrooge) types are now working in IT and playing Eve Online or World or Warcraft. The money game is no longer about keeping score. It’s about scoring.

        Zuckerberg and Bezos are more likely technopolygamists who reproduce by spamming sperm donations, a kind of autistic/hypergamy capitalist hybrid optimized in either direction. That’s the blueprint for a billionaire in this era.

        • jim says:

          > Find me a single elite CEO who says his motivation to add the next zero on his bank account comes from his desire to serve God or at least his country and family

          All of them as near as makes no difference, except for gays installed as CEO by the Cathedral, will say it is to serve their family, and their conduct demonstrates it.

          Merchants are not supposed to do merchant stuff serve to God and country, they are supposed to serve their own interest, but only in ways that also serve the common good, this being the explicit institutional form of the corporation until the mid nineteenth century, when explaining how your business plan served the common good was rendered obsolete and irrelevant by the regulatory state.

          But until then, every single venture seeking to float their stock, had to explain how pursuing their own good served the common good. Which was an easy bar to meet. If you are making pizzas, at least some of your customers would be worse off if they could not buy a pizza, and anyone who would be worse off just does not buy your pizza.

          Warriors are supposed to serve their country, and priests are supposed to serve God and country. You are a priest demanding that priests be allowed to steal merchant goods. Merchants are supposed to pursue self interest by creating value that other people want, and therefore serve the interest of the public and the state.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            The key concept to understand is signaling asymmetry. Not everyone who says he’s a Christian (or even just normal) is telling the truth. When an absurdity or atrocity is used as a loyalty oath, like calling transvestites women or calling newborns 4th trimester fetuses, no one is lying when they support these things because they are nothing to even joke about.

            In this setup, Christian/normal morality is shattered because it is always going to be hypocritical, thus unpopular, but being a servant of Baal is always consistent because throwing a baby into a bonfire is a perfectly accurate loyalty test. There’s no way of doing it halfheartedly or without full loyalty. Beating the Baal worshipers means attacking them, effective anyway, and most especially because it’s suddenly a way of enforcing loyalty among Christians/normies. They are no longer burdened by hypocrisy or being knifed in the back when they have no bridges to flee across, after they are all burned down.

            Priests have every right to confiscate from corrupt merchants. When their incentive is to indulge their pathetic passions instead of hiring honorable religious family men into careers to build a business/society/civilization then the merchants have to be shown the door. Or better yet, window.

            The right cucks out when it lionizes “muh entrepreneurs” because starting a business is a risk incompatible with family life. Being an elite corporate manager is pro-family. The right attempts to place action over essence, even the most obvious example of vital essence, and it fails catastrophically because this is contrary to any kind of nature, especially for the right. The right is now ruled by whores who allow the rich to indulge themselves just because they create so much money.

            Technology did this. Technological change since the 1960’s results in most value being created by cokehead capitalists doing 80-100 hour weeks, not family men who put in a solid 9 to 5 before going home to wife and children. Elites advance technology, not grunts, and the right has chained itself to rapid technological progress at the expense of its rightful root of family life.

            Kaczynski was on the right track.

            • jim says:

              There is nothing unchristian about hard work, and by and large, the people you are demonizing work harder than anyone.

              The priesthood declares the merchant virtues to be sins, and the warrior virtues to be sins. Hard work is the archetypal merchant virtue, as calm in the face of danger is the archetypal warrior virtue. After declaring that courage and toughness was “psychopathy” it was entirely predictable that they would declare hard work to be psychopathy.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Anonymous Fake

              Blaming technology instead of women’s rights I see…

              Do you oppose space colonization?

            • The Cominator says:

              “Priests have every right to confiscate from corrupt merchants. When their incentive is to indulge their pathetic passions instead of hiring honorable religious family men into careers to build a business/society/civilization then the merchants have to be shown the door. Or better yet, window.”

              Commie liar, you are blaming merchants for what the priest did and capitalism for the woman problem. Trump’s enemies are not merchants but priests. Academics, bureaucrats and especially lawyers. They created sexual harassment laws and the absurd modern version of consent, they made men so low status so that only idiotic thugs (who don’t care about any legal risks) can pass shit tests. You more than even CR need to go on a fucking helicopter.

            • Dave says:

              Anonymous Fake sounds like this AI bot was fed a few million words of alt-right postings and told to generate something similar:


        • Bilge_Pum says:

          I can think of several billionaires who probably haven’t fucked anyone but their wife for years. I’m thinking you’re just straight up wrong. You most likely don’t have time for pussy if you work 80+ hours a week.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            The poz is promoted by Jordan Belfort types at the top and Jeremy Meeks types at the bottom. Trump is despised for his blunt honesty, not his morality, which is standard neoliberal degeneracy. On some level the liberals are afraid the “economic conservatives” are going to notice the rich are libertine psychopaths. Without the cucks, the system fails.

            Conservatives don’t really like capitalists. They like the GI Generation that built globalism after WWII, and autistic managers who climbed the ladder based on merit. But now WWII style warfare is obsolete ,the autists have new hobbies besides the money game, and women have contraception. Mainstream conservative 1950’s views on capitalism are as obsolete as what Marx thought in the 1850’s.

            • jim says:

              Psychopathy is an anti concept, a demonization of the warrior personality.

              The rich, not being particularly brave, are not “psychopaths”, and still less are they libertines. In the age of #metoo, they are too scared to go near a woman. Consider Zuckerberg and Bezos. Zuckerberg is scared of everyone and everything, and Bezos is scared of women. Zuckerberg started Facebook to pick up chicks, and found that he had exposed chicks to large numbers of men who plausibly seemed to women to be way more alpha than he was.

              They also are required to pretend to believe in “Sexual Harassment”, or else Human Resources will rat them to the government for lack of holy faith. Obviously faith in “Sexual Harassment” (women never lie, still less do they delude themselves because they are creeped out by someone too gutless to give them sexual harassment) is not in the interests of anyone attempting to run a business.

    • Not Tom says:

      “Hail fellow reactionaries, have I mentioned lately how real social trust is created by the hardworking proletariat and destroyed by the evil capitalists, who by the way are also entirely responsible for the misconduct of female employees because they are relentless womanizers and #MeToo is completely 100% true?”

      Utterly shameless. Not even worthy to go on the helicopter. Drowned in the community pool and eaten by pigs would be a better way to go.

  2. info says:

    As an addendum I recommend this video:

    When execution is applied to both murderous females and males. Civilization advances and the people are selected to be more high trust.

  3. Setarcos says:

    Way back in the beginning, the people who were to become what we would later call Classic Liberals believed that blacks were equal to whites, and not only before the law, but in the sense that they were as capable of adhering to contracts and working for a living as free laborers as whites are.

    It seemed absolutely obvious to the abolitionists that if you abolished slavery, the former slaves would contract with the former masters to the same work as before, at a fairer reward, and without the very considerable overhead of whips and chains.

    The abolitionists, from Benjamin Franklin to Abraham Lincoln, and the nationalists, from Edward Bellamy to Margaret Sanger, were preoccupied by notions of how the Africans should be peacefully returned and/or violently exterminated. They were, in current-year terminology, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth white nationalists, who differed in their methods but not in their aims.

    P.S. Anonymous Fake is correct.

    • jim says:

      Everyone before 2010, including Barack Obama, was a frothing at the mouth white nationalist by 2019 standards.

      Back in the nineteenth century, they all believed that everything would continue as normal, only without the very high overhead of whips and chains, and were all disappointed when this conspicuously failed to happen.

      • The Cominator says:

        One reason why I hate the Catholic Church is there was one exception, Pope John Paul II (aka Pope Molesto) was in addition to falsely taking credit for the fall of communism (which he had nothing to do with) was the 1st truly open borders leftist.

    • Bob says:

      >In this all-important respect I do not hesitate to say we theorists and abstractionists of the North, throughout that long antislavery discussion which ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly wrong. In utter disregard of fundamental, scientific facts, we theoretically believed that all men—no matter what might be the color of their skin, or the texture of their hair—were, if placed under exactly similar conditions, in essentials the same. In other words, we indulged in the curious and, as is now admitted, utterly erroneous theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon, or, if you will, a Yankee “who had never had a chance”—a fellowman who was guilty, as we chose to express it, of a skin not colored like our own.

      – Tis’ Sixty Years Since, 1913

  4. Anonymous Fake says:

    I think the funniest thing is that Jim and I mostly disagree on whether autistic capitalists or sex addict capitalists come out on top. But the Pill, MMORPG’s, and the end of mass conventional WWII warfare has definitely shifted the balance of power in favor of the Trump wannabe demographic.

    Yes, Bezos and Zuckerberg are of the autistic faction, and they lean to the right of the party animal alpha boss faction that wants its harem and eunuch servants. The autists do permit far more redpills on their platforms than they really have to, and when they allow Cathedral intervention it always comes off as crude as possible. Even Youtube has this tendency.

    Real estate seems to be the most attractive “industry” for sexually motivated capitalists. Hype, aggressive sales, and dubious tactics like blockbusting are all par for the course. Republicans dominate this field. Sky tribe Democrats lean autist, but aren’t aware of it all too often and fail to figure out that traditional monogamy is really in their best interest, because so many of them are so nerdy that it’s true that money doesn’t help them get laid. But not all.

    Barbarians like Jeremy Meeks, going by history, are going to evolve faster than Jordan Belfort types, and more ordinary employees are going to stop trying to compete as income inequality gets worse. A new social conservatism is better found in an anti-liberal left than anything the conservacucks have offered.

    Can anyone imagine Paul Singer or Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers suddenly becoming respectful towards Christian sexual morality? Or is it more likely that hopeless nerds on the left realize their “beta bucks” aren’t working? They are capable of reform, like Scrooge, but it’s all too often too late…

    • jim says:

      > Can anyone imagine Paul Singer or Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers suddenly becoming respectful towards Christian sexual morality?

      I am pretty sure you have no idea what Christian morality is, and if you knew, would violently disapprove of it.

      The Koch brothers are Havel’s Greengrocer. When the official priesthood changes, they will lick the boots of the new priesthood just as enthusiastically, and scarcely notice the change in personnel and official belief system.

      Every wealthy businessman everywhere will breath a gigantic sigh of relief when “Sexual Harassment” ceases to be an article of the most holy faith vigorously enforced by the Human Resources Department. The other changes they will scarcely notice. Maybe they will notice when free abortion is no longer available under the company health plan, and when some of their Human Resources department show up on the inquisition’s “Non conformist” list, whereupon they will promptly fire them without much interest in what causes the inquisition to deem a member of the priesthood nonconformist.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        What’s your explanation for why the Rockefeller foundation so aggressively researched and promoted contraception and Dr. Kinsey? This is just the biggest and most notorious example, but all of the old establishment WASP capitalist elites were pro-feminist and anti-Catholic. Jews went along with them and later took on their role as their demographics collapsed, although they now face the same fate. Zionist boneheads don’t matter.

        Capitalist sex addicts seem to come out ahead genetically by spreading their seed throughout society, but they lose their reproduction as a distinctive class and eventually the barbarians learn to beat them at the bastard game anyway.

        The autistic capitalist is a trickier niche, in that it is partially a result of men dispossessed of wives taking up capitalism as an outlet, but its wealth can be used to fuel the next generation of sexual capitalists as well. Attempts to separate the two are where all the political action is, forget the average voter just looking for a better handout.

        We need an autistic capitalist to learn to believe in Christmas again and become king. He’ll probably call himself “commissar” though. It’s ok, he doesn’t know better in this area, but it doesn’t matter.

        • jim says:

          Rich people buy priestly respectability. Similarly, rich people endowed the monasteries, and, more usefully, built the Cathedrals.

          The way a foundation works is that a panel of low level priests protect the higher level priests from contact with the lowly mere billionaires that merely write the checks, so that they don’t get to buy all that much priestly respectability.

          The way foundations work demonstrates that mere billionaires are way lower on the pecking order than even very low level members of the priestly classes.

          You would think the billionaire would be surrounded by members of the priestly class kissing his ass, but the recipients of the money will not give him the time of day.

          Warren boasts how he gets to talk to People Who Matter. He is proud and thrilled. But people who matter don’t boast that they get to talk with Warren.

          If Bill Gates gave a tinker’s dam about the children of Africa, he would notice that the ngos he endows don’t give a tinker’s dam about them either. Bill Gates does not give a tinker’s dam about the children of Africa, and the Rockefellers did not give a tinker’s dam about contraception.

          Trump says and does all the politically correct blue pill feminist things on women, but every so often he jokes that he has to say those things, giving a little wink to the red pill. We all know what Trump really thinks, even though the record seemingly shows otherwise.

          Fanously, Ford endowed members of the priestly class who opposed everything he believed, and hated and despised everything he accomplished.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          One might say Henry Ford and his posthumous Ford Foundation for reasons unknown, let’s say, work in the opposite directions.

        • Not Tom says:

          The Foundations are the Cathedral, idiot. The Rockefeller, Ford, Bloomberg, Gates, and Open Society foundations don’t make money. They piss away mind-boggling amounts of money on causes that are guaranteed not to make any money, only project influence, and not much of that influence accrues to the owners of the foundations.

          If you absolutely must resort to crude Marxist class analysis in everything you write, then explain why Capitalists, who supposedly are protecting their interests as a class, are creating institutions that drain enormous amounts of money from the Capitalist class and putting them in the hands of not-Capitalists.

          And do it without resorting to idiotic and reductive logic such as “capitalists fund it, therefore capitalists bad”. I fund all sorts of awful things through the taxes I’m forced to pay.

          • jim says:

            Nothing better demonstrates the powerlessness of capitalists than the fact that they are forced to pretend to believe sexual harassment complaints, which are in practice always failure to pass shit test complaints.

            It is plausibly better for capitalists if women wind up producing goods, rather than children, but it certainly is not better for capitalists that they are forced to employ women in jobs for which they are ill suited.

            The powerlessness of capitalists is demonstrated by them pissing away money on companies with females in management in order to win holiness points.

  5. Anonymous 2 says:

    Regarding welfare, there obviously looms the moral hazard of turning caring for the poor into a formal job.

  6. Mike says:

    I still have all my Ayn Rand books. What ended up putting me off of it in the end was the rampant hypergamy of Atlas Shrugged. Sure, I’ll suspend my disbelief and believe that the male protaganists will accept Dagny turning from one man to another, as she keeps finding better ones. Right.

    I think the main problem with libertarianism and Rand is they so focus on how people “ought” to be they miss how people actually are. You can talk all you want about how people “ought” to be, until someone acting how some people actually ARE will try to fucking kill you.

    In the end, I had to make a choice. I kept noticing how people actually ARE, that a lot of people simply won’t participate in some libertarian utopia. None of the prominent libertarians and Rand’s followers have an answer for that.

    Woodchipper it is!

    • The Cominator says:

      Rand was based and insightful for a woman but she was still a woman.

      • Aldon says:


        She married a proud cuck, had no children, advocated for abortion, an end to having homosexuality be illegal. She was a modern woman in every way. Saying edgy junk about Redskins doesn’t change that.

  7. >Way back in the beginning, the people who were to become what we would later call Classic Liberals believed that blacks were equal to whites, and not only before the law, but in the sense that they were as capable of adhering to contracts and working for a living as free laborers as whites are.

    If I remember right, that is exactly why Thomas Carlyle called economics the dismal science – although AFAIK he had the Irish, not Blacks in mind. There is also the part in Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina where Lyovin, a landowner tries this with Russian serfs, precisely because he likes reading British economists. Does not work.

    >It seemed absolutely obvious to the abolitionists that if you abolished slavery, the former slaves would contract with the former masters to the same work as before, at a fairer reward, and without the very considerable overhead of whips and chains.

    Wait – in the version of history I have heard that actually worked so in the US: sharecroppers. Were sharecroppers a Leftist myth? Or real but a much smaller number than the ex-slaves were? There is of course also the part that in version of history I have heard cotton prices were plummeting because of either wool or linen, I don’t remember.

    There is also a version I have heard in which the reason the US felt confident waging a war with the Confederates was that plummetting cotton prices predicted the South will not be able to finance a war.

    I am not an expert on US history being a Euro and all that and frankly not really that much interested in it because US history is IMHO particularly “noisy”, as in: the myth/reality ratio is higher than that of European history making it a difficult subject to study. So I just wanted to bring it up to see if someone has something to add.

    • jim says:

      The sharecroppers were not a myth, and a great many blacks became sharecroppers, but a great many blacks caused massive problems, and a great many blacks starved to death. Emancipation caused a massive die off among blacks. They did not all transform to peaceful and productive sharecroppers.

      Which catastrophic outcome of freeing the slaves gets written out of history.

      The sharecroppers get covered because that was freedom working out. But for a great many blacks, freedom did not work out. They did not work for a living then, and they are not working for a living now. Some of them stole for a living, some of them killed for a living, and some of them, quite a lot of them, starved.

      The Klu Klux Klan was necessary to keep non working blacks in line, and segregation kept them in line by artificially creating a black middle class with black cops and black judges, who kept non working blacks in line using startlingly firm methods while making working for a living high status among blacks.

      Segregation ensured that unproductive blacks primarily caused problems for productive blacks that the white society had artificially given power and status, and the means to deal with unproductive blacks. The trouble today is that any black that is successful immediately gets as far away from other blacks as he can, so we don’t have blacks to control blacks. Back then, we did not let the black middle class abandon the problem blacks.

      • info says:


        “Some of them stole for a living, some of them killed for a living”

        Enslavement to pay off debts for those who stole. Of course if they also likewise refuse job training and self-sufficiency and still persist in crime. Death penalty.

        All murderers put to death.

        • jim says:

          Klu Klux Klan solution: Thieves put to death, murderers and rapists of white women put to death in a horrifying fashion.

          Segregation solution: Thieves get put in prison by black cops with slave labor in chains, murderers put to death.

          Our solution: Brief detention in prison that resembles school.

      • calov says:

        My understanding was that sharecroppers were scarcely better than slaves anyway and potentially worse off.

  8. TBeholder says:

    The libertarians/classic liberals were unable to realize the problem of keeping low trust peoples away or under control, because of Christian universalism. They were the levelers, and in substantial part, they still are.

    That’s not a problem at all, from where they stand.
    Applying freedom of association rather than enforcing the purity of openness takes care of this. If you think someone is not worth dealing with, and you are not be compelled to deal with them — well, you would simply refuse to.
    Then, there’s a business disagreeing with yours on this, and if you were wrong, they will have an advantage, and if you were right and they were wrong, they will suffer losses and you will outperform them. In the long run natural selection in general favors good risk management. So there always will be random noise, but the majority of a market will be pushed close to the fair reflection of the reality.
    Of course, it’s not this simple in real world: there are also indirect effects and feedback loops. And markets significantly different from “all other things equal” free competition. But they do have a good point here, if not perfect.

    • jim says:

      > Applying freedom of association rather than enforcing the purity of openness takes care of this.

      Actually existent libertarians oppose freedom of association. As for example the blog “Marginal Revolution”, and the infamous “Just bake the cake, why don’t you”

      > Then, there’s a business disagreeing with yours on this, and if you were wrong, they will have an advantage,

      The advantage being that they get sued for a billion dollars, and likely sent to jail, for discriminating against women and blacks and for disobeying the priestly rules of Human Resources with every libertarian cheering enthusiastically that the market is punishing them for irrational discrimination. See, for example, the blog “Marginal Revolution” on women in management.

      • The Cominator says:

        This speaks to the real flaw of libertarians and classical liberals though. That they have been notoriously bad throughout history at resisting leftist progressive and commie entryists in any way. Which is why Hans Hermann Hoppe endorses my solution in regards to leftists… he doesn’t say helicopters or to kill them but he says they must be “physically removed from society”.

        John Mcafee is an ACTUAL libertarian / classical liberal. Gary Johnson was a commie entryist.

      • TBeholder says:

        Many do. Unsurprisingly. I have seen variations of that argument more than once, though obviously it’s not the kind of a thing any politician (and any public figure less tough than Trump) would preach now, even if they advertise themselves as libertarians.
        In general — from the start libertarians lean toward anarcho-capitalism, but of course some more, some less so. Freedom of association and making or refusing a deal in particular aligns with “market good, state bad”, lack of it very much doesn’t (for one, how enforcement of this is supposed to be implemented?).
        The actually existent libertarians are not the most agreeable lot, or they won’t be libertarians. I have seen on internet this sort, and that sort, even without digging into their communities (they can be refreshing in small doses, but too idealistic for me). And the obvious fakes, too — but then, we already know how much “anarchists” are hijacked, nothing new here. The libertarian “think tanks”? They don’t agree, they formed the camps of More Tru Fan Than Thou and accuse each other in being trendy moderate at best and following the Overton Window to “Stay Relevant™” at worst (for example: ). Cato Institute and LewRockwell club appear to be in a cold war for many years.
        In short, IMO the problem with libertarianism is not that some libertarians became too much of “moderate” milquetoasts and that’s terrible, rot happens anywhere. It’s that they are importing issues of anarchism and can’t help it.
        They do observably form herds pointing the horns outward, yet don’t plainly admit that it’s a perfectly natural, adaptive and even necessary thing to do, perhaps because they are used to “lone wolf” mythology and posturing too much.

        • jim says:

          The radical libertarians are anarcho capitalists. But none of them called out the anti white hatred of the great minority mortgage meltdown, none them seem to notice sexual chaos in the workplace, none of them seem to notice the disastrous effects of feral women in management, none of them seem to notice that Sarbannes Oxley is turning accounting into a pile of Talmudic rituals that result in accountants giving priestly blessings to transfers of value, rather than accurately tracking transfers of value and creation of value, none of them notice the Human Resources Department.

          • The Cominator says:

            As I said check out Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He really isn’t bad and he does notice all sorts of politically incorrect things…

            • jim says:

              Hans-Hermann Hoppe strangely failed to notice the great minority mortgage meltdown, blaming it on interest rate manipulation rather anti white hatred and affirmative action, fails to notice that Sarbannes Oxley is resulting in accountants not actually doing accounting, fails to notice Human Resources, sexual chaos in the workplace, and feral women in management.

              He does not notice the curious over-representation of women at university. In his talk on the alt-right, he neglects to mention race replacement.

              Interest rate manipulation would result in white speculators buying houses, which indeed they did. But the crisis was white speculators unloading expensive white houses in nice green leafy suburbs on some drunken no-hablo-English indio with no job, no income, and no assets, that they pulled out of the gutter near Home Depot with a bottle of whiskey, and one then needs to ask how come drunken no-hablo-English cat eating wetbacks with no job, no income, and no assets were able to take out huge mortgages. Race was up front and absolutely central to lending during the crisis, with lending policies aimed at the race replacement that Hans Herman Hoppe strangely fails to mention in his talk on the alt-right.

              Interest rate manipulation results in speculators misjudging the value of capital goods. But it seems that white speculators got the market in government sponsored race replacement dead on accurate. Everyone white unloaded shortly after November 2005, and everyone who loaded up after November 2005 was nam, and therefore did not have to pay.

  9. Anonymous Fake says:

    Rejecting the idea of the alliance between sexually motivated capitalists and pozzed Cathedral priests requires 3 simultaneous beliefs.

    #1. The Cathedral dispossessed Christianity because its ideas were better, from the French Revolution to our current contraceptacaust. Priests replacing priests.

    #2. All capitalists are autistic. The existence of the motivation of lust to create more wealth is just a delusion of people who take Darwin too seriously, rather than as a useful tool to bash Christians. And somehow, all of these autistic capitalists (just think “ideal” if autistic doesn’t sound right to you, you autists out there) were beaten by the Cathedral too, because its ideas were just too sound.

    #3. After dispatching both enemy priests and capitalists, the Cathedral defeats the bottom 99% of men too, the kind who like sexual monogamy because they aren’t Chad.

    It’s a lot to swallow. So far, warriors look suspect in allying with the Cathedral, in that they have an incentive to deliberately promote poz in their ranks to reduce human capital, propose better technological capital as a solution, and retire to a sweet career in the war business. Think of how much the “Top Gun” ethos was despised by merchant warriors looking for a cushy retirement. Better weapons always has more appeal than optimizing around what you have first. Money talks.

    Besides the degenerate officer class, the sexual capitalist theory looks to be the best fitting set of allies for the poz priests. Technology, again, just as with the military, has skewed the playing field in favor of the priests. The autists have new hobbies now, and the lustful have contraception, and the Cathedral is stronger than ever.

    I suppose you could believe wimminz really do have overwhelming control over the system. In that case we’re just doomed.

    • Allah says:

      Is schizophrenia an anticoncept?

      • jim says:

        Schizophrenia is real, but it is a grab bag of unrelated mental disorders, whereas the the other psychiatric categories are a grab bag of largely unrelated traits.

    • The Cominator says:

      1. The progressives priests didn’t overthrow anything because their ideas were better they overthrew them because they could.

      2. Capitalists don’t rule.

      3. They didn’t have to dispatch the capitalists and it wasn’t the priest they dispatched it was the old warrior aristocracy. In Christendom the priests didn’t rule the warriors did. The Papacy tried to rule but ultimately failed.

      You are so full of shit.

    • Snowdens_jacket says:

      The problem you have is you falsely believe that men assign alpha status hence you assume that some form of male hierarchy is at play in how women select whom to bang. It is not so. An alpha male to a woman is a sexually obsessed primitive brute who is both too dumb and too sexually obsessed to succeed in a male hierarchy as he can not think or plan ahead.

      The capitalist is not drowning in pussy. The sexually obsessed primitive man who spends all of his time hitting on women is.

      I can feel your sexually frustration and I sympathize fellow reactionary but your failure to understand game, the sexual marketplace, and female psychology are leading you astray. The proper place for the blame of feral sluts is with the man who owns them. Their father and then their husband. Simply because their father or husband now pretends like he doesn’t own her in no way alleviates his responsibility for the evil his feral sluts will commit.

      Here is a solution for you that does not involve destroying the economy, technology, manufacturing, steam power, electricity, the internal combustion engine, and all those wonderful things we enjoy. Learn game, find a feral slut looking for a master, master her, pass her shit tests, and let her follow you. Now have children. Teach your male children what you know rather than compete with them as the boomers have done. Teach your female children to love their femininity and, as you would a child, once they pass through menarche present them with three options. Here are three men you will go on dates with, with a chaperone nearby. After the dates speak with her about the men. Tell her she gets to choose one of these men to marry.

      Then you will have to help those men learn game as well since modern men are pathetic simps who think capitalists are taking all the women rather then fathers and husbands failing to control their bitches.

    • jim says:


      The sexual chaos in the modern workplace reveals the unreality and absurdity of your line of argument. If capitalists were in power, they would get laid.

      Instead the Cathedral whacks their sex lives as it whacks every male, only even more so.

  10. John Rocke says:

    “Libertarianism is classical liberalism” – Wrong.

    “…the people who were to become what we would later call Classic Liberals believed that blacks were equal to whites…” – Citation needed. Even if it were true, modern libertarians don’t believe it. Except for the Libertarian Party leadership, who are shitlib entryists. Right (true) libertarians are race realists.

    “Affirmative action and all that is also wildly unpopular [citation needed], yet where do you hear libertarians campaigning on that?” – Hence the ‘libertarian to alt-right pipeline. Previous to this the progression went from libertarian to paleocon. Read Rothbard’s 1992 speech in support of Buchanan, ‘A Strategy for the Right.’ It sounds like he is getting ready to fire up the woodchipppers and helicopters.

    “Today’s leftism is organizationally descended from Puritanism…” Speaking of needing the woodchipper, this tired old meme. Did is start with Mencken? Various reactionaries have pushed it. Various alt-righters push it. Cucks push it too. (((Moldbug))), naturally, was a big fan of it. Yes, goy! – the Christian seminary that was set up to train white Calvinist men in Christian anthropogy and the doctrines of grace (man’s fallen nature, inability for man to redeem himself), necessarily led to what it teaches today – Christianity is false, white men are evil, we must engage in perpertual global social engineering in order to redeem man. It couldn’t possibly be that Harvard – like all western institurions – was overthrown by Trotskyites.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Citation needed? What a fag. Go do a little research on your own, you lazy little shit. Here’s a hint. If affirmative action was popular, would the priesthood need to be so incredibly zealous and strict about enforcing it?

      That shitty little trick of clogging up the discourse with demands for the blindingly obvious and constant redefinition of standards of proof dont fly here. If you move goalposts on us, we’ll pick them up and use them to club you like a baby seal.

      • John Rocke says:

        People in favour of affirmative action:

        Basketball Americans
        Totilla Makers
        Grandchildren of Holocaust Survivors

        That’s a blindingly obvious majority.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Basketball Americans”

          LOL you can stay but fuckoff with that citation needed shit.


          Probably they aren’t.

        • Andre says:

          Lots of people claim that blacks are great basketball players, or athletes in general. Is that actually true though? Or is it more that they don’t really have other options to climb the social hierarchy, so they focus on the few niches where they have a “comparative advantage”? A black kid in school realizes “this math thing is hard”, so he goes outside and plays basketball because what else is he going to do? Study engineering?

          • jim says:


            Blacks are on average obviously physically stronger than whites, and this is worse in school, because blacks become physically adult when white males are still children.

            That you are unaware of this tells me that you stay well clear of blacks and that your parents were able to avoid sending you to a school with white children intermixed with young black men spending time in school to keep them off the streets till they could graduate to prison.

            One black man can beat one white man in a fight. Two white men can maybe beat two black men in a fight, because they coordinate better. Ten white men can beat a hundred black men in a battle, because they coordinate better.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              Modern steroids by fluke benefit blacks more than whites. The “black athlete” is a contemporary myth based on drugs, not biology. Every good Darwinist knows the races took 100k+ years to develop and there’s no way any of them hoarded a secret athlete gene just for themselves. Very particular thinking types, maybe, like hoarding or autism or spiritualism, but certainly not something as universally nice as jumping and running and throwing stuff.

              • jim says:


                That blacks were physically stronger than whites was routinely taken for granted when slaveholders to discussed slavery. Plus any idiot can see what is in front of his eyes. It is not just athletes. A random non athlete black male is usually stronger than a random non athlete white male. And in school, enormously stronger, because blacks are men at an age when whites are still boys.

                • Andre says:

                  That is just completely untrue.

                • jim says:

                  With sufficient faith it is possible to disbelieve one’s eyes and not notice that most black males are stronger than most white men, but faith so powerful as to fail to notice that blacks in school are men when whites are still boys is so powerful and burning as to verge on madness.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  My experience in grappling is that blacks aren’t really stronger. They are faster and more explosive but not stronger – strength is one area where whites have the edge at the top end.

                  There are other advantages blacks have in some sports like basketball – they have longer arms per height and so make better defenders at the same height but a big reason for so few *American* white men in the NBA is that blacks reach maturity at a younger age and always engage in group violence against whites who try to encroach on “their” turf (like a basketball court).

                  Boxing at the lighter weights is dominated by Central and South Americans at the heavier weights by the largest whites – Slavs and Balkans and blacks. MMA success seems to be open to men of various races – there’s room to specialize in areas where different physical talents shine.


                  And in school, enormously stronger, because blacks are men at an age when whites are still boys.

                  is *extremely* important.

                • Pooch says:

                  From my experience as an amateur bodybuilder, it’s obvious to everyone involved that blacks dominate that particular sport. They are able to build more muscle mass (hypertrophy) and lose fat easier than whites with and without steroids on average. Perhaps it’s skeletal I’m not sure. The same is true with American football, as the body type and requirements are comparable to bodybuilding (high amount of muscle with minimal fat).

                  In terms of 1 rep max strong men type lifting, the nordic/icelandic whites tend to dominate that because they have the thickest joints. That type of lifting is quite different then lifting for muscle hypertrophy though (8-12 reps).

                • Andre says:

                  This school argument is pathetic Jim. Girls mature earlier than boys too, are often bigger than them at the same age, that doesn’t mean adult women are better athletes than adult men. Blacks also tend to be held back a year or two more often than other races.

              • Andre says:

                It is possible for a race to be better at jumping and running, I just see no real evidence of that. I live in Brazil, I see blacks and browns constantly. They are not “obviously physically stronger”, that’s ridiculous. It could be that recent natural selection in the anglosphere, the welfare state creating these little single mom harems for the top criminals in the hood, bumped up blacks in that regard. But I doubt it, as the statistics still show that blacks are shorter on average than whites. Blacks simply have no other outlet for success in life and nobody wants to be at the bottom. Their interests are narrower than that of other races. The american whites with great basketball player genes probably figured they had better things to do with their life than gamble at being a pro athlete.

                • Dave says:

                  Our blacks have EBT cards and yours do not. Blacks grow bigger and stronger when you give them food.

                • Aldon says:

                  Show all the Negroes who reliably outperform Whites in contests of lifting.

                • Andre says:

                  And yet your blacks are still shorter than your whites. The school argument from Jim is beyond ridiculous.

                • Pooch says:

                  Blacks hold the current squat and bench press record.



                  Blacks also hold the Mr. Olympia bodybuilding title for the last 9 years.

                  Not sure what other evidence you need that than that blacks on average out perform whites on lifting.

                • Jsd says:

                  Pooch there are a million different lifting federations and divisions, whites own most of them. Black skin helps in bodybuilding and long limbs help in most of the popular sports. Blacks are probably a little more athletic on average but a lot of their most obvious dominance is from being better geared to the particular activity.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It does look like Ray Williams is the current record holder for squat and bench (not deadlift) – in the super heavyweight class.

                  That doesn’t prove very much; nearly every other weight class is held by a white man, and Ray only recently took some of those records which were previously (I believe) held by white men.

                  And if we are discussing “black” vs. white here then we have to look at what that word actually means. Sub Saharan Africans are not winning these competitions, only African-Americans (in the literal sense of genetic admixture, not trying to be PC here). The data show that blacks got stronger when they mixed with Europeans, and that the admixture is sufficient or the genes prevalent enough that some “blacks” can win powerlifting competitions against whites.

                  And powerlifting is not only about strength but also training. That’s why it’s divided into weight classes. Africans do have higher endurance than Europeans, so it could be (I don’t know) that the winning blacks are simply able to train harder, longer than white men in the same class who might still be naturally stronger.

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      Protestantism always comes with usury (“sola fide” discredits indulgences so usury substitutes as a funding source), which results in capitalism, which results in lustful capitalists motivated by sex, which results in divorce, sexual liberation, and the abolition of protestantism after it’s no longer useful.

      Usury and sodomy go to the same circle of hell. The sexual capitalist who isn’t really motivated just from watching the numbers go up was known to Dante, forgotten by modernists. Pickup artists and “internet Catholics” get it. Boomer nostalgia for mid 20th century capitalism misses the point.

      Jews come in because they think usury (and thus sodomy) is good for the goyim, but they’re honest about it. The deceit in Calvinism takes a while to figure out, but when you see that they are crypto-Judaizers it becomes obvious.

      • John Rocke says:

        Luther was absolutely opposed to interest taking. Calvin was opposed to excessive interest (defined as ‘usury’).

        The Vatican has a bank. It lends money at interest. No protestant forced them to do so. Many Catholics engage in and/or endorse sodomy also. See: current pope, who is a communist.

        Dante is not fact nor a priori doctrine.

        Everyone is motivated by sex. There are various roads to power for obtaining it.

        Capitalism predates Protestantism. Capitalism is biblical: The role of government is to praise good people and punish bad people (Romans 13). Christian charity is performed by the individual and his church, not by government redistribution (2 Cor 9:7). This assumes private property. “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (2 Thess 3).

        • jim says:

          Luther was wrong. Older versions of the Christian position on usury got it right.

          • calov says:

            I wasn’t aware there was any other Christian position on charging interest besides that it was wrong and sinful until John Calvin. Even medieval banking families like the Medicis didn’t outright charge interest; they got around the church’s laws against interest by “bills of exchange” and giving depositors a share in the bank’s profits. Which church fathers taught that lending a at interest was permissible prior to Luther?

            • jim says:

              That is the commie spin on the old Christian anti usury laws.

              The problem is that there is no sharp distinction between rent, mortgage, buy now pay later, and lease to buy. So, how do you address mortgages, loans on property? They wound up with a complicated set of principles and rules, perhaps overly complicated and insufficiently intelligible.

              An outright absolute ban on interest necessarily implies an outright absolute ban on rent, which is obviously absurd, so you have to construct a formula allows some loans with interest that don’t trap the borrower who makes bad decision in ways that advance the interests of the lender to manipulate him into bad decisions and do not make it profitable for the lender to manipulatively offer the borrower the opportunity to make bad decisions.

              Over simplifying the rather complicated mess, the Christian position was that interest bearing loans enforceable against a specific identifiable item of property were OK, enforceable against the person, or against his property in general, not OK. (And yes, it was more complicated than than that, and less clear than that, but that is the gist of it.)

              • calov says:

                If I’m rehearsing the commie spin on usury it’s unwitting. My understanding is that the Christian prohibition of usury was based on the reasoning of Aristotle, that money, being dead, is not able to multiply itself, and also specific biblical injunctions against charging interest. Ezra Pound, though I can’t really understand him, goes on tirades about usury in his later writing and it’s hard to think of him as a communist. I’m trying to understand how you see the legitimizing of interest as not a Calvinist, proto-revolutionary innovation in Christendom. I don’t see any evidence for it in the Christian tradition prior to him. However you are right that Christianity is certainly not opposed to landowning and rents, and I don’t understand how the two are connected.

              • calov says:

                Re-reading I see the connection between rent and a mortgage loan. But it seems to me the Christian prohibition on interest was not simply utilitarian–because interest often creates situations in which the borrower is ill-treated. It seems as though Christians opposed interest as in itself a moral evil, a form of stealing, regardless of the outcome. Much as some churches in the 19th century opposed life insurance on principle as immoral, solely because life is not something we own and can insure. I don’t see how currency manipulators and parasitic industries like insurance belong in reaction. But I also admit I don’t understand money.

                • jim says:

                  The purpose of the ban on usury was not to give the poor a free lunch, but to prevent con men from offering the poor a free lunch with poison in it.

                  So, loans enforceable against a specific and identifiable item of property generally legal, loans against the person illegal. Pawnshops legal. The commie framing of the old Christian usury law is a rationalization for smashing the windows on the pawnshop, looting it and beating up the owner.

                  Most versions of the usury law were economically sane. They frequently got holiness spiraled into economically insane law, but most of the time, sound.

                • jim says:

                  Money does not in itself produce money, so bringing future consumption into the present should not earn money. But bringing future capital expenditures into the present should earn money.

                  Money does not in itself produce money, but a cow produces calves. So lending money to the peasant to buy a cow should earn money, provided the loan is enforceable against the cow, not the peasant.

        • Jan Martense says:

          Calvin was opposed to excessive interest (defined as ‘usury’).

          This is not “usury.” For a good summary of what actually constituted “usury” for most of Western history, see:

          A proper clampdown on usury would drastically reduce the risk of a future financial crisis, while still allowing properly secured loans to be made.

          • jim says:

            A proper clampdown on usury, would, among other things, ensure that the banks bore some of the risk involved in lending into a property bubble.

            A non usurious loan on a house pays interest, perhaps high interest, but it is completely extinguished by returning the property in good order and condition, even if the current value of the property is way below the debt on the property. If the current value is way below the debt, the lender is the one most at fault.

            A non usurious loan is not necessarily an interest free loan. It is a loan where a loan that should never have been made is apt to bite the lender.

            This would solve, or considerably reduce, the property bubble problem. But it would not have prevented the last financial crisis, which was largely nonwhites affirmative actioned into authority over white money lending white money to nonwhites with no income, no job, and no assets, to buy houses at astonishingly high prices in order to punish whites for “racism”

            And when I say non whites punishing whites for racism, I have particularly in mind Angelo Mozillo, albeit Goldman Sachs participated in and enabled his crimes, unloading his worthless mortgage backed securities on their customers knowing them to be worthless because the underlying mortgages were worthless. This was a problem of financial fraud and hatred of white people, not a problem of usury.

            In the case of “buy now pay later” banning usury does mean no interest on late payments, punishing the lender for lending to irresponsible borrowers, but the irresponsible borrower should also be punished in some other way. Banning usury does not mean that you can buy now pay later at the same price as you can buy if you buy now and pay now. It means that late payments, compound interest, and irresponsible borrowers do not become a lucrative source of profit to the lender.

            Banning usury would not mean that payday loans and credit card debt would bear no interest. It would mean that such debts are enforceable against honor only, which is to say against credit rating only. The penalty for defaulting should be seeing your credit cards cut up. The lender should have no recourse against your income or property.

            Interest bearing loans on property should be enforceable only on the specific item of property, interest bearing loans on the person should be unenforceable.

            Interest bearing loans on the corporation should be enforceable by the highest ranking creditors becoming the shareholders, and the existing shareholders losing their shares.

            • info says:

              What do you think of the proposal to have a debt jubilee every 50 years or so?

              All debts cancelled.

              • jim says:

                It is far from clear that debt jubilee was to cancel debts. The jubilee was to ensure that all long term leases and mortgages had a time limit on them so that they did not turn into permanent alienation of land from families, and when it turned out that some long term loans and leases ran over the limit, that was a problem in enforcing the jubilee.

                The objective was not to give borrowers a freebie, but to bind a nomadic population to the land of Israel.

                • info says:

                  Could there be a modern equivalent form that could work out?

                  Perhaps it will undo a lot of the financial shenanigans that the west is suffering under.

                • jim says:

                  I just proposed the modern equivalent of old Christian anti usury laws. Christianity never had the equivalent of the Jubilee, because it never had the objective of binding a nomadic people to the land.

                  Christian and Hebrew restrictions on usury never had the objective of giving the masses a freebie.

      • Not Tom says:

        I think this dude’s just going to keep shitting all over the place, opening up new threads with the same incoherent rants while refusing to respond to or even acknowledge any rebuttals on the old ones.

        Is this the new fedshill strategy? Just spam endlessly until regular readers and commenters don’t have the energy or interest to deal with it?

    • jim says:

      The puritans were holier than thou. Inevitably they soon became holier than Jesus (temperance, antislavery) and soon became holier than God. And when they became holier than God, we got modern progressivism.

      Progressivism is Harvard. Harvard was the headquarters, the vatican, of the state church of New England, and is now the vatican of the American Hegemony. It has complete continuity of organization and personnel with the priests that Charles the Second purged from the state Church of England for being ostentatiously holier than himself.

      Progressivism is the current doctrine of a state organization with complete continuity of organization going all the way back to seventeenth century and complete continuity of personnel in state church employment all the way back to the eleventh century.

      • John Rocke says:


        • Setarcos says:


          • jim says:


            Reply to what I actually said, not what commies larping as nazis claim that actual right wingers say.

            • Setarcos says:

              I didn’t reply to you,

              • jim says:

                Your post appeared to be identical to John’s. Possibly you screwed up the posting and hit the wrong button by accident. If you actually replied to him, try resubmitting the reply.

                • Setarcos says:


                • jim says:

                  Again, please respond to what I in fact said.

                  Your response has no logical connection to my factual and empirical statement that “the left” has continuity of organization, personnel, and memes with the state church of New England all the way back to the seventeenth century, and continuity of personnel and memes with state Christianity all the way back to the eleventh century.

                  And I would add to that that “the left” has no continuity of organization and personnel with those that sat on the left side of the French assembly, and any similarity in memes is the result of convergent evolution, protestantism that gets holier than God coming to resemble Catholicism that gets holier than God.

                  I would love to debate memetic continuity with you, but I am not going to allow you to tell me what I am saying, when is not what I am saying. The memetic continuity is communism, war on marriage, war on the authority of husbands and fathers, and war on Christmas, not witch burning.

                • Setarcos says:

                  I can’t answer for John, but I can say this.

                  Your response has no logical connection to my factual and empirical statement that “the left” has continuity of organization, personnel, and memes with the state church of New England all the way back to the seventeenth century, and continuity of personnel and memes with state Christianity all the way back to the eleventh century.

                  And I would add to that that “the left” has no continuity of organization and personnel with those that sat on the left side of the French assembly, and any similarity in memes is the result of convergent evolution, protestantism that gets holier than God coming to resemble Catholicism that gets holier than God.

                  These two paragraphs do not rest easily together.

                  Yours is a degenerate ideology. I prefer Yarvin’s explanation of Brahmin v. Optimate. The prototypical Brahmin is a “master of the universe”, the prototypical Optimate is (was) an industrial lord.

                  The masters of the universe were FOB German Jews. The industrial lords were WASP. Each disdained the other. Yarvin called it, “a recipe for titanic violence, and so indeed it proved.”

                  No one:

                  Jim: “Mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.”

                • jim says:

                  If they do not rest easily together, you need to explain the discrepancy rather than asserting it.

                  The left that sat on the left side of the French assembly had continuity of organization, personnel, and memes with the false popes of Avignon.

                  Today’s left has continuity of personnel organization and memes with the state church of New England, whose vatican was and is Harvard. It only has continuity of personnel and memes with the state church of England, but not organization, in that Harvard was founded by priests purged from the state Church of England. The state Church of England does not have full continuity with eleventh century Catholicism, in that though it has continuity of organization, it came to be staffed by different personnel and different memes, in that Protestantism which was revolutionary movement against Catholicism, and the personnel staffing protestant Churches largely came from outside the Catholic priesthood.

                  Marxism has no continuity of organization or personnel with Protestantism or progressivism, being a mixture of heretical Jewish memes and memes swiped from the radical puritans that Cromwell crushed, the puritans that governor William Bradford sarcastically called “Wiser than God”. However, with the fall of communism, a whole lot of communists, nearly all of them Jews, converted into the uniparty.

            • Setarcos says:

              Holy hell, did you really delete John’s post? The Trotskyite shows his true colours.

              • jim says:

                You double posted, once as John, once as Setarcos, revealing John to be sockpuppet.

                • Setarcos says:

                  Wrong. The mere fact that two people disagree with you does not a conspiracy make.

                  John made a number of points I couldn’t have made myself but recognized instantly as hilarious.

                  As a practical matter, if I were “sockpuppeting” I wouldn’t be replying to “myself”, like you, Not Tom, and “info” mysteriously never reply to each other.

                  “These anti-Calvinist canards and tropes must cease,” is one of the funniest lines I’ve read this year, and it’s an embarrassment that you’ve struck it from the public record for all to view and laugh hysterically.

                  You should spend less time censoring and more time appreciating comedians like Andrew over at DS.

                • jim says:

                  > The mere fact that two people disagree with you does not a conspiracy make.

                  The fact that two people disagree using the exact same words as if both massively copy pasting several paragraphs from the same text from their boss does a conspiracy make.

                  Either you accidentally reposted John’s comment, or you are john, and accidentally hit the send button twice, once under one identity and once under the other, or you both simultaneously received the same text from your boss and simultaneously reposted it with minimal adjustment to the context supposedly being responded to.

                  I don’t mind talking to your boss through his servants, but I do mind that he talks without listening. Try responding to the actual words in the actual comment.

                • Setarcos says:

                  You’ve caught me, red-handed. I admit it. I copy-pasted parts of John’s comment within a blockquote in order to reply to him. I am therefore guilty of

                  using the exact same words as if both massively copy pasting several paragraphs from the same text from their boss does a conspiracy make.

                  Oops, I did it again.

                  This is too stupid a conversation to continue.

                • jim says:

                  In your first comment, which I deleted for duplication, it was not obvious that you were blockquoting.

                  In your second comment which I also deleted, it was obvious that you were blockquoting. But you were saying the exact same thing as John said in slightly different words.

                  You were both presenting the same rebuttal to what right wingers supposedly say about the left. Which bears little relationship to what right wingers say about the left.

                  Please respond to what I actually said. I am not going to be framed with someone else’s hostile memes.

                  You can respond to what I say. I am not going to respond to what the left says that I say nor allow commenters on my blog to tell me that I am saying what the left says that I say.

                  I am not going to allow “What you are really saying is” when it is the direct opposite of what I am saying.

                • Setarcos says:


                • jim says:

                  Not what I am saying. Not what I said. Reply to what I said, not to what your boss imagined that I am saying in his memo to you and John.

                  Argue with me. Not with someone else’s version of what deplorables think.

                • Setarcos says:

                  Just so you understand, if I was reduced to posting on blogs for a government paycheck I’d have a lead last supper.

                  Tucker Carlson for president 2024, “blood and soil” edition.

                  This land is WASP land.

                • jim says:

                  And yet here you are posting commie memes, sometimes thinly disguised as Nazi memes, on a reactionary blog, and you appear to be in communication with other people posting commie memes, sometimes very thinly disguised as Nazi memes, on reactionary blogs, communication that sometimes run so thick that you all simultaneous come up with the same meme at the same time, often in very similar words.

                  Still waiting for you to address my history of French, Anglo, and Communist leftism.

                  Repeating the commie version of this history will not be allowed unless you attribute it to yourself, rather than to me. Nor will appeal to nonexistent consensus be allowed. Let us debate pre Marxist communism, French enlightenment anticapitalism, temperance, female emancipation, the war on marriage, the war on Christmas, and abolitionism.

                • jack boot says:

                  competition is for suckers

                • jim says:

                  Duck Duck Go, Bing, Dogpile, and Baidu are giving Google a run for their money. Are they suckers?

                  Who are these evil monopoly capitalists?

                  Dogpile lost out to Google because Google had better AI. Now political correctness is making Google’s AI stupid. It is making all the major search engines artificially stupid, but it is hurting Google the worst because they had a competitive advantage, and now they are trashing it.

                • jack boot says:

                  > Who are these evil monopoly capitalists?

                  monsanto, mcdonalds, walmart, coca cola, disney, standard oil children, ma bell children, boeing, healthcare insurers, amazon, unilever, p&g, big pharma, big agricorp, luxottica, and a billion names you haven’t heard.

                  that’s why i’m invested in them. but did they destroy non economic america? yes. and they killed small town america too. because of course they did.

                  i’d be invested in the central banks also, but that’s a club i don’t have access.

                • jim says:

                  Monsanto no longer has the patent on roundup, and now everyone buys knockoffs and generics. I have a backpack battery powered spray full of Roundup knockoff in my garage, their patented seeds compete with every farmer’s seeds and lots of people getting into the genetically modified seed business. Genetic modification is coming to a garage near you.

                  McDonalds competes with Wendy’s, Burger King, White Castle, Jollibee, Sonic, Carles Jr, Johnny Rockets, and too many others to list. How are they a monopoly? Coke competes with Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and too many others to list. (I love moonshine in Mountain Dew, but only on special occasions because fattening and carbs, will not touch Coke and Pepsi with a ten foot pole, and my wife always drinks Pepsi.)

                  And so on and so forth.

                  You don’t hate McDonalds because they are a monopoly, but because they are a franchise. you hate the man that owns your local McDonald’s Franchise, and you hate the farmers, the kulaks – I recall your outrage when I remarked that the farmers whose parties I attend have some cool toys.

                  McDonalds did not destroy middle America. McDonalds’ Franchisees are middle America, which is why you hate them.

                  The left does not hate Walmarts because their shops are way bigger than the corner store. They hate them because, operating from headquarters in middle America flyover country, they bypassed the warehousing and distribution system located in the bicoastal megalopoli. They hate them not because they undermine the corner store in flyover country, but because they undermine the distribution and transport system centered on the bicoastal megalopoli, because they are successful invaders from flyover country who undermine the trendy whole foods shop. The first hypermarket opened in Arkansas, hence the demented hatred. They are the competition.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  I did not “concur”. I rejected your commie account of the farmers top to bottom, and presented statistics and anecdotes contradicting your account.

                  You are free to present your arguments. I am not going to have your arguments attributed to me.

                • jack boot says:

                  it seems you were perfectly comfortable to criticizing the world financial order back when obama was nominally at the helm:

                  funny, that

                • jim says:

                  The central bank has become noticeably less keen on printing money now that Trump is at the helm. So I stopped complaining about money printing.

                • jack boot says:

                  > Some farmers, quite a lot of farmers, are struggling, but by and large, most of them are not. Or at any rate the ones that throw parties to which I get invited are not. They have some cool toys.

                  > Some farmers, quite a lot of farmers, are struggling

                  mysteriously all the farmers i know are up to their eyeballs in debt

                  > Or at any rate the ones that throw parties to which I get invited are not. They have some cool toys.

                  mysteriously none of the farmers you know have any meaningful debt

                  address the rest:

                  i said i couldn’t become a farmer because i was priced out of owning land by the industrial agriculture corporate behemoth (powered by the world usury system). i am in the top 1 percent of income for my age bracket.

                  you then mocked me for not being born the 1950’s and i told you to fuck your self with a cactus and bleed out and die.

                  > mcdonalds didn’t destroy america

                  one third of the population is overweight and one third is obese. those are non overlapping thirds. all of them plus another substantial fraction have insane chronic health problems and are farmed by immensely profitable hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry.

                  communism didn’t do this. the sacred inviolable and unquestionable free market capitalism did this.

                  fact: markets enthusiastically serves humans’ base instincts. it likes vice and it LOVES dependence (addiction) i.e recurring revenue

                  you have to go to european socialist or ex-communist countries to find healthy and fit non elite white people. ironic huh?

                  > walmart didn’t destroy america

                  before the shadow of sam walton fell across the land america had countless thousands of small shops and grocers and butchers in quaint small towns all over the country. now those small towns where they even exist have a lamprey attached to their face. the lamprey of finance capitalism, walmart one of its many faces.

                  and you think this is totally cool and a real step up because you’re a fucking boomer.


                • jim says:


                  Obviously you do not have a 99 percentile income, or else you would not be shillposting. And your income has to be less than a farmer’s or a McDonald’s franchisee, or else you would not hate them so.

                  Land in flyover country is not really that expensive.

                  Let us take a look at farmland near Walmart headquarters. First hit that comes up is:

                  225 Acres Chelsea, Rogers County, OK
                  Home & 225 ac3 bed/ 2 bath/ 2128 sq. ft/ Chelsea School DistFarm with several options-cattle production, deer hunting, duck & turkey hunting. Large…

                  So if you are an ordinary mid level Walmart employee, should be able to throw it in and take up cattle and deer after working and saving for a few years. I suspect the most lucrative use of the land would be providing deer hunts for all the white refugees flowing in from the blue states.

                  You would have a hefty mortgage on the farm at first but land tends to appreciate. Say you have $450 0000 mortgage. Well, the interest is 3% or so, but the land is probably appreciating at 4% or more seeing as Bentonville is growing, and now we have Trump’s great decentralization, with whites fleeing the bicoastal megalopoli to places like Rogers county, so that is not bad at all. Assuming you know how to farm, which I do not.

                  The interest on the loan would be $13 500, which is a tax loss if you are using the land to farm, and most white males manage to make a lot more than $13 500, so by and by, with thrift and hard work, you should be able to pay off the loan, and probably buy some cool toys. Your federal income tax is going to bite you more than the mortgage. Would not take too many deer hunts to pay the interest on the mortgage.

                • jack boot says:

                  > The central bank has become noticeably less keen on printing money now that Trump is at the helm. So I stopped complaining about money printing.

                  in 2008 obama needed 700 billion to rescue the banks from the consequences of their actions. it took him a year to get it, congress had to pass a law and it was a really big fucking deal. personally my first red pill.

                  in 2019 trump told the fed to print 200 (300?) billion over a few days and i’m not 100% sure but it may not have required an executive order. it sure didn’t make the news ANYWHERE

                  so basically you’re a liar and you think your readers are literally retarded.

                • jim says:

                  The relevant measure is the debt to GDP ratio, which soared under Obama, despite massively lying about GDP, and stabilized under Trump.

                  On checking the statistics, I find that the rate of growth of M2 has remained about the same. The difference, however, is that economic activity has substantially increased, so rate of growth of money relative to goods has diminished substantially.

                  Remember all those jobs that supposedly were gone and not coming back. They came back and this is mopping up a great deal of the increase in money supply.

                  If you have real growth, that makes a big difference.

                • info says:


                  Median income or per-Capita GDP may be a better measure.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @jack boot

                  That was not a red pill, that was a blue pill. You ate the smoke and mirrors that the priests presented to you to place the blame on merchants, which is what they always do. Just like European monarchs have been using Jews as a crutch for millennia and then throwing them to the dogs when too much noise from the peasants.

                  If you had actually paid attention and observed what happened in 2008 from the beginning you would have noticed the disappearance of Lehman Brothers.

                  if you had noticed their disappearance, you would have realized that it’s very strange for a financial institution that exists since 1850 to disappear by their own actions in something actually that dumb and easy to understand.

                  Which would have led you to realize the political, priestly, regulations that forced financial institutions to give mortgages to hobos that would not be able to pay, but had to have a house because progressivism.

                  Obama didn’t save the banks, Obama saved progressivism. Because if the banks had collapsed and the economy had completely collapsed, progressivism would have collapsed.

                  Progressivism survives in a big amount of lies, because it’s a big amount of lies. And they need to keep stealing and plundering from merchants to finance their progressivism. If the economy collapses welfare, affirmative action, women’s rights and equality will disappear real fast after the fact, because there’ll be nothing else to plunder to finance the insanity.

                  The problem with printing money is not printing money by itself, but whether the money being printed represents actual value or not. Obama’s money didn’t represent any value at all, Trump’s does.

                • Dave says:

                  “Obama saved progressivism”

                  For a little while. Just as a fiat monetary system requires a hyperexponentially increasing quantity of fake money to continue functioning, progressivism requires a hyperexponentially increasing number of lies.

                • Not Tom says:

                  [jack boot]: mysteriously all the farmers i know are up to their eyeballs in debt

                  I had a good belly laugh at the implication that you know any farmers. Most likely, you’ve never even been to a farm, never even seen a farm except in photographs or while driving from one densely-populated urban area to another densely-populated urban area.

                  [info]: Median income or per-Capita GDP may be a better measure.

                  Those are nominally better than GDP, but both inferior to debt-to-GDP ratio because they (obviously) don’t account for debt.

                  Of course all of these metrics are completely ridiculous anyway, but sometimes they can tell us something vaguely useful when compared against other ones, such as employment/workforce participation rates, property ownership rates, and cost of welfare/food stamps/etc. All of which, I believe, have improved under Trump, though not sure about the second one.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Also this:

                  in 2008 obama needed 700 billion

                  Are you forgetting the trillion dollars per year in “quantitative easing” until 2015 – the last year of Obama’s presidency?

                  Obama got a trillion dollars per year from the fed and couldn’t bring back a single job. Trump got zip until a few months ago.

                • jack boot says:

                  > you hate farmers

                  i said, quote, i am not a proud man, i would become a farmer if becoming a farmer gave me millions in stocks, bonds and land

                  and so (obviously) you accuse me of “hating” farmers and not really paying 40% tax to landlords and malicious corporate behemoths like insurance and healthcare.

                  while accusing me of working for the government


                • jim says:

                  Being a farmer does not give you anything. You have to work, you have to create value to get those things, and you hate people who work and create value.

                  What shows that you hate farmers is your reaction to my remark that the farmers whose parties I go to often have some nice toys. All farmers create value, some more than others, and you hate people who create value.

                • jack boot says:

                  trump is no more fiscally responsible than obama. he isn’t vetoing egregious spending bills and he’s continually berating the fed to lower interest rates. maybe after he follows in the footsteps of his presidential idol and kills the bank. until then don’t make me laugh.

                • jim says:

                  The change in debt to GDP ratio is the definition of fiscal responsibility, by which standard he is far more fiscally responsible than Obama. Are republicans supposed to pay for the bills that Democrats run up?

                • jack boot says:

                  > Being a farmer does not give you anything. You have to work, you have to create value to get those things, and you hate people who work and create value.
                  > What shows that you hate farmers is your reaction to my remark that the farmers whose parties I go to often have some nice toys. All farmers create value, some more than others, and you hate people who create value.

                  i.e if you’re a semi skilled technician and you save 50% of your after tax income maybe when you’re 35 you can afford to go to the bank and pay for the down payment on an indenture (a mortgage)

                  and if you have an iq of 140 courtesy of an elite family and you go to an elite college and avoid debt and land an elite job at an elite company in an elite city and save 50% of your 99.99 percentile paycheck (before the slumlords and the vice peddlers and the pharmaceutical companies and the bureaucrats get their 40% cut) and maybe you can afford to a freehold farm at 30 or 35.

                  but no promises.

                  does this sound reasonable to you? no? you must be an unproductive slacker. work harder, weakling loser. should’ve mined bitcoin back in 2010, lol.

                • jim says:

                  Well, since I have a reasonable amount of debt free property, and I know some farmers who are living nice lives, good system for me and the people I know.

                  Every morning, weather permitting, I watch the sun rise over the islands from one of my debt free properties, and every evening, I watch the sun set over the mountains. I worked for that, and I got it. Lots of people work hard for that, and lots of people get it.

                  You hate us, and you intend to take away from us what is ours. What is rightly ours, what we created.

                  People who don’t create value should starve, and the trouble with the current system is that they do not. You are a parasite on those who create value, and you want to destroy those you feed upon.

      • John Rocke says:

        [*deleted yet again for being unresponsive yet again*]

        • jim says:

          Same comment presented three times in rapid succession, each deleted for the same reason.

          Don’t tell me what “my reasoning amounts to”.

          Respond the reasoning actually presented – which made absolutely no mention of any of the topics it supposedly “amounts to”.

    • Jan Martense says:

      “…the people who were to become what we would later call Classic Liberals believed that blacks were equal to whites…” – Citation needed.

      John Stuart Mill, probably the most archetypal classical liberal in all history, openly believed that all mankind could eventually reach the intellectual capacity of his European contemporaries, and talked about how their present state was due to the “maturity” (not permanent condition) “of their faculties.” (See the middle of chapter 1–p. 12 in the original editions– of Mill’s “On Liberty.”) This was in 1859; he makes even Lincoln look alt-right in comparison. Either you’re blatantly dishonest or totally ignorant in this regard.

      As for modern libertarians, the vast majority do believe it, which makes sense since their ideology (complete equality before the law) demands it. Nice No True Scotsman when it comes to “Right (true) libertarians” btw. Rothbard is fascinating but his ideology bears almost no resemblance to either classical liberalism or its modern mainstream libertarian descendant.

      “Today’s leftism is organizationally descended from Puritanism…” Speaking of needing the woodchipper, this tired old meme.

      Lol, this touched a sore spot, didn’t it? Were the bloodthirsty regicides of King Charles “Trotskyists?” Were the rebellious traitors who rejected their rightful lord
      and sovereign in 1776 “Trotskyists?” How about the abolitionists and scallywags of the 1860s? Or the upstate New York originators of modern “feminism?” There was scarcely a Jew in any of these groups–but there were Puritans and Yankees in abundance. In fact all these radicals used explicitly Christian language pretty much constantly. That Jews jumped on the bandwagon looking for easy carrion is hardly surprising, but the ideological origin of progressivism is clear.

  11. Andre says:

    People often comment that free laborers in the north were much more productive than slaves in the south, and use that as an argument against slavery. I’ve never checked, not sure if there even is a way to check, but I always wonder if they bother to consider the fact that the free laborers were whites that often had an ingrained protestant work ethic, while the slaves… weren’t. White farmers in South Africa today are orders of magnitude more productive than black farmers, and it’s not because they are free and the blacks are slaves. As far as I’m aware, there was no economic boom following the abolition of slavery. Anywhere. Ever.

  12. @Jim

    >You cannot make a pencil unless the boss provides you with custom made tools and tells you how to use them.

    I don’t really think this is the best defense of capitalism. You are linking knowledge with ownership, which is not necessarily linked, experts can be bought on the market and capital can be bought on the market.

    Suppose you are a “foodie”, you go to a lot of restaurants, and know them well but only from the customers perspective. So you want to open one. Suppose you have no capital and base it on entirely on loans. In theory, the loans could even come from the state, especially if we are thinking monarchy, why not. And suppose you don’t know how to run a restaurant, you hire a manager. What are YOU doing, then? What you are doing is entrepreneurship: predicting demand. That in that place a specific kind of restaurant will do well. This is not restaurant-running, pencil-making expertise, this is IMHO something closer to a customers perspective. This enterpreneurial demand-prediction is a fairly mysterious ability, managers who can run daily operations well are a dime a dozen, they don’t have this extra X-factor. This X-factor is heroic because it is mysterious.

    And this is half of the reason of the big success stories from Ford to Jobs. It does not really matter if they owned capital or not, as they made so much profits that they could pay back any loans. And it did not really matter if they ran the daily operations of the business or not. It was this insight that was half of the story. This is something I picked up from

    The other half is something I came up with myself and this half is what it is most in line with reactionary thinking. The two known alternatives to capitalism are state socialism and workers-collective kibbutz socialism. Anarchist, syndicalist socialism or suchlike. We know the first does not work. The second? How about just forcing every business owner to hand over 80% of the shares to the employees? Just as a thought experiment?

    And basically I think at the first shareholders meeting they would ran into all the usual problems of democracy that NRx has sufficiently analysed and understood so far. Not only the state needs a king: the business also needs a king. Needs authoritarian leadership. Ford destroyed a new model car that was made in his absence, Jobs threw a prototype phone into the fishbowl and said “See the bubbles? You can save more space.” They were “assholes”. Alpha leaders. It is necessary. Keeping discipline in a business is only slightly easier than in the military. And absolutely necessary.

    Thus I think reusing NRx knowledge for the purpose of economics, we find that authoritarian leadership of businesses is necessary. This kills every anarcho-syndicalist idea: cannot run a business democratically because cannot run anything democratically. It leaves two kinds of authority. That of the business owner. And that of the state. But if the state, it leads to Venezuela. So it has to be the authority of the owner.

    • jim says:

      > I don’t really think this is the best defense of capitalism. You are linking knowledge with ownership, which is not necessarily linked, experts can be bought on the market and capital can be bought on the market.

      Capitalism is not the system were owners of capital rule. It is the system where successful merchants are allowed to own the value they create. I am not linking knowledge with ownership. I am linking knowledge with the corporate form of capitalism.

      Experts cannot always be bought on the market, because often the expert needs to be the CEO. NASA tried to utilize Wernher von Braun’s expertise, he cooperated, but it did no good till they put him in charge, and when he retired, NASA’s rockets gradually stopped working. Three people invented the transistor, but every transistor everywhere comes from an engineer who learned it from an engineer … who learned it from Shockley, the man who not only invented or helped invent the transistor, but also formed a company to mass produce them.

      And thus for industry, industrialization, and technology, we need Ayn Rand’s engineer CEO, using other people’s capital and other people’s labor, who first appeared when Charles the Second made the joint stock for profit corporation respectable and high status. And if you have such a system, if you have a system that has a place for Shockley, it is unmistakably capitalism, even though Shockley did not have substantial capital.

      If no capitalism, then no Shockley. If no Shockley then no transistor, except as curiosity in government laboratories.

      In old type capitalism, before Charles the Second, the expert had to be the owner of substantial capital, which restricted the supply of experts. I am not arguing for that form of capitalism, though it is way better than any of the lefter alternatives. I am defending modern capitalism, the capitalism of Charles the Second. In modern capitalism, the capitalism of Charles the Second (with modifications for the worse such as priestly accounting and priestly Human Resources due to social decay) he does not have to be the owner of substantial capital, which gives us a wider pool of experts, such as Jobs and Shockley. But this does not make it any the less capitalism.

      The Soviet Union tried buying experts on the market from America. It did not altogether fail, but it worked very poorly. Hence the infamous Trabant. Socialism can buy experts on the market, and they get the Trabant.

      > And this is half of the reason of the big success stories from Ford to Jobs. It does not really matter if they owned capital or not, as they made so much profits that they could pay back any loans. And it did not really matter if they ran the daily operations of the business or not. It was this insight that was half of the story. This is something I picked up from

      Jobs was famous, or infamous, for running the business with an iron hand, and Ford almost as infamous. As for running “the daily operations” indeed they did not run the daily operations, but they were very much in charge of those that did, and they had to be in charge of those that did.

      They had to be far too important to run the daily operations, not far too unimportant and replaceable on the market. Everyone at NASA was compelled to treat Wernher von Braun respectfully, and if they had not been compelled to treat him respectfully, those rockets would not have flown. They tried it the other way, and those rockets did not fly. The board of Apple, irritated by Job’s arrogance and certainty that he was right when everyone else was wrong, tried replacing him from the market, only to discover that everyone else was indeed wrong.

      • Ron says:

        From what you say i draw the conclusion is that companies in and pf themselves are less important than the environment that allows men like Shockely, Jobs and Ford to put that together such companies

        The ultimate technology is integrity.

  13. COG World Order says:

    Great post.

    The question is: how are we going to roll back 500 years of cultural Calvinism? It just seems too daunting a task. Sorry to black pill but I just don’t know how it’s really possible to loosen the Calvinist grip on institutional power.

    • jim says:

      Firstly, we have not had “five hundred years of cultural Calvinism” We have had four hundred years of Puritanism, here and there, but it only became world wide empire after World War II.

      The Calvinists were for the most part in favor of rolling back stupid Roman Catholic stuff that contradicted the Bible, such as priestly celibacy.

      By the time the Puritans came on the scene, all the obviously wrong, wicked, and non Biblical stuff had already been dumped, starting with indulgences and soon followed by priestly celibacy. So there was not much left for them to be pure about, but they were determined to be ever purer regardless, so went after marriage, Christmas, cruelty to animals, and such like. And against Bishops having a good time. Since the Catholics had already holiness spiraled celibacy, and the predecessors of the Puritans had rightly thrown this out as contrary to the biblical authority, not to mention common sanity, they could not go celibate, but they could go against oppression of women and so on and so forth. They became a problem in the time of Charles the First, four hundred years ago, not five hundred. And fifty or sixty years after they became a problem, Charles the Second put an end to that problem, followed by approximately one hundred and fifty years of sanity in England, and a rather shorter period of sanity in the US.

      In the Mormon war and the war of Northern Aggression, the State Church of New England conquered North America. So in North America, we have had 154 years of cultural Puritanism. Which is a long run, but previous holiness spirals have had long runs too, and they all self destructed soon enough, sometimes taking the entire population with them.

      Their first run was about sixty years. I doubt this run will make it to 160 years. The Khmer Rouge self destructed in four years, wiping themselves out almost to a man.

      Best case outcome. Trump makes himself Caesar Augustus, and purges the priesthood after the fashion of Charles the Second.

      Worst case outcome: Democrats and deep state take total power, purging first Trump, then Trumpists, then Republicans, then each other. Holy genocide and holy war ensues, rapidly becoming holy nuclear war internal and external. Either way, the left destroys itself. It always does.

      We have been on this merry go round before, many times. It usually ends badly, but, on the other hand, the Restoration was great for England, bringing science, technology, empire, industrialization, and industry, and Dengism (Deng Xiaoping Theory) has been great for China, bringing China out of the darkness it has been in since the Song Dynasty.

      If you take the short view of history, the trend is ever lefter, with Puritan descended ideology winning victory after victory, but if you take the longer view, holiness spirals always self destruct, and this one has reached the point where it is looking mighty self destructive.

      Communism fell in Russia and China. Now it is the turn for Harvard’s empire.

      Syria was Harvard’s Afghanistan. Defeat in Afghanistan showed the Soviet Empire weak, and dominoes started falling all over the place. In the middle east, the color revolution failed horribly, so they tried genocide in Syria. And failed. And then Brazil quietly asserted independence from Harvard. The dominoes are starting to fall. In the Soviet Union they fell all the way to Moscow.

      There is an excellent prospect for tanks rolling into Harvard. If not tanks, nukes.

      • COG World Order says:

        Trump’s spiritual teacher was a Calvinist. Norman Vincent Peale. At any rate we have to keep trusting the plan.

        • jim says:

          Norman Vincent Peale is not a subscriber to Puritan descended ideology. He was cast out by the priesthood for heresy.

          The last time one of his pupils reached the White House was Richard Nixon, and the Cathedral’s reaction to Richard Nixon was similar to its reaction to Trump.

          Peal is an enemy of our enemies. Which does not make him a friend. Trump, on the other hand, is our leader, whether he likes it or not. I don’t think he planned to be Augustus Caesar, but now he is caught by the tide of history, which is carrying him to be Augustus Caesar or die. He is caught in our reality, not Vincent Peale’s reality.

          • Mike says:

            I don’t doubt that the Left will collapse, they always have before. The scary part is that leftist collapse in the modern world could mean nuclear war, and in that case there will be no good outcome for anyone.

            Although it us true that the USSR fell without nuclear apocalypse.

  14. COG World Order says:

    Agreed. As they say friends close enemies closer. This includes enemies of enemies. One has to live with and understand the Puritan to bring down the Puritan hegemon. Any day now the Trumpian restoration will commence and all those crypto-calvinists will be toast!

  15. Dave says:

    Watch the video before reading the article:

    Wow, I can’t even. The script could have been written by Colin Flaherty! Does this mean that people not named Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock are allowed to make fun of niggers now?

  16. Aldon says:

    All you need to do to out lolbertarians is just ask one of them if the state criminalizing abortion clinincs, forcing fags back in the closet on threat of violence/shaming, and treating trannies as sexual predators to be shoved into asylums would be supported by them. They’ll say no every time.

    • Dave says:

      Libertarians aren’t conservatives; they support sexual freedom, so letting your freak flag fly is fine with them. The contradiction arises when private entities don’t want to associate with freaks (e.g. by baking them a wedding cake) and libertarians say they have to. Libertarians also deny my right to not live near black people because it impinges on the freedom of blacks who don’t want to live near black people.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        The contradiction arises when private entities don’t want to associate with freaks (e.g. by baking them a wedding cake) and libertarians say they have to.

        That’s the new, post-entry libertarianism. Old, non-infiltrated libertarianism was fine with saying no to the prog pets.

        This doesn’t mean that the old libertarian position was correct – it failed because there are things that are outside any contract that are needed for a healthy society – people looking out for other people’s children because you’re part of a community, social enforcement of marriage norms on women looking to trade up, etc. The only way libertarianism could function would be if you could buy your way into a sealed off non-libertarian society to have children. Of course then you run into the universalist portion of libertarianism which is that everyone must individually consent to social rules – meaning that the reason you left society – to raise children – is exactly the point of friction because they demand to liberate your children.

Leave a Reply