Listen to what the enemy does not say

The New York Times issued a vague and meandering editorial on the latest developments in the ever escalating crisis.

“No simple resolution is available” – and then conspicuously fails to mention some simple resolutions.

“Congress … can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas.”

Why not, you ask? What is unsaid is that Congress attempting to enforce its will against the President without going through the impeachment process would be the first step into Civil War II, which would probably end with Trump as King.

The younger, browner, and dumber Democrats may well snatch power from the frail and failing hands of the elderly white Democrats, and if they do, are dumb enough to start Civil War II, but they are probably not going to snatch power tomorrow morning.

“Impeaching a president for refusing to participate in an impeachment inquiry is a kind of meta-impeachment. It would allow Mr. Trump to argue that the meta-impeachment is illegitimate because it isn’t based on an investigation.” Why not hold the impeachment inquiry without Trump’s cooperation, as they did with Nixon on Watergate, and then impeach Trump both for the Ukraine and for failure to cooperate as they impeached Nixon both for Watergate and for failure to cooperate? Why not follow long established precedent? It is not as if there is any genuine doubt about what happened in the Ukraine. The purpose of the proposed inquiry is not resolve doubt, but to manufacture doubt where there is no genuinely doubt, to manufacture smoke regardless of the existence of fire, to obfuscate Democratic crimes in the Ukraine with much shouting, posturing, and vague accusation.

Because long established precedent is the briar patch that Brer Rabbit wants to be thrown into. Trump wants a full blown trial in the Senate with the power to call witnesses and compel testimony on what happened in the Ukraine.

By calling an impeachment on failure to cooperate without impeachment on the underlying charges “a kind of meta impeachment” the New York Times implicitly admits that such an impeachment would be unprecedented and arguably unconstitutional, like finding someone guilty of obstructing justice without finding that there was some underlying wrongful conduct for him to obstruct justice in

If the House impeaches for non cooperation, without impeaching on the matter that cooperation is being demanded upon, then the Senate cannot investigate the matter that cooperation is demanded upon, so cannot investigate whether the cooperation was reasonable, so it would be flagrantly outrageous and unjust for any Senator to vote for impeachment, and that would bite them in the next election.

What is unsaid is that full court dress trial in the Senate inquiring into the Ukraine would be a catastrophe for the Democrats, a catastrophe that Trump is trying to maneuver them into, and a catastrophe that the whiter, smarter, elderly, and frail Democrats are trying desperately to avoid.

316 Responses to “Listen to what the enemy does not say”

  1. […] Listen To What The Enemy Does Not Say […]

  2. The Cominator says:

    “What is unsaid is that full court dress trial in the Senate inquiring into the Ukraine would be a catastrophe for the Democrats, a catastrophe that Trump is trying to maneuver them into, and a catastrophe that the whiter, smarter, elderly, and frail Democrats are trying desperately to avoid.”

    Pelosi and the old smart and evil democrats are going to get forced into it the coalition of the woke, the SJWs, the commies etc. are all demanding it and Pelosi being a corrupt psychopath Democrat of the old school cares more about her political survival then anything else.

    Trump is going to keep escalating with requests for foreign countries to prosecute democrats and their henchmen constantly as well… which is actually better then prosecuting them in DC because it avoids the DC jury pool. Since so many of them are connected to looting various former Eastern bloc and third world countries through the Clinton Foundation they are really fucked.

    I just don’t know when things start for real but despite what the blackpillers say I’m confident it will happen.

    • The Cominator says:

      Trump could also publically support House Republicans VOTING FOR the start a formal impeachment inquiry to end this pseudo impeachment farce (complete with a “discharge petititon”) and then for a trial in the Senate.

      Nobody has suggested this idea but why not…

      • jim says:

        Nah: “Please Brer Fox, don’t throw me into the briar patch. Anything but that.”

        • The Cominator says:

          If Pelosi doesn’t budge its a good plan B…

          • TBeholder says:

            Pelosi is making noises in semi-approval to stay “relevant”, but she never really commits. This seems to be her entire game now. She said “an entirely new investigation”, right? After this ends in tears, she can say: “What’s so complicated? This meant being diligent, not jumping the gun, you silly kids!” :]

            • I AM says:

              Never underestimate the power of simply outlasting your opponent.

              Trump is 73, and could pass for 60.

              Pelosi is 79 and looks it.

              Like vigor, like skin, like brain.

      • Trumpeter says:

        Ted Cruze tried that with Dem’s regarding ilegal aliens, about voting and welfare. That was very easy for his opponents to misrepresent his views. Nobody else is going to follow that trail.

        Ps: Not a Cruze fan

        • The Cominator says:

          I was a Ted Cruz fan in 2013 when Ted Cruz was the the main force who held off amnesty (and other things attached to amnesty) until Eric Cantor got primaried.

          I did not think he could win a General Election and thought he was hopelessly compromised if he did because he lined up with the Bush family to try to steal the Convention from Trump. Also hes a lawyer and his wife works very directly for the enemy.

          Ted Cruz should have openly admitted to banging Amanda Carpenter for years (he is probably her kids real father) who is way hotter then his wife… he would have done better.

  3. Karl says:

    I agree with your last paragraph that a full court dress trial that the whiter, smarter, elderly, and frail Democrats are trying desperately to avoid.

    Doesn’t this indicate that those (few) Democrats are not entirely delusional? In your post “Draing the swamp” you had argued that delusion goes all the way to the top (second comment). Did mean a different delusion? Or are the the whiter, smarter, elderly, and frail Democrats having a reason that is compatible with delusion for avoiding a full trial?

    • jim says:

      I think they were delusional when they started on this course, but now reality is penetrating, at least on some of them. It is penetrating on the New York Times.

      • I AM says:

        It’s really quite a shame that Mr. Trump swooped into Office just as the National Security State had so very nearly hollowed out the Congress.

        Terrible, terrible shame.

  4. […] Listen to what the enemy does not say […]

  5. DrDog says:

    “… an impeachment would be unprecedented and arguably unconstitutional, like finding someone guilty of obstructing justice without finding that there was some underlying wrongful conduct for him to obstruct justice in”

    Excuse me, but that is exactly what Manafort has been charged with — obstruction. And the charges stuck.

    • Not Tom says:

      But the obstruction charges did not stick to Trump, no matter how many times they tried or how much propaganda the media put out. Ultimately Mueller himself was forced to conclude that an obstruction charge would not fly without any underlying crime.

      Of course they could make the charges stick to Manafort, because no one really cares about Manafort and that’s just an exercise in raw power. They have already tried once and failed to do the same with Trump, and in the case of Ukraine it is a lot more obvious what they are covering up.

      • The Cominator says:

        Manafort’s financial crimes (while they may be nothing that everyone big in the District of Corruption is not doing) are somewhat real and even Trump apparently said of Manafort once “I have a crook working for me” (still I think Manafort should be pardoned on general principle that Trump should not let the Democrats touch his own people anymore). Trump they just can’t find any real crimes (unless they want to go back to the 1980s and him paying off the mob to avoid labor trouble in Manhattan construction) and even if they could he is a sitting president and we don’t care.

        • Filthy Liar says:

          Trump does not have people, because that would imply his loyalty isn’t entirely transactional.

          • I AM says:

            In the White House, loyalty has always been unidirectional.

            The great man, Mr. Trump, has seized the hinge of world history from the grabbly grasp of the Eternal Financier, that international clique of literal satanists, ritual pedophiles, and possible cannibalists.

            Have a little gratitude.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      Manafort was universally regarded as the apex of Washington swamp corruption, specifically as a profiteer lobbyist for the world’s most corrupt governments, long before he worked for Trump. Articles and exposes were published on this, it was very well publicized. It was so bad that one had to wonder in 2016 whether whoever advised Trump to hire Manafort was actually trying to sink Trump’s candidacy by association.

      That’s why a variety of charges stuck to Manafort. He was an easy target who could have been prosecuted successfully at any time before he worked for Trump, but doing so would have been far too disruptive to the lobbyist business model (which he merely carried to its logical conclusion). Finally the left got around to it the minute Trump was elected, thinking (as Jim says) that if Manafort was dirty he must also have dirt on Trump.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Manafort was universally regarded as the apex of Washington swamp corruption, specifically as a profiteer lobbyist for the world’s most corrupt governments, long before he worked for Trump. Articles and exposes were published on this, it was very well publicized. It was so bad that one had to wonder in 2016 whether whoever advised Trump to hire Manafort was actually trying to sink Trump’s candidacy by association.”

        Trump had Manafort for one reason, to prevent any Republican convention shennanigans ie to make sure he was actually nominated. I’m not saying Manafort is a saint but it sends a bad message for Trump to let him rot…

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          Agree, though Trump may be waiting for the Horowitz and Barr-Durham investigations (and some of the court cases now backfiring on Mueller prosecutors) to run their course before issuing pardons. I hope that’s what is happening and not simply leaving Flynn, Manafort, Stone and now Giuliani to rot.

          Manafort, by the way, prolonged the Angolan civil war (by subverting peace negotiations) so that he could continue collecting lobbying fees from Jonas Savimbi.

  6. TBeholder says:

    The younger, browner, and dumber Democrats may well snatch power from the frail and failing hands of the elderly white Democrats, and if they do, are dumb enough to start Civil War II, but they are probably not going to snatch power tomorrow morning.

    I’m rather entertained by the part of this struggle where Nanny Pelosi performs the juggling act in which she would let the Kindergarten Squad crash and burn on impeachment, but never join the failboat herself.

  7. The Cominator says:

    Also on the cultural front.

    I’ve noticed a sudden spike (after a particulary nauseating period of all entertainment being in fact nauseating Cathedral propaganda of the sort that would have pissed Stalin and Goebbels off because they both said the people need actual entertainment in media sometimes) in unwokeness in entertainment media.

    Joker DOES have intolerable thought crimes that should particulary appeal to those of us here… I don’t want to go into detail for a couple weeks.

    And now Seth MacFarlane (he will not get a helicopter ride because I’m convinced his leftism IS pure green grocerism, his comedy has remained unwoke and punching down as it should be, despite sometimes blatantly virtue signalling by mocking Trump) is doing this episode on the tranny issue…

    [blockquote]Excuse me, ma’am, no porn at the bar.” Ida replies: “Oh, it’s OK, I’m transgender.”

    “Oh, I had no idea,” the bartender apologises, “Do whatever you want all the time.”

    He (Brian) only decides to go public with the relationship after his family tells him it’s 2019 and “things that were gross five years ago are now heroic”.[/blockquote]

    As Jim has mentioned Alt-Hero is a big seller… I’m not generally a huge fan of Teddy Spaghetti but if he successfully becomes a profit sucking irritant to “woke” comics and sci-fi (I mean for real not the way he has claimed he has for years) then that is wonderful.

    • Joker does have some intolerable thought crimes in it that its critics are not allowed to acknowledge. Spoiler-free, Joker’s social isolation is set up in the first 20 minutes of the movie by having all his interactions be with black characters, but no leftist is allowed to notice this because they would have to voice the thoughtcrime that being surrounded by diversity is demeaning and isolating.

      • The Cominator says:

        The character who represents capitalism is blamed for it all by everybody but is innocent of everything and the gynocracy and the bureaucracy are the actual guilty parties…

        Can’t say more without spoilers.

  8. Dave says:

    Since the First Gulf War, America has fought with the goal of scoring a quick victory with minimal bloodshed on both sides. Our enemies quickly surrendered to this “shock and awe”, only to unsurrender later, a problem we didn’t have with Germany, Japan, or the Confederacy. I often wondered, would it not be better to slow down our war machine and give the enemy false hope of victory, so that they throw everything they have into battle and get utterly annihilated?

    Perhaps Trump has had similar thoughts, and is deliberately not going for a first-round knockout against the Democrats. He knows that quick victories are temporary victories, so he’s goading the Dems into calling up all their reserves, activating all their sleeper cells, importing millions of foreign mercenaries, abandoning all pretense of legality, openly embracing anti-nomian morality, waging total war, and suffering total defeat.

    • The Cominator says:

      When the goal is strategic envelopment of a numerically superior enemy it generally cannot be accomplished except via the Mongol gambit ie the feigned retreat, rhe fwigned retreat is very effective but requires high morale. Luckily Trumps nonwignat supporters DO have high morale.

    • Allah says:

      Our enemies quickly surrendered to this “shock and awe”, only to unsurrender later

      Is this another stupid NRX meme? Will you(or anyone else) permanently disarm and give up when you are defeated?

      • The Cominator says:

        Surrendering and immediately unsurrendering (its not a stupid NRx meme it is a very good NRx meme) is predominantly a Muslim tactic no matter how much you want to say otherwise.

        Even the Irish tended to be tranquil for at least a generation after a revolt was put down.

        Its not that all others permanently give up, but if you surrender you should damn well give up for a while.

        • Allah says:

          I beat up someone vaguely related to you somewhere at some time, how come you don’t just give up and serve me in perpetuity?!?!? You are unsurrendering! Now I have to genocide you all.

          • jim says:

            If a side cannot be trusted to make peace, we should never make peace with them. It is that simple. We just have to fight on until we kill or enslave them all. Christians repeatedly make peace when it is foolish to make peace, and Mohammedans repeatedly take advantage of this.

            That the French procedure ended Islamic terrorism for over a century tells us something.

            • Allah says:

              Define everyone against you as one side, then be surprised when they mysteriously fail to act as one side.

              • alf says:

                I think it’s also an HBD thing. Blacks, when they feel cornered, chimp out. Muslims do not chimp out as quick as blacks, but as a faction, they do the same thing. Whites, when conquered, like when Germans conquered the Netherlands in 1940, realize the best course of action is not chimping out.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Blacks who arent muslim do not unsurrender the way muslims do. The Islamic religion encourages lying and breaking faith with infidels.

                • Allah says:

                  There is no “unsurrendering”. It’s a retarded meme manufacted with the intent to make genocide more palatable for modern Westerners.

                • jim says:

                  There is thirteen centuries of history telling us that letting Mohammedans surrender is a very bad idea.

                • alf says:

                  Whose talking about genocide? Read up on the peace of westphalia and stop being a paranoid snake.

                • Allah says:

                  That’s your Gnon-compliant history, letting you interpret itself in whatever way lets you do whatever it is you want to do at that point in time.

                • pdimov says:

                  Demanding that when one surrenders one waives one’s right to ever “unsurrender” is like demanding that one can sell oneself into slavery and never repudiate the deal.

                  Only the most hardcore libertarians defend it.

                • jim says:

                  If you have good reason to believe that the enemy will unsurrender in short order, why accept surrender?

                  America’s Barbary wars illustrate the futility of making peace with an enemy that will not make peace.

                • ten says:

                  Any surrender has terms for peace, which if reneged on makes the winning side lose out – they didnt have to stop the conflict, but did, betting on peace term compliance. If there can never be any peace of any sort because the loser is a backstabbing demonic snake, and only surrenders to attack at first opportunity, this makes surrender and peace pointless. Islam makes peace pointless because it is not different from war, except gives islam some respite before it restarts its machinic evil.

                  So yes indeed, when you are shown the mercy to be allowed to surrender, you are granted the privilege to be treated as an honourable and reasonable creature of god – if you abuse this privilege, you are not those things, and noone should ever make peace with you, but kill you wherever you are found.

                • pdimov says:

                  I’m in the “ethnic not religious” camp. The propensity to revolt varies with ethnicity, not religion. It’s not like the people under Ottoman rule, for instance, didn’t periodically revolt.

                  In general mountain people are hard to rule and prone to uprisings, regardless of religion. Although it’s quite possible that Islam appeals to them more, because nowadays most mountain people seem to be Muslim.

                • jim says:

                  You are thinking in the context of empire. The context of the Mohammedan problem is that Mohammedan keep making war on their neighbors, and have to be ruled in order to stop them. They are not revolting to be left alone, they are revolting to expel their neighbors. The disastrous peaces of the Christians consisted of crushing the Mohammedans, and then agreeing to a peace where both sides left the other alone – only to be attacked again very shortly afterwards. That is definitely a problem particular to attempting to deal with Mohammedans.

                • pdimov says:

                  This problem is solved by dealing disproportionate damage in response to each hostility. As a result they get creative in their nonviolent provocations – the latest fad being symbolic claim of territory via mass prayer at the city square – with “Allah” waiting at the sidelines for the opportunity to accuse you of irrational genocide.

                  A bit irritating but manageable. The real problem was British Empire’s support for Islam against her rivals, followed by America’s support for Islam (Turkey, Saudi Arabia) against her rival Russia, which will be followed by America’s support for Islam against her rival China.

                • shaman says:

                  The hijabi elephant in the room is that if Christians were to periodically pull off Bataclan-style shitshows in Islamic countries, Christian communities would be presently expelled therefrom. (Just kidding lozozozl: Christians are cleansed from the House of Submission anyway, despite not engaging in terrorism against their “hospitable and tolerant” hosts) Meanwhile, Muslims know that no matter how many unbelieving infidels are slain in accordance with the very explicit and binding Jihadi dicta that constitute significant portions of the Koran and the Hadith, the local Muslim community will be so preciously protected by the treasonous authorities that not a single hair will fall off a Koranimal’s olive-oiled beard in retribution.

                  https://kuruc.info/galeriaN/egyeb/cssz1931805.jpg

                • Not Tom says:

                  This problem is solved by dealing disproportionate damage in response to each hostility.

                  This works in the absence of third-party subversion. I don’t think it’s been very effective for Israel, for example, because every retaliation gets spun into jihad-positive PR at the UN, State Department, and many news networks, and becomes its own recruiting tool.

                  Then again, maybe they’d be even worse off if they didn’t respond with disproportionate force. The least effective countermeasures seem to be the ones where they do stupid things like distribute flyers in advance to warn everyone, “hey, we are about to bomb the shit out of this area!” That is what you get for having women and homos in the military.

                • Anonymous says:

                  The disastrous peaces of the Christians consisted of crushing the Mohammedans, and then agreeing to a peace where both sides left the other alone – only to be attacked again very shortly afterwards. That is definitely a problem particular to attempting to deal with Mohammedans.

                  It is almost as if Islam was designed to take advantage of the infinite cheek turns failure mode of Christianity. The fix, of course, and as stated many times on this blog, is to turn the other cheek once and then go genocidal.

                • Well, Seyss-Inquart was giving orders like if three men come together on the street for a chat, shoot at them without warning. That was not a time when chimping out would have helped things.

              • jim says:

                The lesson of history is clear. The French procedure for dealing with the Barbary pirates kept Dar al Islam quiet for one hundred and thirty years. Therefore Dar al Islam is one side and if any Mohammedans give us trouble, need to deal with them as the French did.

                The American procedure for dealing with the Barbary pirates immediately resulted in more American ships being seized and more Americans enslaved. This was not weakness, but Christianity that had been holiness spiraled, though not yet holier than God.

                • Allah says:

                  This should be expected from a guy who claims his entire civilization collapsed because of some fat king.

                  You’re so deep into your posturing and dramatic quotes you don’t realize you aren’t talking to one of your disciples.

                • Not Tom says:

                  you don’t realize you aren’t talking to one of your disciples

                  Says the individual who has stated in no uncertain terms that he’d kill every one of us if he had the opportunity.

                  Must you shit up every thread?

                • Allah says:

                  Shitting up? You should be thanking me for giving you much needed outsider feedback. Ungrateful swine.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The shitskin thinks we never hear non reactionary opinions… He has to be some kind of shitlib who believes the white male reactionary patriarchy is the establishment.

                • Allah says:

                  Don’t even get me started on you calling yourselves reactionary. At least “neoreaction” acknowledges it’s something else.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Please explain your agenda here… you claim to be not a muslim and be a secular Turk and to be fair I think a muslim would find your name blasphemous, but yet your primary agenda here seems to defend goatfucking moon worshippers.

                  Truly secular right wing Turks (ie Kemalists) fucking HATE HATE HATE Islam and if Turdogan falls will probably take extremely repressive measures to wipe the religion out entirely, so that being said how could you object to the Jimian program for muslims.

                • The Cominator says:

                  https://i.ytimg.com/vi/37KPRrffvXU/hqdefault.jpg

                  Whos man are you you mother whoring Turkish nigger?!

                • Allah says:

                  What prompted this outburst? Something wrong?

                  As a matter of fact, shitskins can have their own opinions unique to their person. Hard to believe, one would have the impression that Westerners are the protagonists of existence and all others are supporting characters or extras.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Hard to believe, one would have the impression that Westerners are the protagonists of existence and all others are supporting characters or extras.”

                  This is the way white SJWs talk not genuine 3rd worlders, I think you just let the fucking mask slip.

                  This is no Turk you were right Jim I think some shitlib working in Turkey. I think Turdogan is smart enough to ban NGOs but he could be working at an embassy or consulate.

                • Allah says:

                  Pray tell, how do “genuine third worlders” think? Ooga booga kill whitey gibsmedats Allahu akbar ay caramba muh dick?

                • The Cominator says:

                  You had a good act and I genuinely couldn’t figure out what kind of shill you were and THAT was pissing me off because normally I can tell VERY quickly but you let it slip.

                  Talking about how us evil white western reactionaries see ourselves as protaganist… its like something a white academic SJW (or someone trying to cater to them) would say. The only thing you left out was accusing us of having white privilege.

                  Now as you don’t fit into the typical shill scripts I don’t believe you are a full true believing SJW or that your masters require that of you… possibly you are a higher level shill. A spook attached to an embassy staff in Turkey researching the reactionary political right on the side, you are left wing but not full on woke and they don’t require you to be full on woke. Hence you mouth mild thoughtcrimes (so as not to immediately be identified as a shill).

                  Something like that… I’d like to here the theory of Jim and others.

                • Allah says:

                  Look at yourself. You literally can not believe that I have my own opinions. Not that you have any yourself. What would Jim and others say about the thought process of genuine third worlders?

                • jim says:

                  You protest too much. Because you are a Mohammedan, we don’t take anything you say at face value. And some of the things you say: “It is not a religious conflict, it is an ethnic conflict” are clearly false. So we ask where is this guy coming from and what is he trying to do?

                  Which are reasonable questions. And if your opinions were your own, they would be more consistent with each other. Your untruths serve Dar al Islam nationalism, rather than Turkish nationalism, much as the supposed rightist who supposedly hates Jews and continually rants that Trump is an orange Jew who is engaging in race replacement is issuing untruths that serve the progressive goals he supposedly opposes.

                  I was expecting untruths that fit the goals of the State Department’s ngos, who want color revolution in Turkey, color revolution being thin pretext for war against Turkey, but some of the things you say do not fit with that. But they don’t fit with your supposed Turkish nationalist identity either.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hes not a real Mohammedian either because read his posts to me… all that is missing from “Westerner protagonists” is crap about white privilege. Mohammedians don’t talk like that, ever.

                  Hes not on a typical shill script, I think hes a glownagger who is researching right wing extremism on the side while doing a day job at some embassy or consulate in Turkey.

                • The Cominator says:

                  His support for the nationalism of Dar al Islam is consistent with his being a cia agent in Turkey as the spooks in the Middle East for whatever insane reason have long supported the Islamists.

                • jim says:

                  Makes sense. He could be the Turkish equivalent of all those FBI agents saying “Hail fellow white nationalist anti semite. We need to get bad orange Jew impeached.” If so, he is probably telling Turkish nationalists that the true Turkish nationalism is something that has a suspicious resemblance to Islamism and the true enemy of Turkish nationalism is Erdogan.

                  Also that Erdogan is weak, getting weaker, and going to go, as the FBI agents tell us that Trump is responsible bringing illegals across the border, that anything bad that happens on his watch is under his control, and simultaneously tell us that Trump is weak, getting weaker, and is going to go.

                • Allah says:

                  Portraying ethnic conflicts as religious conflicts helps the Chinese, helped the Serbs, will continue to help Westerners. You don’t know a single thing about Turkish politics. I refuse to argue this topic with you after your “Turks killed Armenians because they were jealous” disaster.

                  Consistency, huh? Let’s hear it. Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Wasn’t Jesus a bastard?

                • jim says:

                  > Portraying ethnic conflicts as religious conflicts helps the Chinese, helped the Serbs, will continue to help Westerners.

                  Helps everyone except the world’s one source of violent religious conflict: Dar Al Islam.

                  Observe the maps of terrorist incidents. There is a ribbon of blood along the entire border of Dar Al Islam. Looks like a war, in which one entity is attacking everyone else.

                  If these were ethnic conflicts, conflicts between many small entities and many other small entities, they would be all over the place. Instead, they are a circle of blood marking the border of Dar al Islam. And in most cases, these “ethnic minorities” speak in the language or dialect of the neighboring country which is part of Dar al Islam, as for example, the Rohingya, who speak in a dialect that Bangladeshis understand, but Burmese do not.

                • Allah says:

                  No, I will not observe maps of malicious and arbitrary terms like terrorism.

                  You can make these exact statements about China, Russia, West, etc.

                • jim says:

                  > You can make these exact statements about China, Russia, West, etc.

                  You can make these exact same statements because China, Russia, West, etc are each effectively a single entity, at least as far as people who are at war with one of them are concerned.

                  For Dar al Harb, Dar al Islam is one country, and that country is attacking.

                  Dar al Islam is united enough to make war, but not united enough to make peace. For that problem, there is only one solution. The French applied it back when they had balls, and the Chinese are applying it now.

                • The Cominator says:

                  We know you glow in the dark now so drop the act.

                • Allah says:

                  True. Doubling down on my claim, you could also make those statements about Christians and Jews also.

                  China won’t be defeating Muslims, they will be defeating Uyghurs, as they defeated many other minorities before them. Same for Russia and Chechens, and Arabs for the West.

                • jim says:

                  > you could also make those statements about Christians and Jews also.

                  Obviously you cannot – the bloody borders surround Dar al Islam, not Christendom, and Israel’s borders are only bloody as the rest of Dar al Islam’s borders are bloody. Christians forgive, often unwisely, and are generous in victory, which Mohammedans always interpret as weakness, because they would never make concessions unless defeated, and respond to forgiveness and generosity by blowing up shopping malls. Jews are obnoxious about Christmas, litigate against it, but they do not drive trucks into Christmas shoppers. Hindus are irritated by Christian missionaries, but you don’t see Christians killing Hindus or Hindus killing Christians. You see Mohammedans killing Hindus, and Hindus fighting back. Hindus are on the bloody borders of Islam, and on the peaceful and friendly borders of Christianity.

                  > China won’t be defeating Muslims, they will be defeating Uyghurs.

                  China has a massive police apparatus which watches for Mohammedan identity, not for Uyghur identity. China is fine with Epcot style diversity, and are trying to Epcotize its Mohammedans into a mere Uyghur identity, which will be yet another tourist attraction. When Islam is defeated Uyghurs will be dressing up in traditional Uyghur costume, much of it swiped from Disney’s Alladin, for the Han Chinese tourist,and holding traditional Uyghur festivals, many of them recently invented, that Han Chinese tourists will attend.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Turdogan is an islamist goatfucker not a nationalist. The Kemalists are nationalists.

                • jim says:

                  He is not Islamist enough for the Cathedral.

                • pdimov says:

                  Kemalists were nationalists in the progressive sense – loyalty to the nation instead of loyalty to the monarch.

                  Erdogan is a nationalist in the reactionary sense – loyalty to the nation instead of loyalty to something transnational.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You absolutely cannot be both a muslim and a nationalist as Islam is as anti-nationalist as Trotskyism.

                  Erdogan may be trying to cynically play both sides (while not believing in either) but he weakened his country doing that, as Islam was subdued and he and all his followers should have been murdered by the army long ago… and only EU protection kept them from doing so.

                • Not Tom says:

                  We should consider the possibility that he’s literally just a troll, not loyal to any particular faction, but also not here for any constructive purpose, just to annoy people and monopolize attention.

                  Observe quotes like this one:

                  You should be thanking me for giving you much needed outsider feedback. Ungrateful swine.

                  These aren’t the words of a serious person. They’re the kind of thing I’d say if I were really bored and wanted to go stir up drama on bluecheck Twitter or at an AOC presser.

                  Maybe the narrative is not consistent with Cathedral, not entirely consistent with Islam (but I’d say 98% consistent), definitely not consistent with Nationalist Turk. Well, maybe just a troll. It happens; every community attracts them when it starts to become important enough. You can expect trolls to have no consistency whatsoever, going from “I’m your eager student!” to “Haha stupid Jeebus-worshipers” in a grand total of 4 hours.

                • pdimov says:

                  His (mostly implied) knowledge about the Ottoman empire and Turkic peoples is consistent with him being a Turk.

                  But he doesn’t hate Kurds, so he’s probably some weak urban Turk who wears glasses and votes against Erdogan.

                  🙂

                • The Cominator says:

                  Why do I have to keep saying that Turdogan is NOT any kind of right winger or nationalist. Real Turkish nationalists are Kemalists and Kemalists hate Islam.

                  If Turkey didn’t want to join the EU so badly years ago (which was crazy) Turd and his followers would have been rounded up and shot by the army as they should have been.

                • jim says:

                  Agree totally, but the Cathedral is none too keen on Erdogan either, though the liked him at first, because they hate the military.

                  The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but he is still the enemy of my enemy.

                • pdimov says:

                  In Turkey (and not just there) the electoral division is between urban, secular, liberal, low fertility, against Erdogan on one side, and rural, religious, conservative, high fertility, for Erdogan, on the other. In a democracy, you can figure out who’s bound to win in the long term.

                  Secular or democratic, pick one. Many such cases.

                  Who’s the real right wing is mostly an academic question.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Without going into any detail or providing any evidence or justification for my assertion, I am going to say that allah should be IP banned. He is not a mohamedan. He is not representative of any group or faction whose perspective is needed. Tom’s guess is the closest, but there is a danger here. I won’t say it again so if you guys decide to keep him around, don’t say you weren’t warned.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If you know who he is and why he is dangerous… why not say. And certainly my guess (that he glows in the dark) would make him more dangerous then being a random troll…

                • pdimov says:

                  What are you studying, “Allah”?

                • The Cominator says:

                  I left MA and im not going back not just no but fuck no… Im horrible at faking shit being a sperg and ive been a very vocal Trump supporter also went to engineering school not harvard (I do have a very good old friend who went to harvard law but he hates the law too and now like the god emperor works as a real estate developer… Maybe he could).

                  Even were i willing to go back infiltrating the cathedral upper levels… I cant think of many people less suited then I.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Replied to wrong post because phone posting sucks… “Anonymous” suggested that since i was in MA i could infiltrate Harvard to find out how the media was controlled…

                • jim says:

                  You would have to be someone important in Harvard. The climategate files and the Clinton emails were leaked by a high level insider, not Joe random climate scientist.

                • pdimov says:

                  I was asking “Allah” what he’s studying, not asking you whether you were studying him. 🙂

                • pdimov says:

                  Ah sorry.

                • Allah says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. I make arguments against your point, and you “reply” to those arguments by restating your initial point.

                  That is not a conversation, but a waste of space. Should I restate my arguments?

                • I AM says:

                  What things Arabs and Mohametans have done to injure my life and my civilization are eclipsed several orders of magnitude by what the Jews have done to injure the same.

                  And they (the Mohametans) haven’t been relevant (if they ever were) since at least the time of the Reformation, making all modern MUSSEL MAN BAD rhetoric necessarily a byproduct of, and servant to, Israeli foreign policy interests.

                • jim says:

                  Paying attention to the Jew while ignoring his boss, as for example paying attention to Soros and Victoria Nuland in the Ukraine, makes you a servant to the national security state – and often a literal servant, as in receiving pay for services, as with the Troofers, who point with outrage at supposedly suspicious behavior by everyone, while ignoring the genuinely suspicious conduct of Mueller and the FBI and unfailingly change the subject whenever you raise it.

                  Jews are the matador’s cape. Stop telling us to ignore the matador’s sword and chase the matador’s cape.

                  Treasonous elites hire hostile outgroups to do their dirty work, but these days they are hiring dot Indians to replace Jews.

                • I AM says:

                  If Victoria Nuland, Jewess and globe-trotting star agent of the Department of State and one-time nearly-president-of the Ukraine, is a “mere employee”, then the Department of State is itself an empty vessel, serving the whims of its private owners.

                  I’m sure they’ve no relation to the very fine people who established the Federal Reserve, threw the Bolshevik Revolution, forcefully ignited WWII, bombed the WTC, crushed Libya, and sponsored ISIS.

                  Very fine people.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Soros and Victoria Nuland were serving the state department, which was at that time headed by Hillary Clinton, and their activities were highly lucrative for Clinton and Vice President Biden.

                  You suppose some vast enormously powerful and invisible Jew/Capitalist conspiracy, when the actual conspiracies are in plain sight, and keep suffering terrible leaks.

                  Who was in charge?

                  Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

                  At his rallies, Trump calls out the deep state and the lines of power running through it.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > friend who went to harvard law

                  Don’t ask me how I know this, but there are a few *open* Trump supporters at Harvard Law School (yes, some are spergs who also espouse even more unnameable positions beyond mere Trumpism). Therefore, probably also quite a number of closeted ones in terror of being discovered. Heck, imagine what pseudo Trump (and Epstein) supporter Dershowitz would say if he could speak freely.

                • FP Supremacist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for obscurity. Possibly you are parodying someone or something. Possibly you are insane. Whatever you are attempting to say is not clear, and whomever you are attempting to parody, not recognizing who it is.

              • Not Tom says:

                (a) Muslims aren’t the only enemy of NRx, in fact, they aren’t even the most important. Don’t flatter yourself.

                (b) AMALT.

                • Allah says:

                  You are on the side of the truth and Good and your enemies are evil liars, therefore all your enemies are really the same if you think about it.

                • Commentator says:

                  All sandniggers need to fuck off.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You are on the side of the truth and Good and your enemies are evil liars, therefore all your enemies are really the same if you think about it.

                  You don’t really actually read anything we write, do you? It’s as though you pick out a few words here and there and assume you know the rest. Again, reminiscent of how progressives “read” and “converse with” reactionaries.

                  Because if you did actually read, you’d know that this has, from day one, been one of my main points of contention with Jim. Where he sees central control, deliberate evil, intentional lies and conscious planning, I see social contagion, acts of desperation, profound delusion, and school-of-fish coordination. Of course, the outcome – and the cure – are the same either way.

                  You frequently say “evil” as a stand-in for “malice” because you don’t see a difference between the two, which is precisely the psychology of evil – “I must be good because I’m doing what I think is right, not acting maliciously”. On the other hand, we generally define evil as “against civilization and the natural order”, which apparently is an alien concept to you.

                • jim says:

                  > from day one, been one of my main points of contention with Jim. Where he sees central control, deliberate evil, intentional lies and conscious planning.

                  At the recent rally, Lake Charles Louisiana, Trump called out how every newsman in the mainstream media simultaneously used the word “manufactured”, which had never been used in that context before. That is central planning.

                  When every single academic in every university in the USG hegemony turns on a dime and forgets that they and their university ever held a contrary position, that is central planning.

                  Suddenly everyone simultaneously in the media or in academia has a new meme. When we have new memes, you can trace that one particular post started it. When they have new memes, they all magically appear simultaneously everywhere, and it is often difficult or impossible, as with “manufactured” to see how it got simultaneously on everyone’s lips. Everyone is suddenly in agreement, with no visible process of how they came into agreement.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim is right that there is some kind of command and control mechanism for the priesthood, we can even see that with the press that is coordinated through the intelligence agencies… good evidence for this gets presented on the “chans” every once in a while (as well as “Operation Mockkingbird” being a matter of record).

                  What we can’t figure out because it is seemingly kept so obscure is the command and control, who gives the orders and how are the orders enforced in case people don’t want to go along.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You are right in that the left’s command and control is getting more incompetent and more driven by radicalism from below (ie the coalition of the woke) as the smart evil leftists are all old and have one foot in the grave.

                  When they all die there will be no conscious planning and no command and control. And there command and control has gotten much much less competent lately, which is why I view Trump’s win as inevitable. The left’s political tactics and strategy is very Douglas Haig right now… trying to wear us down with constant stupidly futile and costly attacks hoping sheer weight of their media advantage will crush us.

                  Trump plays it more like Genghis Khan… constantly luring the enemy into traps and unwinnable situations. Pelosi furiously trying to avoid impeachment is the 1st sign of the far left being restrained but I doubt she can hold things back and even if she can Trump could actually tell house republicans to discharge petition it and end the farce…

                • Anonymous says:

                  Where he sees central control, deliberate evil, intentional lies and conscious planning, I see social contagion, acts of desperation, profound delusion, and school-of-fish coordination.

                  It is both. They are desperate and dying but the structures they have built, while decrepit and decaying on the inside, can still project strength on the outside. Their current primary emotion is spite.

                  who gives the orders

                  An influential individual, lots of networked connections, possibly not that high up in the official hierarchy, but the kind of person who would ask a question of the CEO in an all staff meeting.

                  Observe the CEO. If he suddenly appears frightened then there is a good chance that the questioner is of reasonably high status in the SJW network.

                  They are quite often the people who represent the union. They can also be on lots of unofficial and semi-official committees and social clubs.

                  Another tell is ridiculously high levels of “give but can’t take” or “do as I say, not as I do.”

                  If you lack real life experience with them, the New Testament’s descriptions of the Pharisees, especially in John 8, are accurate.

                  how are the orders enforced in case people don’t want to go along

                  In the cuckosphere, in the current year, by excluding those people from meetings and mailing lists.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Some random SJW is not giving the orders to the CIAs media control arm.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Some administrative person at Harvard or Yale most likely…

                • Anonymous says:

                  I do not know who these people are but I am telling you how to identify them. I am not in MA so I can’t help you on the ground. You can get inside if your faith or need is stronger than your disgust reflex.

                  Yes, these are low level guys. I am making the assumption that the high level guys are like the low level guys only more competent and acting on more important matters.

                  You can learn how a good manipulator works by studying bad manipulators. That ImKamfy had a link to well known travel scams when he was running 8/pol says that he acknowledged that leftism was simply another con but running at a different level.

                  I am using the guys at the lowest levels to find the highest level guys. If cohesive, an attack on on is an attack on all, and we see some movement at a very high level in response to the tiniest of pinpricks on the lowest of minions. Go to the next person in the chain. Repeat until they run out of guys.

                • Allah says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. If “Not Tom” is proving you right, it is not obvious, so you have to explain how his response proves you right.

                  “Not Tom” explains that you and Mohammedans are evil by our definition of evil, which he explicitly gives, which definition is intuitively appealing and divinely ordained, and you seem to tell us that he is simply assuming that people who disagree with us are evil, though he devotes several screenfuls of dense text explaining and justifying the conclusion that Mohammedans and progressives are evil.

                  The “spirit of the law” implies that one should subject tribal taboos, Chesterton’s fence, to analysis of their fruits, but does not imply that you can chuck them aside as the arbitrary claims of a tribe that you decline to identify with without further consideration, the rest of the bible implies that one should respect Chesterton’s fence, and the copybook maxims are a collection of claims about the fruits of tribal taboos.

                • Allah says:

                  Nah. If you don’t want me here say so, won’t bother you anymore.

                • jim says:

                  I am interested in debating you, if you debate. You are not debating, just reasserting previously rebutted claims. Repetition in response to rebuttal will be deleted. You have to rebut the rebuttal, or it just leads to waste of bandwidth, with people repeating their rebuttal in response to repeated reassertions.

          • calov says:

            This is exactly how Muslims behave and think. Americans drones a wedding party in Afghanistan therefore I am justified in sawing off the heads of two Scandinavian girls in Morocco, even if the Scandinavians or otherwise subdued and beginning to pay jizyya.

            • calov says:

              *droned
              **Scandinavians are otherwise subdued

            • Allah says:

              Exactly, it’s fit for those 80 IQ retards. Not le 160 IQ star conquerors.

              • pdimov says:

                Say, Allah, what are your thoughts on Syria, and Kurds as people?

                • Allah says:

                  As of now the Jew puppets are getting ass raped so that’s a good start.

                  Most of my interactions with Kurds have been positive, but I think this might be because Kurds tend not to make too much noise here. Diaspora Kurds are a totally different people.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Oh come on Allah. Every channer worth his salt knows that MUSLIMS are the real Jew puppets.

              • Anonymous says:

                160 IQ star conquerors

                Thank you.

          • I think it’s pretty obvious who and what this guy is. He’s a culturally-muslim western-educated kid LARPing as a bloodthirsty jihadist without any strong internal convictions of his faith past a vague nationalist sentiment for his coreligionists.

            It’s the equivalent of some vaguely Alt-Lite guy who doesn’t even believe in God LARPing as a crusader. I don’t think he’s a paid shill, but he definitely managed to derail the comments.

            I couldn’t care less what his opinions are about us, even the moderate muslim is our enemy, but his opinions about his own people might be instructive.

            Allah! I have a question for you. What is Afghanistan doing right? We know why it has a great fertility rate, but why is it the unconquered grave of empires? Is this a model that the rest of Dar-al-Islam should follow? Is it possible to keep its successful social structures intact while modernizing? Or is the Ba’athist imitation of Western governance and military structures the way to go? As far as I can tell, the Ba’athists get rolled over like lapdogs when America decides to take them out.

            • The Cominator says:

              Hes western educated larping as a muslim alright but why… I think hes a spook and PROBABLY not Turkish.

              • Mike says:

                Cominator, I do not quite understand your previous comments about Erdogan. It almost seemed to me like you were implying that Islam as a whole (at least Sunni Islam) is leftist simply by virtue of being Islamic. And speaking on the supposed virtues of Kemalism, isn’t what Ataturk did in Turkey much the same as what early Twentieth century Progs did in America? “Freeing” the women, secularizing the state apparatus etc. I am very surprised that you see that as a good thing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Islam is I would say… despite being right about a lot of things when it comes to women otherwise leftist by nature.

                  Islam does not posit the lie of a future non-market egalitarian society but it does posit knocking over non-Muslim applecarts to steal things (and other Muslims can be non-Muslims if you want them to be enough) and it is explicitly hostile to nationalism for Islam the only legitimate country is Dar Al Islam under Islamic law (which is petty and intrusive on many many things). It also explicitly teaches its followers to be dishonest.

                • BC says:

                  I think Islam is just a bad religion. It’s incapable of sustaining civilization once it runs out of non-Muslims.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ataturk had to appease the Cathedral to some degree (he kept them from occupying) but his granting of Democracy and female suffrage was mostly illusory as real power lay with the army which would march out of their barracks and “correct” any election that leftist or Islamist won.

                  Islam absolutely cannot play a positive role in a modern nationalist state Islam is absolute cancer… so it had to be “secularized” with an ad hoc religion of “Kemalism” (since as we know religion abhors a vacuum). The army at least actually believed in Kemalism though because his military achievements WERE almost godlike so it kind of worked for a long time.

            • jim says:

              > but why is it the unconquered grave of empires?

              Afghanistan is not the unconquered grave of empires. Lots of people conquered it. The British cucked. Europe had an almost unbroken string of victories following their defeat of the Mongols in Hungary, and an almost unbroken string of defeats starting with Afghanistan and running to the present day. First European defeat, had nothing in particular to do with the Afghans, and everything to do with the ailments currently affecting the west. The East India company was assimilated to the holiness spiral.

              • I know the British cucked, and I know that it is not hard to take Afghanistan. The Brits took it, the Soviets took it, the US took it. The Brits were quite good at taking -and holding-, but no one seemed to be able to take and hold Afghanistan; not even Afghans, who seem to resist any attempts at a centralized state in the region.

              • The Cominator says:

                Taking Afghanistan is easy, holding onto it is hard.

                Timur seemed to be able to hold it but Timur was a native (from a minority non Pashtun tribe the Uzbeks but still a native) and probably history’s most ruthless conqueror bar none.

              • Mike says:

                Do you mean our defeat by the Mongols? We didn’t win Mohacs.

                • jim says:

                  The Mongols only “won” in Hungary in the sense that they were able to create a great deal of destruction, but they were never able to take all the cities, they never stopped losing vast amounts of men, horses, and treasure, the war never stopped, the cities kept raiding the Mongol forces, the Mongols were never able to extract revenue, merely create ruins, and eventually they went home. Looks like a defeat of the Mongols to me.

                  At no time was Hungary completely lost. The west gained the secret of gunpowder from the Mongols, and kept Hungary.

                  And with gunpowder on our belt, and better ships than anyone else, and more and better steel than anyone else, then proceeded to conquer the world.

                  When the Mohammedans conquered India, the Indians gradually lost the capability to make good steel. During the crusades, the west had more steel than anyone else. The Mohammedan Damascus steel weapons were superior, but they did not have very many of them. They were heirlooms from olden days, when they had conquered peoples with superior technology. The west, however, with more steel than anyone else and better ships, proceeded to improve gunpowder, while the Muslims lost Damascus steel.

                  Today, however, most of our fighter bombers cannot fly. The tritium shortage implies that most of our nuclear weapons do not work properly, they have not had competent maintenance for a very long time, and our navy hides in port, because when it goes out of port, tends to run into dangerously slow moving objects.

            • Allah says:

              Not Muslim, not Western-educated, not jihadist. Do we mean different things by “culturally Muslim/Christian”? What’s your take on it? NRXers should be the last to accuse others of LARPing.

              Afghans(who are neither my people nor my coreligionists) exist because they haven’t been genocided yet. That they are on the defensive indicates their social structure is not successful. Baathists in Syria aren’t rolling over.

              • jim says:

                It is obvious that you are western educated. Your native culture is Mohammedan and Middle Eastern, presumably Turkish, but there is a rather thick western overlay on top of it.

                You are posting from Turkey, but you are not whom you say you are.

              • The Cominator says:

                You lie in the manner of muslims because keep doubling down and insisting on lies even when they are untenable, progressives have begun doing this since trumps election but muslims kinda did it 1st…

              • pdimov says:

                So what are you studying? 🙂

  9. Keep the Kulaks Out says:

    I almost feel bad for people who can’t ditch the normalcy bias and see that the CPUSA democrats fully intend to burn this country to the ground.

    • Dave says:

      And on its ashes we shall build new countries where Democrats are shot on sight. It’s not hard to sort a random mix of Trumpists and Democrats with 99% accuracy; even AI can do it.

      The Democrats’ chances of ever dominating a country where a loaf of bread weighs more than the smallest pile of currency needed to buy it are pretty much zero.

      • The Cominator says:

        Nah shotting on sight makes them look cool somewhat and is a lot less scary then them disappearing in the night with nobody ever hearing from them again and inquiries from friends and relatives being told that the state has relocated them to an undisclosed location.

        People who are identified as incurable shitlibs, progressives, feminists, communists or muslims after the Final Helicopter Ride (which should absolutely be made public after its accomplished but not before as we want minimal resistance) should be dealt with in a similar manner to the Night and Fog decree.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacht_und_Nebel|

        If you want to keep leftism from coming back there needs to be a certain amount of low level white terror and people disappearing is better then making martyrs out of “muh people murdered for muh leftist beliefs”.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

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

    Deep state now in overdrive to beat the IG report. Looks like they are setting up the option of an impeachment vote in the House next week after throttling the propaganda over the weekend.

    1. IG (Horowitz) report revealed, a day or two ago, to be coming Oct 18th.

    2. Parnas case, same FARA stuff used in Russiagate, was in waiting since at least early 2019; now dusted off, arrests made, and indictment filed after some noise about it in the House investigation. = Papadopoulos/Manafort 2.0

    3. A few hours later, Buzzfeed reporter miraculously has a trove of Parnas’ bank records and hits Send on the article. = Ali Watkins 2.0

    Obviously they were holding this until the right moment. Seems likely “Foreign Millionaire 1” in the indictment is a puppet of some Democrat faction or US intel puppet ( = Mifsud 2.0 if they are executing the same script). If so they will be pushing this at maximum velocity before Trump’s people can uncover the links.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      Also, the same playbook for penetrating lawyer-client privelege that was run on Michael Cohen is now being used on Giuliani. I take that as further evidence it’s the same people or agencies, running the same script.

      • The Cominator says:

        Im furious that the SDNY has not been purged yet why werent they fired en masse long ago. Barr is an improvement over Sessions but he needs to learn to nuke things from orbit.

    • jim says:

      There is a dynamic where a sane man embedded in leftists says “Yes, I too am evil and insane” but when push comes to shove, sanity prevails. The evil and insane may well over estimate how many votes they have on the floor of the House.

      This has led to a lot of recent elections with results that the mainstream media found shocking and surprising. We shall see what happens on the floor of the House. I think a shocker is likely.

      The Democrats, in trying to steal the election, are walking a path that ends with them being given helicopter trips to the Pacific if the right wins, or murdered in a killing field if the left wins. Some of them are aware of this and hope to stop before they reach the end of the path.

      What, however, may well happen is that say “I will go a bit further down this path, but when the shit get crazy, sanity will prevail”, and then when the shit gets crazy, it is always too late.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Democrat Congressmen are in a bind. Whatever they vote on impeachment is liable to get them Epsteined electorally or physically, the only difference is when and by whom. They (i.e., the elderly white leadership) can try looking for an off ramp but they are already awfully close to the cliff, and only seem able to affect some higher derivative, reducing the acceleration of their acceleration, with alarmingly little effect on actually stopping the motion toward the edge.

  11. eternal anglo says:

    Off topic: Jim’s hyperbolic style isn’t just to make a point, it’s actually preemptive understatement. Touching women while beta now illegal in the UK.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/touching-teenage-girl-way-home-17061816

    • alf says:

      I like how the journos plastered three pics of him in the piece. Assholes.

    • Not Tom says:

      It’s unbelievable to me that there is anyone left in the Anglosphere who doesn’t recognize the pattern by now: girl underperforms in some area, usually an academic area, and weeks or months later suddenly realizes it’s the fault of either a dude who noticed her whom she didn’t want to fuck, or a dude whom she already fucked but no longer wants to.

      Not that I approve of girls in the temple prostitution racket known as college to begin with, but I would bet serious money that her marks were shit long before that incident happened, and wouldn’t bet against her already having banged five or six guys before the incident.

    • It's Not a Sexual Holocaust, R-R-R-Right???? says:

      University Students Among Dozen Men Arrested in Alabama Statutory Rape Case

      A dozen men have reportedly been arrested in two statutory rape cases that allegedly took place on and near Alabama’s Jacksonville State University over the past year.

      The defendants, which include JSU students, face charges of second-degree rape and second-degree sodomy after allegedly having sexual relations with two underage girls between the ages of 13 and 15, NBC News reported, citing a university attorney.

      “The girls were making contact through social media connections and then coming onto our campus or adjacent to our campus to meet these individuals,” university attorney Sam Monk said.

      A university spokesperson, in a statement sent to HuffPost on Sunday, confirmed that school administrators contacted an independent investigative agency after they were first notified of the allegations. They are currently cooperating with local authorities.

      “Investigators have informed us from the onset that this was a contained situation and that there was not – nor does there appear to be at this time – any safety concern for any JSU students arising out of this matter,” the spokesperson said.

      One of the defendant’s attorneys, Bill Broome, argued against the charges while casting one of the two girls as “a 15-year-old female predator” who portrayed herself as a 19-year-old JSU student on social media, going so far as to know class schedule times and instructors’ names.

      “This is just wrong to label these young men as rapists and potentially have to register as sex offenders,” he told WBRC.

      Investigator Jay Harrington, of the 7th Judicial Circuit Major Crimes Task Force, told The Gadsden Times that because of the girls’ ages, they were unable to legally consent to sex.

      “It was not rape by forcible compulsion by any means,” he said.

      Under Alabama state law, second-degree rape is when someone 16 years old or older engages in sexual intercourse with someone who is younger than 16 but older than 12. The victim must be at least two years younger than the offender. Having sex with someone “who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective” is also considered second-degree rape under Alabama law.

      All 12 men have been released on bond.

      YouTube terminates Addy A-Game and Street Attraction channels

      YouTube has deactivated two channels run by “pick-up artists” after a BBC investigation into the online industry.

      It has removed hundreds of videos from accounts linked to Addy A-Game and Street Attraction for violating its rules on nudity and sexual conduct.

      In September, Adnan Ahmed, who ran the Addy A-Game channel, was convicted of threatening and abusive behaviour towards young women.

      Street Attraction’s coaches insist that they have done nothing wrong.

      The investigation for Panorama and BBC Scotland’s Disclosure examined the global “game” business that claims to sell the secrets to picking up women.

      It looked into channels that host videos of the sexual exploits of so-called pick-up artists, including what they claim are secret recordings of women having sex.

      YouTube said it had terminated the channels Addy A-Game and Street Attraction.

      It added: “YouTube strictly prohibits explicit sexual, graphic or harassing content. Nothing is more important than protecting the safety of our community, and we will continue to review and refine our policies in this area.”

      Adnan Ahmed, 38, was found guilty of five charges at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

      Police began an investigation after his behaviour was revealed by the BBC’s The Social earlier this year.

      Ahmed had secretly filmed himself approaching dozens of women in Glasgow and in Eastern Europe.

      Reporter Myles Bonnar went undercover at a “bootcamp” run by Street Attraction, which claimed to teach techniques on seducing women such as overcoming “last minute resistance”.

      Street Attraction’s founder Eddie Hitchens told the BBC that everything was “completely consensual”.

      He said: “We actually help men…so if anything we help prevent rape culture to help prevent them get involved in anything illegal or non-consensual.”

      Italian tennis umpire is suspended after he’s caught on camera telling a 16-year-old ballgirl she was ‘very sexy’

      An Italian tennis umpire has been suspended from the ATP after he was caught on camera telling a 16-year-old ball girl she was ‘very sexy’.

      Gianluca Moscarella made the inappropriate comments during an ATP Challenger Tour match in Florence, Italy last week.

      In a clip of the match posted on Twitter, Moscarella tells the ball girl she is ‘very sexy’ before asking her ‘are you hot… physically or emotionally?’

      Moscarella, who is sat on a chair near to where the schoolgirl is stood in the video, also tells her she is ‘fantastic’, to which she replies ‘thank you’.

      He continues the conversation after the next set, asking her repeatedly whether she is ‘hot’.

      ‘Is it okay? Everything okay?’, he says. ‘It’s hot. Are you feeling hot? Physically or emotionally?’.

      The girl replies ‘both’, prompting Moscarella to say: ‘You can’t handle it anymore’.

      There are 6 gorillion stories like these every week.

      • jim says:

        You will notice that the poor pitiful child girl victims came onto the campus to fuck students. The students did not come to them. Which is similar to what I see in front of my face. Chicks on the prowl.

        The courtship dance is that the man pursues and the woman flees, but she is apt to travel a long distance to give him the opportunity to pursue, and does not flee all that swiftly.

        There is a certain well known beach which during school vacations is full of schoolgirls who hitchhiked four hundred miles to a place where they have nowhere to stay to give older men the opportunity to pursue. And somehow no one wonders what they are doing there or where they are going to sleep.

        • Dr. Jim says:

          A million years ago I went to an all-men’s college in a rural area.

          Keeping 14 and 15 year old farmer’s daughters out of frat houses was a full-time job. And this was at a time when “fifteen will get you twenty” (do a fifteen year old girl = twenty years in State Prison) was a reality.

      • S.J., Esquire says:

        I am sorry, but “second-degree sodomy” is a hilarious turn of phrase.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        Contacts with underage girls, in camera, through social media, secret recordings in public platforms, etc., it’s like they are asking for it.

        It seems as if we are at least decades away from a widespread awakening to what the hell is going on. It’s like most people live without observing their environment, relying in whatever false education they’ve received or some strange notion of “society” from decades ago.

        • jim says:

          > some strange notion of “society” from decades ago.

          Wrong way around. Decades ago people were a lot more red pilled than they are now.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            That’s precisely my point.

            What I meant is that they live today as if they were living in that time when people were a lot more red pilled, instead of observing current conditions and acting accordingly.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            That doesn’t really accord with my experience.

            IME, people were more blue pilled then but society’s rules were more red pilled – which is why the red pilled rules broke down – no one knew or could explain why they were needed.

            If you wanted a systemic explanation for how and why women are the way they are and you were looking 30 years ago you weren’t going to find it. Today you can find it easily so all the most [whatever trait causes truth seeking over conformity] men get it.

            Of course this depends on how many decades “decades ago” refers to.

        • A says:

          Contacts with underage girls, in camera, through social media, secret recordings in public platforms, etc., it’s like they are asking for it.

          Don’t justify the Cathedral and its memes, or you’ll face WRPQs to verify that you aren’t an FBI shill or some other “Greetings my fellow reactionaries, how do you do?” entryist. And, if failing the WRPQs, bullycide.

          When you read:

          “The girls were making contact through social media connections and then coming onto our campus or adjacent to our campus to meet these individuals,” university attorney Sam Monk said.

          One of the defendant’s attorneys, Bill Broome, argued against the charges while casting one of the two girls as “a 15-year-old female predator” who portrayed herself as a 19-year-old JSU student on social media, going so far as to know class schedule times and instructors’ names.

          It should be clear to you who is seducing whom, and that the pigs’ actions are not justified, as they are always unjustified in such cases. Come the restoration, nothing about this scenario will be even remotely conceivable. The Blue-Pill narrative of “predatory male rapists, poor chaste teenage girls” will be as non-existent (and as low status) as the Geocentric Flat Earth theory.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            ??

            I’m not sure why you interpreted what I said like that, but I did not say what you think I said.

            This isn’t about justifying the Cathedral, this is about awareness. If you live in current times and you pretend you live in the 19th century, you are going to get fucked by no good reason. And we don’t need our fellow men getting fucked by no good reason.

            Notice I said contact in camera, through social media, public platforms… this is not about their actions, it’s about doing them publicly giving the Cathedral apparatus grounds to attack. And make no mistake, the Cathedral wants to enslave you, rape you and kill you as much as possible, you and any other white man. I did not feel the need to point out that I do not agree with the Cathedral in this blog, that was a given.

            As a handsome man in my 20s I get approached a lot by teenage girls, though consent in my country is 16, you’ll never see any written admission of anything with my name on it, or any recording, or any sexual interaction in an environment where I can be recognized.

            If I’m out and about and some 16 year old approaches me (which they do as much as or more than the 18, 20, 30, and 40 year olds) wants something from me my name is not Atavistic Morality, my name is Incognito. I do not live where I live, I live somewhere else more convenient, etc.

            Hope that clarifies.

            • shaman says:

              Okay, cool, thanks for the clarification.

              A question remains though: How could you know that the horny woman who contacted you through social media and invited herself to your room, who is presented on said social media platform as 19-year-old, “going so far as to know class schedule times and instructors’ names,” is actually an illegal 15-year-old?

              They say, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,” but honestly, there is hardly any way of knowing that you are doing the crime in such a situation. Should white men — should evil rapist rapey frat boy rapists — start asking for the IDs of every woman who approaches them online or IRL, no matter what? (Maybe the answer is “yes”)

              • Atavistic Morality says:

                We don’t have enough information, we don’t know what she looks like, but surely, he must have realized that the 15 year old was not a 19 year old, only he didn’t think it through.

                No one needs to get black pilled about this because you really can tell if you pay attention: you can always tell when things are wrong and there’s something weird in the whole interaction. Just like you’re noticing the crime thoughts and you shouldn’t, I’m sure you would notice something in this case.

                And as you say it’s not up to him and he didn’t do anything wrong. She’s the one who should get a beating for being a whore and the father should pay for all legal costs.

                But that doesn’t change the fact that he should have taken into account the specific circumstances of the society he lives in and act accordingly, which is what I was talking about.

                If I go to America I’m not going to rapidly put my hands into my pockets if police stop me. Policemen should have no valid grounds to shoot me if I do and it shouldn’t happen, but I’m not going to commit suicide by cop.

                It seems he made the specific mistake of meeting her on campus where he sleeps and some SJW faggot reported it to the administration. If he had never met her in campus, he would have gotten away with it.

                • shaman says:

                  you can always tell when things are wrong and there’s something weird in the whole interaction.

                  That’s debatable. For one, women can make for pretty compelling actresses, especially if they look the part, and most men are not nearly as aware and/or paranoid as we are. A well-developed and mentally sharp chick aged 15 may well appear to be 25. Secondly, a 15-year-old chick may as well only “lie a little” and say that she is 16 or 17. To be on the safe side in the dystopian madhouse that is America, then, it’s better to just avoid any interaction whatsoever with any girl who so much as smacks of being a teenager. (With the result being, of course, that tattooed gangster zero-fucks-given drug dealers will bed prime pussy as always, while normie white frat boys will end up with their cock in a sock)

                  If I go to America I’m not going to rapidly put my hands into my pockets if police stop me. Policemen should have no valid grounds to shoot me if I do and it shouldn’t happen, but I’m not going to commit suicide by cop.

                  So, so true. American cops, possibly due to prolonged exposure to the typical Bixnoodus Americanus, have pretty much become maul-happy pitbulls. One accidental slightly wrong move and they go Rambo on you, with rather low survival odds.

                • shaman says:

                  We do know some of the details here, though:

                  1. There contacts were most likely initiated by two the girls, aged 13 and 15.

                  2. “It was not rape by forcible compulsion by any means,” according to the investigator himself.

                  3. The number of men involved: 12.

                  4. There was anal sex – yay.

                  This is what White Knights stubbornly don’t want to see and don’t want to hear, sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming “Lalalala, can’t hear you!”: That their 13-year-old daughter, who they believe is a chaste and angelic princess who can’t do no wrong, regularly goes out to party and hang out with older men, to get anal sex from lotsa cockas.

                  This is, exactly as eternal anglo says in the OP here, not some “hyperbole”; it is not a figment of lurid imagination concocted by random internet perverts, an unsubstantiated fabrication made of whole cloth. This is actually not-uncommon behavior, in fact, it has probably been widespread for as long as everyone now alive can remember.

                  Red Pill: 13-year-old girls are often orgiastic, insatiable buttsluts.

                  Another Red-Pill: white girls fuck dogs.

                  It’s all real – it was never a lie.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hopefully there will be jury nullification…

                  Everyone who isn’t totally mindfucked by the Cathedral should be able to tell what happen since it seems like the girls framed the whole scenarior…

                  These girls were excessively horny and developed a taste for gangbang porn then decided they wanted to be the centerpiece of an actual gangbang as soon as possible. The internet perverts in this case were the girls who had to take pains to conceal their ages from the guys who would have told them to fuckoff if they knew they were jailbait.

                  The resolution should be to things like this is the girls get sent to a whorehouse with it noted that they will eagerly work fraternity and bachelor parties and the like.

                • jim says:

                  > We don’t have enough information, we don’t know what she looks like, but surely, he must have realized that the 15 year old was not a 19 year old, only he didn’t think it through.

                  Nuts.

                  I and my son were cruising a pickup joint, and he pulled a girl that he and I thought was twenty, and she turned out to be twelve.

                  Yes, most fifteen year olds look fifteen when they are not trying to look older, but a lot of them, when they are wearing clothes, makeup, and a padded bra, can pass for much older. And when they are cruising for dick, they do what it takes to look much older.

                  There is a certain beach, to which chicks travel from hundreds of miles away, where, on school holidays, there are a whole lot of chicks wandering around, and very few of them you would think are schoolgirls, even though it is the school holiday rush. They are all made up and dressed to pass as university students.

            • shaman says:

              As a reminder, the Cathedral is indeed ruthless in its campaign to criminalize as much of male sexuality as possible, so here are a few other scenarios that are now defined as rape:

              1. You exchange lustful eyes a girl at a bar, start intimately dancing, take her to the toilet to bang her like a drum, all without exchanging a single word. According to Cathedral definitions, since no “explicit enthusiastic consent for sex” was given, it’s potentially a case of rape.

              2. You’re in the midst of banging your Wicked Witch Wife’s brains out when, as you climax, she suddenly she tells you “stop.” It takes you about 5 or 6 seconds to stop, naturally. According to the Cathedral, it’s definite and unquestionable rape – this scenario is based on a real case that was brought to court, in Australia IIRC. Not making this up; we’re living in Clown World (honk honk).

              3. You and your wife drink a glass of wine together, then go to bed. Well sir, she now has every legal ground to accuse you of rape, because swallowing even a single drop of alcohol — which is a “mind altering substance” — renders her incapable of giving The Only Thing That Ever Mattered: Consent.

              4. Some years ago, a sympathetic white grandfather in his 70s was taken to court for having sex with his wife, of similar age, because she had dementia, and — going off memory here — an ever benevolent, ever altruistic caregiver decided to pass this “horrendous” information forward, of course. Eventually he was exonerated, but the very case demonstrates sheer florid insanity by TPTB, which is only intensifying.

              5. [I can flood this blog with a veritable tsunami of such absurd examples, including things non-sex-related, e.g. the Domestic Abuse Industry, etc., but surely everyone’s getting the point already]

              By the way, the AoC for both sex and marriage in Spain was raised from 13 to 16 as recently as in 2015. Goes to show that the Cathedral, with its infinite army of NGOs, lobbyists, journalists, academics, and various other foot-soldiers and minions, never rests and never lets go of its fanatical agenda of Testosterone Termination.

              So what, in the Current Year, is a civilized man to do?

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                > the AoC for both sex and marriage in Spain was raised from 13 to 16

                Part of this is to stop early marriages among their Moorish imports and native countryfolk. If the left doesn’t reproduce it can at least lower the fertility of the right. A university diploma in every pot.

                The Wicked Witch case is the woke corollary to Scott Adams’ claim that about one-third of people cannot grasp humor: once in power they can force the other 2/3 to pretend to not get the joke. Every adult heterosexual knows that “stop!” in this situation means “please continue until I beg you to not stop” but apparently that can no longer be said out loud in Australia.

                • shaman says:

                  The Wicked Witch case (also known as the “5 Seconds Rape” case) shows that, no matter how far-fetched, every scenario can be handily leveraged to give women the power to destroy men’s lives. Here, the wife intentionally set up a trap for her husband, as it was her intention to accuse him of rape and then use that to divorce-rape him; “he did not stop fast enough” is now taken totally seriously by the courts.

                  Of course, as you say, usually it’s uttered in the context of sexual role-playing, nominal (fake) resistance intended to be overcome, and so forth; but the courts, following modern Feminist legislation and doctrine, don’t take into account anything other than “Moment-to-Moment Enthusiastic Consent,” in a way suggestive of deliberate, bull-headed autism about the matter.

                  “5 Seconds Rape” is one of the strongest arguments for completely discarding the Consent Con.

              • What’s a man to do? You can get away with almost fucking anything with women as long as you don’t betray the zoology of human mating.

                Beta males will complain, and women you reject will complain, and I acquired a bad reputation from this, which only caused me to get laid more.

                Never been accused of impropriety from a woman I fucked, or even from a woman I tried and failed to fuck, but was often accused of bad behavior by their orbiters, accusations which came to nothing except me getting laid more.

                Maybe in the future, when I have a hot young wife and the women I used to sleep with are old and ugly, I’ll have accusations leveled at me, but I don’t really care, and neither will anyone else.

                • jim says:

                  I confirm this account.

                  The anti sex laws are motivated by desire to take down alphas, but only betas get hit, and, being betas, never did what they are accused of doing.

                  Sometimes women will respond to hitting the wall by suing alphas who hit on them back when they were hot, but this is not terribly common. Mostly it affects famous alphas – the chick is trying to demonstrate preselection.

            • jim says:

              > If you live in current times and you pretend you live in the 19th century, you are going to get fucked by no good reason.

              Nah, they hit the soft targets.

              Skip the nineteenth century, that is when the rot set it. Eighteenth century was back when women were treated in accord with female nature. If you give women social superweapons to protect their precious chastity (because Mister One in Thirty is cruelly predating on the poor creatures) they are not going to use them on Mister One in Thirty, they are going to use them when they sense weakness to test for strength. All complaints about sexual harassment made by fertile age women in workplaces with a large number of women are made in response to lack of sexual harassment. More actual sexual harassment, you get fewer complaints.

  12. Scatlord Mobutu says:

    Dental hygienist labeled sexual abuser and stripped of license because he slept with a patient — to whom he is married

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ny-dental-hygienist-loses-license-sleeps-with-wife-patient-sex-abuser-20191002-3lxn2hsxtra53hh3mzluqhizra-story.html

    I’m tired.

  13. Reed Richards says:

    Jim, what makes you think the articles of impeachment will consist ONLY of the obstruction bit?

    Trump extorting the Ukraine to get dirt on Biden will be the first article(s), however they choose to word it. The shit is all on the record. Trump, moronically, released the transcript! The state department lackeys are all testifying, despite Trump announcing he would not allow any cooperation.

    Jim, you’re a fucking drama queen. There is not going to be a civil war, Trump is neither going to be executed nor made king (he probably also will not be impeached, and may win a re-election, although it seems doubtful). Why you NRX ppl think Trump would make a good or competent or just “king” is totally beyond me, but it’s not going to happen in any case.

    Chase some other theories with a little more meat backing them up. Y’know, flat earth, ancient aliens – credible stuff like that.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      If it was on record you would quote it. But you are a leftist and just repeating lies hoping people will not question you is how you roll.

      • Reed Richards says:

        The cognitive dissonance of you people is astounding. Read the fucking transcript of the telephone call between Trump and Zelensky. Even with all the ellipses and lacuna (fuck knows what was edited out if this is what we were given), it takes a raving liar or a mental incompetent to deny that Trump reached out for dirt on Biden, in a HEAVILY implied quid-pro-quo for a white house meeting and ultimately for the money to fight Russia.

        The emperor is naked. Open your eyes.

        Even if you believe in the NRX nonsense, do you honestly think Trump would make a COMPETENT, much less just or righteous, monarch?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “Even if you believe in the NRX nonsense, do you honestly think Trump would make a COMPETENT, much less just or righteous, monarch?”

          Our betters flinch from guns, rape children, ethnically cleanse populations for shits and giggles and start wars to show how big and important they are. Trump easily is an improvement.

        • pdimov says:

          >do you honestly think Trump would make a COMPETENT, much less just or righteous, monarch?

          It doesn’t matter. Whether someone can become monarch is more important than whether he will be a competent, just, righteous monarch. The latter is irrelevant without the former.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “Quid-pro-quo” is being used with dual meanings here.

          Ukraine pays off Hillary and Biden and Obama personally for using US power to benefit the Ukrainian actors giving out the bribes.

          Payment in exchange for use of US power.

          US President asks for Ukrainian assistance in uncovering illegal activity by Americans and offers the use of US power in exchange.

          Both are “favor in exchange for valuable consideration” but only the former is corrupt. Using the same term for both is intentional obfuscation.

          • jim says:

            It is obvious that Trump wants the full impeachment process on the Ukraine, conducted according to precedent, and the Democrats don’t want that, and are avoiding it by any means necessary, but do want to impeach him anyway. The way the wind blows, they are going to wind up with an unconstitutional pretext of impeachment, and that way lies civil war.

            The color revolution tactic for overthrowing a regime is “He is weak, he is getting weaker, he is getting weaker still, he is falling, he is falling, he is falling further, he has fallen”. And when people believe them, they get a bloodless takeover, as in many successful color revolutions, but lately there has been less and less belief, so color revolutions tend to wind up as genocidal holy wars, aimed at total extermination of those not of the faith, as for example in Syria.

            The press is currently singing the “weak, getting weaker” song, but Trump is not getting weaker, he is getting stronger.

            The objective is that everyone agrees he has fallen, so impeachment is a mere formality, which formality can be skipped, but getting past “He has fallen”, to actual removal of a strong president without formal and constitutional impeachment is likely to result in genocidal holy war.

            • BC says:

              >It is obvious that Trump wants the full impeachment process on the Ukraine, conducted according to precedent, and the Democrats don’t want that, and are avoiding it by any means necessary, but do want to impeach him anyway. The way the wind blows, they are going to wind up with an unconstitutional pretext of impeachment, and that way lies civil war.

              Reprisals are going to be swift if it happens. People are pissed.

    • The Cominator says:

      There was no quid pro quo as confirmed by the President of Ukraine, the ambassador AND the transcript you commie shill and the whole of Ukraine gate was a marked card operation Trump trapped you people once again. It used to be progressives didn’t copy the infuriating habit of muslims in doubling down on obvious lies that they’d been caught in.

      Why wouldn’t Trump make a competent monarch, look at how great hes done for the country with his limited powers. I only fear he would be squeamish about the necessity of giving millions of leftists like you the helicopter rides you’ve been begging for for many years.

      • Reed Richards says:

        You are all so many petty fools. What a waste of time this i s, intellectually and otherwise. Facts aren’t facts, they are ALTERNATIVE facts! Trump isn’t a semi-literate entertainer & grifter – he has the mandate of heaven!

        Get the fuck outta here. This is an embarrassing waste of time. Enjoy yourselves ;).

        ( PostScript: I do love all Jim’s stories about picking up chicks when he pretends to be a gangster, that hilarious bullshit might be the only reason to read this intellectual cesspool 😉

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Liu Bang was a peasent who managed to get the job of sheriff. But you are a leftist. You think greatness is conferred and flinch at deeds like you flinch at the cross.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          I guess the COINTEL office gave up on sending the “my fellow reactionary” entryists after they’ve been caught by RedPill on women questions. So they send an open commie shill like Reed Richards instead.

    • jim says:

      Biden, Obama, and Clinton extorted the Ukraine for corrupt payoffs and to manufacture dirt on Trump for nonexistent crimes.

      Trump did not pressure the Ukraine to fabricate nonexistent crimes. As chief of law enforcement in the US he asked to investigate actual crimes, as is his duty. That this duty happens to be highly convenient for him is irrelevant.

      If the house impeaches Trump for asking the president of the Ukraine to investigate the Clinton Biden corrupt and criminal activities in the Ukraine, then the Senate is going to have to look at whether investigating the crimes of Clinton and Biden is appropriate, which means they will have to look at those crimes, which will result in criminal referral of Clinton, Biden, and innumerable high officers in the state department and FBI, and perhaps Obama if we are lucky

      Thus an investigation will show what we already know. Clinton and Obama committed crimes, Trump did not.

      Asking people to investigate is entirely proper. Asking them to fabricate is improper. Get it?
      .

      • Reed Richards says:

        Bidens “crime” is nepotism. Look at me with a straight face and tell me Trump isn’t guilty of the same thing x100.

        Asking people to investigate YOUR POLITICAL RIVAL (and no one else), for the sole purpose of ginning up dirt so you can win another election, is an impeachable offense. Trump doesn’t give a fuck about corruption, in the Ukraine or anywhere else.

        Get it?

        • jim says:

          Biden’s crime is not nepotism. Biden’s crime is collecting corrupt payoffs.

          The problem is not corruption in the Ukraine.

          The problem is corruption in the US Government.

          • The Cominator says:

            Jim we have a typical progressive priest spouting typical progressive priest talking points…

            Tell me they don’t all need helicopter rides… some of you think it is not right to do that.. WHAT IS NOT RIGHT IS GETTING THE CHANCE TO END THEM AND LETTING THEM LIVE.

            And I’m more opposed at shedding innocent blood then most of you… I’ve argued that excessively cruelty to bastards or bastardcide is horrible and unnecessary and also that nobody should lose their life or property merely over race…

            But these leftist priests absolutely are pure concentrated evil and lies and have it coming and if they live on so will their lies… they will spread them in the shadows as did Gramsci (their patron saint) until they are too strong to keep in the shadows and soon after the poz will return.

            • alf says:

              🙄

              […]
              ‘hello sir, we have a problem.’

              ‘He won’t do it.’

              ‘No he won’t do it. Won’t pull the trigger.’

              ‘Yes I told him Clooney advocated for muslim immigration.’

              ‘Yes years of social justice activism.’

              ‘Yes that he called Hillary a fair and responsible person. I even told him Batman sucks.’

              ‘Well… He says he doesn’t want to kill Hollywood actors. He likes them.’
              *Loud shouting is heard on the other side of the line*
              ‘Yes OK. OK. OK I’ll take care of it.’
              *click*

              ‘Sir I’ve just been on the phone with HQ. Orders are that you are to take the week off. HQ will keep in touch.’

              • The Cominator says:

                The removal process of course won’t be pleasant but you wouldn’t miss them once they were gone…

                • alf says:

                  You don’t even understand what I’m telling you.

                  You’re setting in motion a holiness spiral that will, with hilarious predictability, bite you in the ass. It’s dumb.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The holiness spiral thing happens with the left because the left always theoretically is against clear hierarchies…

                  It will not happen with the right because the right believes in clear hierarchies. The only example I can think of in all of history that looked like a truly right wing holiness spiral was 1930s Japan…

                  Suharto dealt with the left the way I advocate dealing with the left, there was no holiness spiral. The problem is he was still stuck with a muslim country.

                • alf says:

                  You are incredibly thick. I’ll spell it out one last time:

                  Identifying someone as a leftist, post restoration, will be about as easy as predicting the weather a week in advance.

                  If you make it mandatory to predict the weather a week in advance, *surprise surprise*, you’ll find no shortage of bullshit peddlers claiming they can predict the weather a month in advance. Suddenly, everyone’s a weatherman, and wow, who could possibly see this coming, Comsterminator turns out to be leftist himself who gets his ass executed!

                  The way to do it is not to go after ‘leftists’ as a category, but to go after individuals who just won’t learn, individuals who incidentally and in retrospect will pretty much exclusively be leftist.

                • alf says:

                  I will say that Suharto is a good argument, from what I gather from the Wiki. So perhaps it can be done without holiness spiral.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Two things, Cominator.

                  First, you overestimate the dedication to ideology among our enemies. You appear to have a high level of agency, and I do not think you understand how unusual that is. The vast majority of the left obey because they are hewers of wood and bearers of water. They are slaves in all but name, and when we have power, they will serve us just as passionately.

                  You are projecting your own experience on people who find that having independent thought as an uncomfortable, unusual, and slightly painful experience. Killing Shudras for the crimes of their Brahmin masters is counterproductive, and displays a lack of understanding of the power dynamics involved, which is concerning in a leader.

                  Second, Suharto controlled the purges. If you allow generic, spontaneous purges, people will use it to settle scores, and then your controlled right wing holiness spiral will rapidly become an uncontrolled left wing holiness spiral. There were never more French Resistance fighters than after the Germans were defeated. Just like there will be plenty of NRx shitlords once there is no danger in it.

                  If you want to do purges, you, personally, are going to have to look a lot of people in the eye and pull the trigger. Given your squeamishness regarding negligent bastardcide, it is unlikely that you will be able to do that, increasing the risk that the holiness spiral will escape your grasp.

                • MET Peanut Gallery says:

                  The virgin Ahaseurus:
                  * talks to his slave girl about sensitive court matters and lets her manipulate him
                  * lets Mordecai not only be a minister but also lets him insult Haman

                  The NebuCHADnezzar:
                  * Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

                • Nice Try, Spergermint says:

                  Ahasuerus saved his own throne and the prosperity of his empire by curbing Haman’s purity spiral, whereas Nebuchadnezzar created a whole host of holy high-status martyrs through his excessive repression. The lesson is obvious.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You are projecting your own experience on people who find that having independent thought as an uncomfortable, unusual, and slightly painful experience. Killing Shudras for the crimes of their Brahmin masters is counterproductive, and displays a lack of understanding of the power dynamics involved, which is concerning in a leader.”

                  Compromise is we kill the priesthood ie the Brahmins and yes as Alf has conceded Suharto proves that it can be done without a purity spiral. I agree that poorfags and dalits who suppor the dems because of that and because their “priests” tell them that aren’t too much of a threat.

                  We make a list of priestly jobs. People high in the Democratic party and women’s studies professor will be eliminated on the basis of their job with no further inquiry… other more generic priestly jobs (ie attorney, social science academic) which theoretically have SOME Trump supporters will be asked to demonstrate they stopped being liberal and started supporting Trump by the time the war started if not… pow.

                  Bastards are innocent, leftists are guilty. That matters to me.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Cominator: The first person that you put onto a helicopter will be a shitlib member of your own family. You will also have to first kill a hellspawn bastard with your own gun before you are given your pilot’s licence. If you can do these two things then you may be ready to lead.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                If you want a scene with this exact actor demonstrating the principles involved here watch Hail Caesar.

                Cloony plays an empty-headed actor who gets fake kidnapped by a bunch of communist screenwriters and ends up sympathizing with them because he’s pretty dim. Josh Brolin’s studio fixer rapidly whips him back into line.

                After the restoration the Cohen brothers can stay.

        • The Cominator says:

          Trump’s nepotism has involved private business only and that is not a crime. It has not so far involved using the power of the state to solicit nepostic favors in exchange for political and military favors the cost of must which be borne by the state which is what Biden was doing and what many people in the DC crime family have been doing.

          Nailing Biden wasn’t about getting him out of the election it was about painting the Democrats as the crooks they are, Trump never thought Biden was going to be the nominee at this point its either Warren or Moochelle Obama.

        • Not Tom says:

          So tell us, Reed, does running for office grant automatic immunity from prosecution? Let’s say, hypothetically, that it’s the year 2015, Obama is still the president, and I, hypothetically again, go on a killing spree in Sweden, then come back to America and declare my Republican run for President. When Obama calls up Mr. Löfven to find out exactly what happened over there, I cry “CORRUPTION! QUID PRO QUO! IMPEACH, IMPEACH!” and Fox News and Breitbart amplify my version of the story for a solid week.

          Does that make sense to you?

          If so, what exactly do you make of the 3-year-long Russiagate investigation in which foreign agents such as Steele were clearly tapped to dig up dirt on Trump, which investigation turned up precisely fuck-all in terms of actual dirt? That is obviously A-OK, because _____. What’s the blank? Stamp of approval from the “Intelligence” “Community” and a FISA judge?

  14. Heyo says:

    What does Handle think of all this?

      • Heyo says:

        Of the Trump-Ukraine palace coup attempt?

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The fake news media shills are pushing the idea that Trump’s “illegal attempt” to circumvent a nonexistent impeachment process is falling apart because a few State Department bureaucrats who were almost certainly in on the looting are coming in to make secret, private testimony to Democrats. They are going all in on it, and it will go about as well as the Trump-Russia coup attempt did.

          Their problem is that they have to get rid of him without actually impeaching him, and they cannot get the dumb, brown left to let that happen. If they impeach him, in the trial he gets to air all their dirty laundry, and none of the smart, white leftists want to see that, but they are no longer in control.

          Hunter Biden stepping down was blood in the water. This is just an attempt to staunch the bleeding.

    • The Cominator says:

      Not yet but they probably will… if not I think Trump will use my plan B…

      Have the Republicans vote YES in the House on a formal inquiry via a “discharge petition”.

    • BC says:

      A redditor caught Wikipedia being edited to change Nixon and probably Bill Clinton’s impeachment pages to more closely match what’s being done to Trump. History is rewritten in real time.

  15. Steve Johnson says:

    Confirmation of the jimian view that present science is priestly coordination wearing the skin-suit of science.

    https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1179581345569366016

  16. BC says:

    OT – Jim what stopped the holiness spiral that caused the civil war? I know it continued after the war for a while, but I’m not sure why it stopped.

    • The Cominator says:

      I disagree with Jim on the civil war… The freesoiler position was entirely reasonable and it was always the freesoilers dominant in the early GOP never the radicals.

      • jim says:

        Bloody Kansas was not reasonable.

        • The Cominator says:

          Extralegal proxy wars tend to not be reasonable I merely state that the freesoiler position (keeping the West for free white settlement) was very reasonable.

          Also John Brown was clearly a radical fanatic not a freesoiler and the Southern fire eaters as noted by William Tecumseh Sherman (the man who really won the war for the North and who hated the radical Republicans) were pretty insane as well.

          • jim says:

            Bloody Kansas was free soilism, and free soilism was holy war. Bloody Kansas was state sponsored terrorism. You cannot tell the difference between the moderates and extremists when they both shooting at you, and when the moderates are not shooting at you, they are providing cover and support for the extremists. What was happening was that the state religion of New England, headquartered in Harvard, was taking increasingly violent and direct action to crush the state religions of other states, and free soilism was almost irrelevant to this, except for providing cover for violent and repressive actions motivated by something else entirely.

            • The Cominator says:

              If the free soilers were fanatics you would expect them to (having inflicted a total defeat on the South) to be absolutely without mercy in victory, and while the Southerner may have had things they didn’t like about military reconstruction it did not involve mass confiscations or mass executions (and its not that they were spared because Lincoln was killed, because Lincoln was more in favor of a generous peace then Andrew Johnson was… Johnson wanted at least the Confederate politicians executed).

              Jefferson Davis wasn’t even executed, the only execution was the commandant of Andersonville.

              I’m certainly no wignat but how can any white guy in the modern day object to a movement that wanted to reserve the Western states for white settlement… how is that position not entirely reasonable?

              • Anonymous says:

                Terrorists and progressives need productive people who can make things for them to destroy.

          • Niiiidriveevof says:

            What do you say was insane about the fire eaters?

            • The Cominator says:

              Starting the whole war because a freesoiler won the election was a pretty insane idea. But as for what Sherman wrote about them…

              “”The young bloods of the South: sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard-players and sportsmen, men who never did work and never will. War suits them, and the rascals are brave, fine riders, bold to rashness, and dangerous subjects in every sense. They care not a sou for n.i.g.g.e.r.s, land, or any thing. They hate Yankees per se, and don’t bother their brains about the past, present or future. As long as they have good horses, plenty of forage, and an open country, they are happy. This is a larger class than most men suppose, and they are the most dangerous set of men that this war has turned loose upon the world. They are splendid riders, first-rate shots, and utterly reckless. Stewart, John Morgan, Forrest, and Jackson, are the types and leaders of this class. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace.””

              ie there was a class of Southern aristocrat types who downright wanted the war not because of holiness or even to protect slavery but because they thought it was cool.

              • BC says:

                >Starting the whole war because a freesoiler won the election was a pretty insane idea.

                That’s not why they started the war. They left the Union because of 2 events: The Slave Revolt & slaughter of all the whites in Haiti and the North hailing John Brown as mytar instead of a terrorist. They rightly judged that the North had gone insane and was going to free the slaves and get everyone in the South murdered.

                Lincoln declined to control the war makers on his side, which made his conciliatory words worthless.

              • jim says:

                > Starting the whole war because a freesoiler won the election

                The war did not start because a free soiler won the election. The war started because of murder and terror.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Frontier bushwhackers didn’t have to escalate to massed armies going against each other in settled states because of John Brown, and Lincoln was offering legal guarantees of slavery in the existing Southern states to avoid that.

                  And the Dred Scott ruling RIGHTLY pissed off the freesoilers because it made free territories essentially legally meaningless.

                  Also it was the Southerners who beat Charles Sumner nearly to death, it was the pro-slavery faction that was (John Brown aside) that was mostly acting like antifa.

                • jim says:

                  > Frontier bushwhackers didn’t have to escalate to massed armies going against each other in settled states because of John Brown.

                  Escalation happens by itself if bad guys and extremists are not restrained. Charles Sumner was urging on bad guys and extremists, and dehumanizing those that were being attacked.

                  For moderate acts to match Lincoln’s moderate words, everyone instigating John Brown and bloody Kansas should have been investigated and punished, which probably would have resulted in the execution of Charles Sumner.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There was no police apparatus at the time least of all in frontier territories so how could such a thing possibly have been done.

                • jim says:

                  > There was no police apparatus at the time least of all in frontier territories

                  Those organizing and instigating the violence were not in the frontier territories. They were in Washington and Boston. If they had been in the frontier territories, would not have had civil war

      • BC says:

        Cominator, you should read a “A Disease in the Public Mind”
        It was a full blow insane holiness cycle that endorsed mass murdering terrorists.

    • jim says:

      I don’t interpret the civil war as a holiness spiral. I interpret the civil war, bloody Kansas, and the Mormon war as all one big war, that one big war being the state religion of New England making holy war on states with different state religions and imposing the state religion of New England (headquarters being the priestly seminaries of Yale and Harvard) on them. You can have holy wars without holiness spirals, though the state Church of New England has been getting ever holier since the eighteenth century, and holier it gets, the more it is apt to engage in holy wars.

      • BC says:

        The abolitionists sure seemed to be stuck in a holiness spiral that was headed towards exterminating all the white males of the south.

  17. White Man says:

    One of his sons tweeted early on that this is resulting in donations. Dope it out. He’s playing wounded wing to get pity money. Earlier the leader of the chosenites claimed he was their greatest friend. So once again the semites are playing both sides with working class whites playing the fool. There wont be an impeachment, it’s all theatre like WWF. Well written article but I’m surprised you can’t see this. There wont be a rebellion, that would require men. We wont even stop the minority invasion that is happening right now.

    • The Cominator says:

      Lurk more.

    • jim says:

      Nuts

      And it is increasingly obvious that you are not white, and are driven insane by Trump Derangement syndrome.

      • White Man says:

        Jim, you the owner of this. I am likely the whitest person posting on this thread. My blood is from pre WWI Germany. When I go to any store these days, I am surrounded in a sea of minorities. I don’t see anyone as European looking as me. I am now a minority in my own country whose family came here in 1700s. I am probably more German than the people there now. I supported T until he started sucking up to “our greatest ally.” I support no one now.

        • Not a Handler and NOT a Provocateur says:

          You know, today, as I was getting my 14th and final swastika tattoo (you’ll never guess where!), I realized that the time has come to, at long last, do something. Don’t tell this tiny little secret to anyone, but I’ve got some pretty impressive explosives in my van here, and gee, there’s this obnoxious synagogue full of DESERT RODENTS not very far from my current location. Later this week, I’m gonna put 2 and 2 together, maybe turn some jew-boy into a souvenir, haha. Please keep this under wraps though, so that everything will “work out for the best.”

          For the splendor and glory of Wotan –
          See you in Valhalla,

        • Functional Programming Supremacist says:

          “whose family came here in 1700s”

          How do you do, fellow FOB immigrant?

          • Whiteman says:

            Fresh off the boat huh? You know the dems go on about nation of immigrants. That’s just an excuse to flood the country with non whites who they think will vote for them. Once there is enough, they will elect their own kind. Todays native American looks like Warren.

            • I AM says:

              You’re trying to be an edgy faggot, I guess? You might want to ask your paymasters for fresher talking points, because the stuff you’re disseminating now is mainstream FOX “programming” these days.

              In other words, for everyone’s sake, try harder.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          My roots in this country started in the Great migration of the late 1600s. They left 100 years later because they were loyal to the crown, and came back during the second wave of Spanish flu. So not only am i more American than you, I am an OG monarchist.

          • White Man says:

            OG huh? Or maybe OA. I think I have established my whiteness here. At any rate, you have my word I am white non jewish of European decent. I am for helping white people any way I can within legal limits.

            • I AM says:

              “I’m white, guiz, I swear. I’m totally not an Amerimutt whose ancestors so deeply scarred Henry Lovecraft’s spiritual and sensitive soul. I love our great and historic country, one white nation, under g-d, indivisible, with hormone blockers and butt plugs for all.”

    • $chlomo $chekelberg says:

      Why won’t you grow a pair already and propose to make it mandatory that every sports team competing in international championships will be composed exclusively of members of its country’s original founding ethnic stock? We’re all sick and f**king tired of seeing game after game of “Our Niggers vs. Their Niggers,” and I’m sure this kind of nationalist measure will be popular with a majority of working class whites. Yeah, imagine a soccer or even basketball — !!! — match in which real Spaniards play against real Englishmen, with no trace of the current shit-skinned mystery meat safari.

      Wait, what was the subject of your post again? Oh, it was about Trump’s orange pigmentation and Netanyahu’s secret string-pulling. Okay, never mind.

    • $chlomo $chekelberg says:

      No but seriously, if Moldbug’s legendary Fnargl were to descend upon us, and I were CR’s edgy twin brother who lifts iron and avoids condoms like the plague, I’d petition His Vileness to globally ban ethnic mixing in sports and perhaps in entertainment more broadly. We can argue about the extent to which races with average IQs of <90 should be transformed into soap and lampshades inside make-believe steam chambers, but regardless, I really think that e.g. German teams should be made of actual Germans.

      "But, uhh, this will change everything. Barcelona will have to do without both Messi and Suarez, for instance. And if the same principle be applied to the music world, well…"

      Yeah, we'll all just have to deal with it, but ultimately it’s for the best. Again, we can debate the merits and the demerits of there being American Science vs. Russian Science vs. Chinese Science vs. Israeli Science vs. Somalian Science — one of these things isn’t really like the others, admittedly — as both the pro-globalizing side and the anti-globalizing side have their own interesting arguments worthy of consideration; but when it comes to pure entertainment, one can hardly imagine a pro-globalizing argument other than “WE’RE ALL ONE UNIVERSAL RACE – THE HUMAN RACE. WE ALL BLEED RED (HUMANS = TROUT). ALSO, I’M A BOOMER PROUDLY RAISING MY WIFE’S ‘KINKY’ SON WHO BEATS ME UP.” The supposedly meritocratic argument for having an oogah-boogah Basketball team doesn’t really stand; you don’t merely watch the game for the quality of the moves, but also out of a sense of identification with your team – and just what kind of identification do you have with a bunch of Congolese or whatever?

      A legit meritocracy would eliminate the “Per Review” hoax and allow real scientists — basically, straight white and East Asian men, people who don’t need to be affirmative action’d into the laboratory — to advance science and technology in accordance with the scientific method, without having to meekly cower under the dreadful boot of zealous fanatical priests wearing lab coats as sacerdotal robes. Meritocracy is not much about “Let’s watch our niggers defeating their niggers, hurrah,” nor is it about all music worldwide turning into jungle tunes.

      • The Cominator says:

        > Sportsball watching cuck

        You have to go back. This isn’t Teddy Spaghetti’s blog (where he enforces a pro sports watching attitude because he falsely believes that this will somehow convince people hes not a nerd).

        Playing sports is fine. Anyone who isn’t combat trained should try to do some paintball and/or airsoft (and try to indoctrinate any buddies you go with gradually into far right politics). The only uncucked reason to care so much about watching sports is if you gamble on it regulary and are good at it.

        As far as entertainment in general a restoration society will be to a large degree aparteid and we won’t believe in equality so while there will be some mixing in movies tv etc. it will be much rarer then it is today. Interracial relationships (that aren’t asian-white, asian-white relationships are ok) will be much much much rarer.

        • shaman says:

          >normie hobbies are cuckoldry

          And that’s why you’ll never have a girlfriend.

          • The Cominator says:

            Have had girlfriends but am very blackpilled about women now…

            • alf says:

              Last time I checked we sell the white pill on women, not the black pill.

              • The Cominator says:

                I do not see how women are status fuckers and reckon status the way a small evil child raised in a tribe of cannibals reckons status is a whitepill.

                Jim sells the REDpill about women…

                To put another way that they respond well to convincing display of dark triad traits and convincing implications that you maybe kill people for a living. Not every guy who realizes this is good act is good at pulling off the act.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Agree with this. The white pill is that come the the restoration, we can control women and make them manageable again. Women are largely an understood, if not solved problem.

                  Playing the part needed is far more difficult than understanding the part. That is where the problems lie. I know how to do it. I cannot do it successfully, and I am closer to success than most. I’m doing engineering, and I would be more successful with women if I dropped my classes and started cooking and selling meth in the inner city.

                • Eli says:

                  Exactly. Knowing what women want doesn’t make one good at delivering it or even the faux version of it.

                • alf says:

                  Huh. Pardon my flex, I guess it’s just not something that would cross my mind. Who’d clean my house and wash my clothes?

                  But OK, fair enough. To each their own.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Alf you’re a Dutchman correct… If you are 6’3 or 6’4 like most dutchmen going to have a very easy time with women almost regardless of any other factors.

                • alf says:

                  I’m 6’0.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t lead women to believe I might kill people for a living. I lead them to believe I have received training in killing people with weapons and with my bare hands, which is true, though I lead them to believe I am more highly trained than I am, that when angered I might well kill someone, which is indeed true, that at one time I worked a capacity that required the ability to kill people, and that in the past I might well have killed people. But no, I don’t lead them to believe I am a hired killer. I lead them to believe that I am an adventurer, which is kind of true.

                  They never ask for the details, because if you outright tell them, they would (quite rightly) not believe you. They have heard it all before. You have to somehow lead them to believe, without ever actually telling them in plain words or claiming anything. You imply darkly, and let their imaginations run wild.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim thanks this is more useful detail.

          • Not Tom says:

            To be fair, women aren’t turned on by guys watching sports. Hard for me to see how passive enthusiasm for lowercase games improves uppercase Game. Playing sports, kinda, but even then only if you’re team captain or the sport involves brutality in general, like boxing or wrestling.

            People can have whatever pastimes they want, I don’t care – but people who just assume that everyone else cares as much as they do are annoying, like people who assume I care about the mind-numbing TV shows they watch. I’m with TC on this one, bitching about the racial makeup of pro sports is about #533 on the list of things we should be doing to fix civilization. Teaching normal white Christians how to once again relate to each other without the aid of a TV screen is at least #532.

            • The Cominator says:

              Obsessive spectator sport fandom is also reminscient of the Roman Empire in its late degenerate stage (albeit late Rome was probably worse along those lines then where we are now with routine extremely bloody sports riots, the Vandals opening the gates of Roman Carthage unopposed because they knew when the chariot championship race was going on and knew to have their agents open the gates and charge in then etc).

              Playing them is fine… obsessive watching them for people who aren’t successful gamblers at it is cucked.

            • Biff Bulkington says:

              To be fair, women aren’t turned on by guys watching sports. Hard for me to see how passive enthusiasm for lowercase games improves uppercase Game.

              Nice strawman.

              Nobody is arguing that having normie hobbies and pastimes, such as sometimes watching soccer or basketball on TV, will improve your odds of acquiring a girlfriend. (That argument is not altogether implausible — in particular, watching a game with your friends now and then may induce them to set you up with an available chick — but that argument just wasn’t made here)

              The argument is that holding such hobbies in utter contempt, i.e. calling them “cuckoldry,” reflects a mentality that greatly contributes to — and is indicative of — lifelong involuntary celibacy, and overall social dysfunction. It’s one thing to personally dislike sports-watching or to be completely oblivious towards it; it’s quite another thing to tell people who dare to bring up the subject in whatever context that they’re cucks.

              Since you consider the bullies to be the good guys, and have made a compelling case for them, reflect on how the bullies would treat an autistic shut-in perma-cel mouthbreathing loser who can’t hold eye contact with strangers for longer than 2 seconds without soiling his diapers and spilling his spaghetti, who spazzes out exterminationist “Revenge of the Right-Wing Nerds” fantasies at the slightest political provocation, who bitterly weeps himself and his Kleenex box to sleep every night Wojak-style over the eternal solitude in his dank cavern, and whose glorious and awe-inspiring lifeplan includes indefinite NEETdom and chicken tendies at mom’s basement and absolutely nothing else, if said person were to pull off the “Only cucks care so much about sportsball, teehee” line at them.

              Yeah, exactly.

              Inb4 “normalfagging” – nah, just observing that chronic social outcasts who casually denigrate apolitical pastimes are invariably individuals incapable of maintaining either stable friendships with fellow men (“mannerbund”) or non-platonic relationships with women, because — regardless of their self-perception as brilliant but tragically misunderstood luminaries of political insight — they’re just ’tism-touched spastics with an unhealthy aversion to harmless hobbies shared by a high % of the population. Prove me wrong.

              Presumably, adherence to Moldbug’s “Become Worthy” maxim should entail having the ability to not unnecessarily alienate people for insufficient bookwormery. But I’m sure you’ll have tremendous luck with “Hey, let’s insult people for not being 100% recluse egghead dweebs such as myself; also, we must slaughter en mase everyone who doesn’t share my very specific political hang-ups. Watching a game is degenerate! Death to normies, long live the virginocracy! *chokes on chicken bone*” Verily, a winning formula bound to succeed.

              • The Cominator says:

                I specifically said PLAYING sports was fine and that members of the dissident right should especially play paintball and/or airsoft.

                And c’mon defending watching basketball out of all of them… normie white guys DONT watch basketball (football yes). Niggers watch basketball. I don’t hate anyone for watching it (the God-Emperor watches them after all), but lets not go Teddy Spaghetti and start pretending its a good thing (in Teddy Spaghetti’s case because he desperately wants to be thought of as a non-nerd).

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  And c’mon defending watching basketball out of all of them…

                  False frame. I’m not “defending” it, because it’s only “under attack” in your mind; unless I missed a memo, there is no NRx consensus or Official Position or blog.jim stance or what-have-you in denunciation of watching basketball or any other sport. Thus, there’s nothing for me to defend.

                  lets not go Teddy Spaghetti and start pretending its a good thing

                  Once again, false frame; specifically, false consensus. I’m not “pretending that it’s a good thing,” because it’s not universally agreed and acceptable that it’s a bad thing. That is your position; it’s not the default position here or anywhere else as far as I know.

                  normie white guys DONT watch basketball

                  Nonsense. Plenty do. Perhaps in the US it’s different, but in many European countries, at least when the national team is playing, normie whites do watch it. Also, it’s highly probable that more folks would be watching it and interested in it if it were not “Our Niggers vs. Their Niggers,” which was the original point, which of course you completely missed.

                  I specifically said PLAYING sports was fine

                  Yes, and watching a game is also 100% fine. You’re trying to make it as if we all agree that watching a soccer or basketball or any other kind of match is “not okay” for whatever reason. No, we do not agree about it. We vehemently disagree about it.

                  I don’t hate anyone for watching it (the God-Emperor watches them after all)

                  And yet, you called it “cuckoldry,” to which I responded by pointing out that this kind of attitude towards a harmless hobby shared by many socially functioning normies is likely to result in — and is a telltale sign of — lifelong involuntary celibacy. In other words, your antisocial position about this issue helps explain your current romantic failure. Since you brought up GEOTUS, consider what makes him socially savvy and likable. Can you imagine Trump voicing or otherwise expressing the kind of position that you do? Of course not. And rumor has it that he gets laid.

                • Eli says:

                  Plenty of men wearing their B caps and shirts don’t get laid or have a monster — physically — for a wife or girlfriend. What’s your point?

                  Cominator can correct me, but I don’t see him arguing for prohibition of such an outlet for tribalism. Merely that this particular outlet for tribalism is low status. High status are religion or warfare, including attached activities, like parades.

                  Much more sensible are individual competitions, like wrestling.

                  Rooting for highly-paid professionals — who can be bought and sold to the competitors’ teams — going at it is just silly.

                  College team sports make more sense, btw, both due to the scale and the career dynamic. But even here professionalization is turning spectators into cucks, who pay outrageous tuitions, just so that their daughters get fucked by Biff Bulkington.

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  Plenty of men wearing their B caps and shirts don’t get laid or have a monster — physically — for a wife or girlfriend. What’s your point?

                  Again, I never said or implied that watching soccer gets you laid with HB8s.

                  What I assert is that the kind of person who responds to any reference to the subject with “watching ball games is cuckoldry lol” clearly suffers from severe social dysfunction, of which involuntary celibacy is a common symptom.

                  Where’s the lie?

                • Eli says:

                  I don’t see lies, merely gut reactions so far.

                  I’ve seen so many autistic people here in Boston who passionately argue about sports statistics, even memorizing actual numbers, all the while not willing to acknowledge someone w etiquette and still being damn leftists/“centrists”, that my gut reaction is to declare them faggots and cucks.

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  Sure. I don’t see how that contradicts my point. Spergs gonna spergs, and obviously having an obsession with sports statistics is not much better than having a fixation with Dungeons and Dragons; regardless, when someone manifests a severe allergy to sports watching, and disparages the non-allergic, it suggets exactly what I contend that it suggests.

                  The thing about autists is that they have, like, 2 or 3 subjects that greatly interest them, while everything else they denounce as “lame.” That’s not a healthy attitude for connecting with people IRL.

                • Eli says:

                  Disliking it doesn’t have to define someone as unable to have social interaction. I come from a world where team sports is/was proletariat activity. Gymnastics or ice skating, individual sports, etc would not be. But, I suppose, obsessive watching of it or any other thing, like Hollywood movies, would be.

                  Those Muslim guys you showed are rooting for their national team, which is definitely a step up from a professionalized, highly paid sports club spectatorship, a phenomenon with roots in the West (that everyone is trying to emulate now, as high status Americana). But even in that case, arguably, Taliban and old-style Wahhabism has a point: they banned those activities.

                  You are correct in a realpolitik way: criticizing something like this as lame openly does hamper establishing new social connections in a milieu where talking about sports is a social glue. However, this is a blog also about objective truth, not just social pick up game. And objectively, watching highly paid and laid big gorillas go at it while spitting their chew and contributing your own money / time into is, well, a form of cuckoldry. And I don’t hate cucks. Ok, I’m lying, I do!

                  And if you ever dealt with really elitist, educated women, they are usually not obtained via your buddies that you chat with by the water-cooler about NBA. Maybe better luck in an actual gay club.

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  Those Muslim guys you showed are rooting for their national team

                  You mean, white Christian Spanish Real Madrid fans in Spain?

                  Anyway, I believe that the points I raised in the original posts about the subject have finally been understood, so I guess that’s that.

                • I AM says:

                  “Disliking it doesn’t have to define someone as unable to have social interaction. I come from a world where team sports is/was proletariat activity. Gymnastics or ice skating, individual sports, etc would not be. But, I suppose, obsessive watching of it or any other thing, like Hollywood movies, would be.”

                  True!

                  “You are correct in a realpolitik way: criticizing something like this as lame openly does hamper establishing new social connections in a milieu where talking about sports is a social glue. However, this is a blog also about objective truth, not just social pick up game. And objectively, watching highly paid and laid big gorillas go at it while spitting their chew and contributing your own money / time into is, well, a form of cuckoldry.”

                  Doubly true!

                  “And if you ever dealt with really elitist, educated women, they are usually not obtained via your buddies that you chat with by the water-cooler about NBA. Maybe better luck in an actual gay club.”

                  Triply true!

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  objectively, watching highly paid and laid big gorillas go at it while spitting their chew and contributing your own money / time into is, well, a form of cuckoldry.

                  I don’t see how “objectively” it is true, any more than watching e.g. the World Athletics Championships or the Olympic Games, or indeed, from a larger perspective, any kind of entertainment, makes one a cuck.

                  Are you saying that watching Bellator (an MMA tournament) also makes one a cuck? Saying that something is “objectively” so without explaining what makes it so doesn’t make for argument.

              • Eli says:

                Watching team sports, unless a relative or friend is playing, is gay. No eefs or butts.

                I wear a MAGA hat and look or all those “B” wearing Big Papi cucks straight in the eyes. What’s up.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Youre from Mass too right Eli… If “Biff” was from here he’d understand why we thought fandom was cucked…

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  Nuts.

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  I mean, come the fuck on.

                  https://e00-marca.uecdn.es/assets/multimedia/imagenes/2018/04/09/15232752408096.jpg

                  Are you saying they’re all gay?

                  Because if that’s what you’re saying, then the situation in the US is even worse than I thought; “society” has already collapsed completely, people no longer posses non-atomized instincts, and basically – it’s over.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Where me and Eli are from is a special kind of bad (Cathedral central). I’ve escaped from there recently… the South is somewhat less atomized.

                  People of course watch Sports here (and I even met a Major League Pitcher he was a good guy) but they are more casual and less fanatical about it.

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  I don’t recall being ‘fanatical’ about it. I recall writing 2 posts complaining about Diversity in Sports and advocating for an international ethnicity-based participation policy (in retrospect, should’ve realized that this is not a very exciting topic), and being told in response that “watching games is cuckoldry.” I obviously don’t share that kind of sentiment, which to me is highly indicative of a serious case of social dysfunction – and given prior familiarity with the individual telling me so, my gut reaction seems to be accurate.

                • Eli says:

                  4 to 5 years ago I was at Harvard Club, by an invitation of my friend. It was a series of boxing matches. It was mostly an older, seemingly non-cucked crowd of men.At the very end, the announcer offered to inform the crowd about the outcome of Red Sox match that was happening simultaneously, nearby. Everyone, practically everyone booed the suggestion. It was the funniest moment.

                  Not everyone at H is cucked (and I’m talking specifically about the old generation of men and my friend) but almost all are of extremely high opinion of themselves. Spectatorship of professional team sports is a proletariat class activity.

                  But if I were a realpolitik businessman, I’d certainly bring my associates or partners to a stadium, unless I knew specifically they didn’t like it.

                • Eli says:

                  I too once had half an hour, nice interaction with a retired (but young) Red Sox player and his sister. Completely accidental. I was very impressed by how sharp he was. Not in a learned way, but social ability. And his sister, albeit divorced and w a couple of kids, looked good too.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’ve met an MLB pitcher down here myself (never a Red Sox one, I did NOT know who he was when I was talking to him) good guy strongly supported Trump but 90% of people where I live do…

                  In fact I laughed my ass off after finding out who he was because one of our topics was that we should start a Dodgeball Team… after finding out he was an MLB pitcher I definitely wanted to and it still might happen. Still ain’t gonna watch baseball though.

                  I’ve NEVER denied spergishness, but I’ve never had too too much trouble with male friends so what is your point.

              • Nikolai says:

                I don’t always agree with him, but shaman is 100% right on this one. Let normies enjoy normie stuff. People who are overly critical of normie pastimes tend to be edgelord reverse NPCs (“popular thing bad!”) or just weirdos.

                It’s generally a good idea to familiarize yourself with popular hobbies. Gives you something to talk about at the water cooler, helps build connections and it could very well help you get a girl through social circle game.

              • Not Tom says:

                The argument is that holding such hobbies in utter contempt, i.e. calling them “cuckoldry,” reflects a mentality that greatly contributes to — and is indicative of — lifelong involuntary celibacy, and overall social dysfunction.

                Yeah fair enough, I can’t see any logical connection between sport-spectating and cuckoldry either. It’s a pastime, not that much different in my mind from video games or comics. I’m not against it, and may even enjoy the occasional outing, I just don’t really care, aside from the mild disgust I feel toward those who continue watching NFL games while the players obnoxiously “protest” the national anthem.

                And it’s a fair point about national teams reflecting the actual nationality, but to me that’s broader than sports, it applies to all cultural exports, anything with the nationality attached to it. That could be a soccer team, a beauty pageant, even a dorky high school math competition; if you’re representing the nation, you should be of that nation.

                • The Cominator says:

                  We need to foreigners from state and quasi state jobs. We do NOT want to exclude them from science and math (saying no jews or asians allowed in all of science would have very negative consequences) which should be based only upon merit.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Keep foreigners out.

                • Eli says:

                  Not Tom: contra you, I do.

                  Any activity that brings up status of gorillas for the reason of them being good at certain type of physical dribblery vs other random working citizens, including of engineers, is, in my book, a negative for society and a reflection of degeneracy, albeit there’s much worse kinds nowadays too.

                  Playing games is wasteful, but at least it doesn’t lead to the above. Although, nowadays, they have managed to transform video game playing into *professional* sport also. But it’s certainly many orders of magnitude less profitable, and the kinds of people who are successful and high status at it are more tolerable, in my book.

                  This whole “normie” vs whatever distinction smacks of parochialism antithetical to the very basis of a complex, well functioning society.

                  Inclusive to gorillas, exclusive of people who don’t want to be gorillas. Not good.

                  Now, if as a result of a loss, a team member gets executed (the inverse of MVP), I’ll start watching professional sports, will even pay the big bucks for the arena. Skin in the game, definite respect.

                  The Romans did this w gladiators.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Let us ask ourselves once again who we want to have the highest status in society.

                  We want warriors to rule so obviously Admirals and generals and military officers in general should be very high status (and lawyers the natural priestly competitors of officers to be low status and the inquisition/secret police should constantly be harassing and imprisoning lawyers on the slightest pretext).

                  We want top scientists (real scientists not cathedral grant hacks) and engineers to have very high status because we want the best technology. They should also get eugenic harems.

                  We do not really want professional athletes to have high status and to the extent they naturally do we want to suppress it in some ways.

                  in short we do NOT want the Prussian school system, but we absolutely want the Prussian status system with officers and scientists way way on top of everyone else.

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  We do not really want professional athletes to have high status and to the extent they naturally do we want to suppress it in some ways.

                  Why? I see nothing wrong with skilled performers having high-status, and lots of money. Do they somehow threaten social harmony? Do they politically challenge the King or the High Priest? Do they spread heresy or harm the military?

                  Obviously, criminals and anti-social types should have low-status, because they jeopardize the delicate cooperate-cooperate equilibrium between productive citizens, in addition to doing evil deeds that is.

                  I see no reason why sportsmen should have low-status, other than insecure nerds feeling horribly envious towards them. Envy is a sin, and there is absolutely no reason why the popularity of athletes should be made artificially low by priestly design. To become successful in a certain field, one needs to have natural physical talent, but also the mental fortitude to put enough effort and dedication into it – this is an admirable and laudable trait, and a successful masculine athlete can make for a decent role-model. Plus, people enjoy watching them, and if you can’t explain why that is detrimental to society, then people should continue to enjoy watching them as much as they desire.

                  NRx is not supposed to be “Revenge of the Nerds: the Right-Wing Edition.”

                  Explain why professional athletes having high-status and lots of money is detrimental to society.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Because we need Isaac Newton

                • The Cominator says:

                  Grrrr phone poasting sucks. We need Isaac Newton to have the highest status. Im fine with supressing the status of academics and most priests but real geniuses who apply themselves to science and engineering need to have the highest status and its hard to do that and have a society that fawns over athletes and entertainers.

                • jim says:

                  Lots of societies have struggled with the inappropriately high status of performers, sometimes deploying drastic solutions, without noticeable success. For other societies, however, it simply was not a problem. They officially assigned them low status, and it simply worked. No one remembers who acted in Shakespeare’s plays.

                  I conjecture that this problem is linked to women out of control. The female lizard brain attributes high status to the person everyone is watching, he gets laid like a rug, and men come to believe it because women believe it. For societies where women are under control, they don’t seem to have a problem with inappropriately high performer status. The man is not so easily fooled.

                  The trouble is, I think, that in our society, we let women unduly influence our perceptions of status, and women are very bad at judging status.

                • Biff Bulkington says:

                  We need Isaac Newton to have the highest status.

                  You think like a leftist, that professional athletes having high-status will magically prevent 180+ IQ geniuses from also having high-status, as if they compete in a zero-sum game for the same status slot within the collective social hierarchy.

                  That is patently false.

                  Explain how Lionel Messi being rich and popular prevents Isaac Newton from having high-status, any more than Lionel Messi being rich and popular prevents Donald Trump from having high-status.

                  Don’t just tell us that it so – explain how it is so, explain how sportsmen deprive genius scientists of high status.

                  You can’t explain that, because it is a thoroughly leftist narrative. It’s a narrative concocted by (disproportionately Jewish) movie script writers who hold a grudge against the big kids who gave them wedgies in high-school. In reality, professional athletes do not lower the status of scientists, do not even influence the status of scientists. There is a priestly attack on science and genius, not an athletic attack or a capitalist attack.

                  The reason we don’t have Newton anymore is not because of professional athletes, just as it’s not because of evil capitalists or other scapegoats. It is because of priests intruding into the field of science, gutting it from the inside out, and wearing its rotting corpse as their skin. Also, it’s due to dysgenic breeding, dropping IQ rates, and selection for priestliness rather than for intelligence. You can’t blame professional athletes for it, but you most certainly can and should blame the progressive priestly class for it.

                  Blaming professional athletes for genius scientists having lower status than is ideally desired is leftism, and it is driven by envy and covetousness, like all leftist impulses.

                • pdimov says:

                  >I conjecture that this problem is linked to women out of control.

                  I was going to mention that entertainers having high status correlates with societal decline, but your explanation preempted it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim might have cut to the heart of the issue here it may well be linked to the woman question, though athlete excessive status in late Rome was not linked to the woman problem as i dont even think women were allowed to attend chariot races.

                • jim says:

                  I read no end of complaints about women having sex with gladiators. Rome had a woman problem by the time of Julius Caesar.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Im talking the late empire period when chariot racers had probably even higher status then Tom Brady has in Boston today. In addition to the Nike riots which were more complicated Theodosius had a champion chariot racer executed for boy buggery in Thessalonica and the city revolted. Wasnt a woman problem because women were forbidden to attend chariot races but apparently the champ chariot races were like living gods.

                • jim says:

                  And in crushing those riots, Byzantium recovered from decadence and demonstrated it by creating lasting beauty. So maybe they had solved the woman problem, or were in the process of solving it, at that time, though Theodora undermined her husband by exercising royal power to back a hostile religious faction and Justinian’s inability to control his wife was a very bad example.

                  But Theodora on the women problem does not seem too bad – she stashed whores in nunneries. It is said that not all of the whores were eternally grateful for being rescued, which I find entirely plausible.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You think like a leftist, that professional athletes having high-status will magically prevent 180+ IQ geniuses from also having high-status, as if they compete in a zero-sum game for the same status slot within the collective social hierarchy.

                  I was thinking the same thing – why would athletes interfere with the status of scientists? I’ll grant that women are in fact a scarce resource, and status is largely about women, but there aren’t nearly enough famous athletes for that to be a problem. In fact I seriously doubt that the average white woman could name or even identify a single pro athlete. It’s a highly paid profession, yes, but it’s not what I’d call “fame” exactly. I guess some players capitalize successfully on their job success and turn that into sexual success, but isn’t that what every normal beta wants to do?

                  Entertainers, now that’s another story. Many if not most of them are no-talent hacks that are only famous because of the Cathedral’s stranglehold over the industry. But as someone who now trains regularly, if amateurishly, I really have to respect the guys who make it into pro sports. I may not be interested in the sport itself, but these people aren’t “gorillas”, they’re insanely talented individuals who had to go through grueling training, collect minor and major injuries, eat ridiculously restrictive diets, push their physical limits on days when they’re still sore from yesterday and struggled to even get out of bed. They’ve earned their status.

                  If women pay too much attention to them then that’s a woman issue, not a sports issue.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Entertainers, now that’s another story. Many if not most of them are no-talent hacks that are only famous because of the Cathedral’s stranglehold over the industry. But as someone who now trains regularly, if amateurishly, I really have to respect the guys who make it into pro sports. I may not be interested in the sport itself, but these people aren’t “gorillas”, they’re insanely talented individuals who had to go through grueling training, collect minor and major injuries, eat ridiculously restrictive diets, push their physical limits on days when they’re still sore from yesterday and struggled to even get out of bed. They’ve earned their status.”

                  I’m not saying it isn’t hard work, boxers and MMA fighters in particular have ridiculously and continously hard training regimens (and for boxers and MMA fighters women not really a problem at least until they retire because generally at the top level their training regimen includes sexual abstinence)…

                  But the only society historically (correct me if I’m wrong) that had high status for its inventors and scientists (REAL scientists once again NOT grant hacks) and didn’t look down on entertainers and athletes were (some of) the ancient greek cities.

                  That this was unique to a few Greek cities in history tells me that it is hard to elevate your geniuses without pushing down your athletes and entertainers.

    • Anonymous says:

      >joofer entryism has failed the last 1487 times
      >this time I just KNOW it will work!!!!!!

  18. BC says:

    Tim Pool trying to talk to a leftist about impeachment.
    This entire video is basically an illustrated guide through madness and delusion.
    https://youtu.be/vdZU4HKSxHs

  19. Halion says:

    Any idea what happens in LATAM? Is the State Department behind the revolts in Chile and Ecuador?
    I take all this by surprise…

    • jim says:

      I have not been following this, but it is university students, who usually protest at the direction of university professors, who are in the pocket of the State Department.

      Looks like the usual suspects. Might be spontaneous and local for all I know, but it is a general principle, that if you don’t want overthrow by the state department, you should purge the universities and ban the ngos.

  20. Biff Bulkington says:

    By the way Eli, on the subject of NT precedents in the OT, what do you make of Job 31:1 and Isaiah 50:6?

  21. Biff Bulkington says:

    We were discussing whether or not Jesus’ teachings have an OT basis; Eli’s position was generally dismissive of that notion, and I’d like to challenge him on that.

    Principally, there seems to be great objection to the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5, in particular, which Eli and others view as antithetical to the morality of the Old Testament. However, as I’m going to show with a few examples, it is not so.

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

    As we’ve already seen in Proverbs 25:21-22, the sentiment expressed by Jesus is far from alien to traditional Jewish wisdom. There is more, however. Take for instance Lamentations 3:25-33:

    25 The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him,
    to the one who seeks him;
    26 it is good to wait quietly
    for the salvation of the Lord.
    27 It is good for a man to bear the yoke
    while he is young.
    28 Let him sit alone in silence,
    for the Lord has laid it on him.
    29 Let him bury his face in the dust—
    there may yet be hope.
    30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him,
    and let him be filled with disgrace.

    31 For no one is cast off
    by the Lord forever.
    32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
    so great is his unfailing love.
    33 For he does not willingly bring affliction
    or grief to anyone.

    The writer of Lamentations seems to be of the opinion that offering your cheek to the one who would strike it can sometimes (not always, of course) be of benefit, that there is a time and a place for suffering and humiliation. As we see here, as well as in Job 16:10 and the famous Micah 4:14, offering your cheek symbolizes the acceptance of disgrace, which is sometimes indispensable to avoid an escalation of conflict. Thus, Jesus dropping a heavy hint to his listeners to not resist the Romans, in what can be seen as a reference to Lamentations 3:30, written following the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians.

    Next, I recall Eli mocking the teaching of Jesus as suitable for abject hobos in San Francisco; but how then should Isaiah’s account in 50:4-9 be taken?

    4 The Sovereign Lord has given me a well-instructed tongue,
    to know the word that sustains the weary.
    He wakens me morning by morning,
    wakens my ear to listen like one being instructed.
    5 The Sovereign Lord has opened my ears;
    I have not been rebellious,
    I have not turned away.
    6 I offered my back to those who beat me,
    my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
    I did not hide my face
    from mocking and spitting.

    7 Because the Sovereign Lord helps me,
    I will not be disgraced.
    Therefore have I set my face like flint,
    and I know I will not be put to shame.
    8 He who vindicates me is near.
    Who then will bring charges against me?
    Let us face each other!
    Who is my accuser?
    Let him confront me!
    9 It is the Sovereign Lord who helps me.
    Who will condemn me?
    They will all wear out like a garment;
    the moths will eat them up.

    Admit it Eli, this could well have been written by Jesus himself. Thus we see that the doctrine of turning the other cheek (or “giving the cheek”), which is regularly mocked by orthodox Jews, is not in fact foreign to Jewish thought, and would not have been exceptionally shocking to Jesus’ followers.

    Okay, next subject: Jesus’ admonition against committing adultery within one’s heart.

    27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Here Eli could say, “Jewish thought has never gone that far.” But that is simply not so. In Job 31:1, while describing what it is that makes him a perfectly righteous man, Job relates:

    I made a covenant with my eyes
    not to look lustfully at a young woman.

    This is actually a mistranslation; the precise word for “young woman” here is betulah, meaning a virgin. Job is telling us that he has been so righteous that he refrained from looking (lustfully) at virgins, which certainly accords with what Jesus preached. You can interpret that as taking precautions; as we’ve discussed previously, if you deflower a virgin, you gotta marry her, and if you don’t want that, it’s better to stay away. This seems to be the essence of what Jesus was warning his followers against: If you look lustfully at another man’s wife, you may end up in trouble, and likewise if you look at any kind of temptress.

    You can find similar sentiments in Sirach, written in the 2nd century BC, and albeit not included in the Jewish and Protestant canons (though quoted approvingly in the Talmud), it’s considered canonical by Catholics and Orthodox. In chapter 9, he says:

    1 Do not be jealous of the wife of your bosom,
    and do not teach her an evil lesson to your own hurt.
    2 Do not give yourself to a woman
    so that she gains mastery over your strength.
    3 Do not go to meet a loose woman,
    lest you fall into her snares.
    4 Do not associate with a woman singer,
    lest you be caught in her intrigues.
    5 Do not look intently at a virgin,
    lest you stumble and incur penalties for her.
    6 Do not give yourself to harlots
    lest you lose your inheritance.
    7 Do not look around in the streets of a city,
    nor wander about in its deserted sections.
    8 Turn away your eyes from a shapely woman,
    and do not look intently at beauty belonging to another;
    many have been misled by a woman’s beauty,
    and by it passion is kindled like a fire.

    9 Never dine with another man’s wife,
    nor revel with her at wine;
    lest your heart turn aside to her,
    and in blood you be plunged into destruction.

    See also 41:20-21. His point is, when you covet a woman, you may just end up having your way with her, and that path great dangers may lurk. What Jesus preached in Matthew 5 is not a radical deviation from traditional Jewish wisdom, and Jesus rightly told the Pharisees that they don’t practice what they themselves preach.

    Similarly, on the topic of divorce, we can discuss what the Bible says on the wife of one’s youth (e.g. Malachi 2:14-16, Proverbs 5:18, also Ecclesiastes 9:9), or whatever other subject.

    We never finished that debate, now, did we Eli? I’m highly confident that everything Jesus preached had its precedent in the Hebrew Bible, including those “controversial” passages in Matthew 5. Hey, I’m not trying to Christianize you, so we’re not discussing Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah here; let’s content ourselves with discussion of his actual teachings in light of the OT. Are you ready to ride this ride?

    • Eli says:

      Let’s do this. If I have something to learn, I’m never too old for this.

      Indeed, we haven’t finished that debate. You have brought some extensive arguments here, and yes, I must admit: humility/meekness is one of the core Jewish values, where it is said that Moses himself was very humble (Numbers 12:3).

      So, yes, it does appear to be something that a genuinely good, inspired Jew would do. But this is where I have to use Taleb’s argument about different levels of ethics, and what’s actually scalable (or even possible). Admitting that what you’re saying is true, and that indeed, it appears to be of deeply Jewish origin, I must then advance the following objection to Jesus’s teaching: is there a difference between a behavior of a prophet, or a religious leader like Jesus himself, and a regular person? And, of course, yes. We even see different purity laws for kohanim vs regular Israelites. And even different punishments for them and their daughters going hanky-panky (burning for a bat-kohen engaging in adultery, something not done to a regular Israelite woman).

      In short, the OT *does not* command that a regular Jew, be he even a Levite or a Cohen, ought to humble himself, even though such respected figures as Moses and Isaiah did so!

      Expecting a regular person to behave in ways of an upper caste priest and for a regular person to face the same responsibilities and standards — is not realistic. Dangerous, in fact.

      And yes, there is a statement that Jews ought to be a nation of priests, but it seems to me that being a nation where priests are high status and a dictating minority is not equivalent to being a nation consisting entirely, solely of priests.

      This is one reason, btw, why I’m not a fan of Chassidism: my impression is that it is about emulation (of other Chassids/Rebbe) and inspiration, less about the actual history and precepts of our pastoralist legacy, the old social cannon. And emulating excessive holiness is emulating merely the outward form without necessarily understanding the impetus for it. I am a sinful person, and I wish to better myself; but I have no illusions that by emulating Moses (or, if you wish, Jesus), I obtain special status in the eyes of the Lord. If I do special act of kindness, I don’t believe in gaining holiness points from God, because there is no such points or credits to actually gain. Rather, I will advertise them and gain personal respect from the living in the name of my father
      *in this life.* I’d be lying to myself and God otherwise, by *faking* meekness.

      (The only acts I avoid advertising are those coming straight from my sense of duty to the closest people in my life.)

      I was recently watching a fresh interview with Sammy Gravano and a few things struck me, among which he referred to “made guys” as “friends” (and the etymology of Bronze Age “Ivri/Habiru/Apiru” is likely “haverim”, ie pastoral men-friends) and also how he never wanted to even pretend to be a born-again Christian in prison, even if to expedite getting out, because he felt it would be lying to God. Both of those things I feel are what old, Sinnaitic Judaism was much more about.

      You have put more in your post than I currently have time to respond to, but I’ll try doing so in the next day or two.

      • jim says:

        The context of “the extra mile” was the Roman exaction of civilians to carry their packs.

        Jews were in a holiness spiral leading towards war with Rome. The Romans were susceptible to being shamed, but confronting them was inadvisable.

        Forgiveness and generosity is necessary to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium, but too much forgiveness and generosity, the holiness spiraled version of walk the extra mile and turn the other cheek, empowers evil.

        The Jews are correct in ridiculing the holiness spiraled version of “turn the other cheek” – infinite cheeks and infinite extra miles.

        But failure to turn the other cheek when it was warranted and morally appropriate got them massacred, enslaved, and expelled. As the joke in “Life of Brian” tells us, the Jews got substantial benefits from Roman rule.

        The Romans were willing to accept Judaism as the state religion of Israel, even when the Jews banned emperor worship within Israel. The Romans were willing to cut the Jews quite a bit of slack, so long as they paid their taxes and obeyed Roman law. Under those circumstances, the Jews would have been wise to accept Jesus as King, or at least put someone with views similar to those of Jesus on top of the temple hierarchy, stop the holiness spiral that was heading to war with Rome, and cut the Romans quite a bit of slack.

        • The Cominator says:

          Proclaiming Jesus king would have been considered treason and revolt by the Romans as Herod was a client king of Caesar’s (and endorsed by the pliant senate as a friend and ally of the Roman people) there was no getting rid of Herod without getting the ok from Tiberius 1st.

  22. I AM says:

    You (Jim) posted a post earlier, but I cannot find it now:

    “You think that by putting education into the hands of small businessman (sic) and individuals, by restoring enforceable apprenticeship, and by taking away the big priestly monopoly of education, we are setting up a totalitarian system?”

    Totalitarianism is a vector in many-dimensional space.

    What you describe is certainly much less insufferable than what we have now. What we have now is everything corrosive and evil about social engineering, mass incarceration, and debt peonage, accompanied by absolutely none of the oblige of indentured apprenticeship. It might or mightn’t be more insufferable than what you Boomers experienced vis-à-vis 50’s schooling, at least as refracted through books and old movies and so on. (Give me Ian Smith for President, etc.)

    It’s clearly inaccurate to describe education schooling as “priestly”, at least in your use of the word, which is opposite of most uses of the word. Firstly, it’s been orchestrated from the very top from the very beginning. Secondly, it was set up directly and indisputably (see prior comment) to service the labor need of the kind of mass society which exists as an inextricable consequence of the Industrial Society at a certain point of development. It has stopped serving the labor function, but it still beats its victims into submission, first psychologically, later financially. Thirdly, every man his own priest.

    On the other hand, it would, in fact, be accurate to describe it as “progressive”, and this in the most literal, technical, accurate sense, as progressivism itself was conceived of and wrought by the great interests of the Roosevelt-Wilson era, to very specific ends. We can talk about this if you like.

    In any case, if you support indentured apprenticeship, you are taking the side of the Luddites, not only against the Capitalists, but against all Mass-Producers.

    I say: let the craft schools compete with the indentured apprenticeships; gut the parasitic administrations; restore the colleges to their 19th-century monastic grandeur.

    • jim says:

      > Secondly, it was set up directly and indisputably (see prior comment) to service the labor need of the kind of mass society which exists as an inextricable consequence of the Industrial Society.

      Nuts.

      You are nuts. Your claim is, as usual, insane on its face. Apprenticeship serves the needs of business. Priestly education conspicuously fails to serve the needs of business. I have interviewed a few MIT graduates in computer science that prove that point.

      Used to be that MIT did not teach people anything very useful in computer science, but they were at least an effective filter to filter out people who lacked the capacity for abstraction needed in high level languages.

      Now, however, MIT is not even a good filter. All their graduates computer science graduates can play with abstractions, but they are frequently incapable of linking the abstractions to the concretes.

      Abolishing apprenticeship, child labor, and introducing compulsory schooling was a priestly attack on capitalists and capitalism, just as putting camp followers in soldiers uniforms was a priestly attack on warriors.

      • I AM says:

        Last question swallowed up.

        “All [MIT’s] computer science graduates can play with abstractions, but they are frequently incapable of linking the abstractions to the concretes.”

        What is an example of this? I wanna be the very best / Like no one ever was.

        • jim says:

          Example linking abstractions to concretes:

          	template<class T> class iserial : public gsl::span<uint8_t> {
          	public:
          		static_assert(std::is_integral<T>::value, "iserial is only for serializing integers");
          		std::array<uint8_t, (sizeof(T)*8+6)/7> blob;
          		iserial(T i) {
          			if constexpr (std::is_signed<T>::value) {
          				//	Don't serialize an integer unless you know for sure it is positive;
          				assert(i >= 0);
          			}
          			uint8_t* p = &blob[0] + sizeof(blob);
          			*(--p) = i & 0x7f;
          			i >>= 7;
          			while (i != 0) {
          				*(--p) = (i & 0x7f) | 0x80;
          				i >>= 7;
          			}
          			assert(p >= &blob[0]);
          			*static_cast<gsl::span<uint8_t>*>(this) = gsl::span<uint8_t> (p, &blob[0] + sizeof(blob));;
          		}
          	};
          
          	template<typename T> std::enable_if_t <std::is_integral<T>::value, ro::iserial<T> >serialize(T i) {
          		if constexpr (std::is_signed<T>::value) {
          		}
          		return iserial<T>(i);
          	}
          
          	template<class T> decltype(std::declval<T>().blob[0], gsl::span<uint8_t>()) serialize(T pt) {
          		return pt.blob;
          	}
          
          	inline auto serialize(const char * sp) { return gsl::span(reinterpret_cast<const uint8_t *>(sp), strlen(sp)+1); }
          
          	template<unsigned int hashsize>class hsh {
          	public:
          		crypto_generichash_blake2b_state st;
          		hsh() {
          			int i{ crypto_generichash_blake2b_init(
          				&st,
          				nullptr,0,
          				hashsize / 8)
          			};
          			assert(i == 0);
          		}
          
          		template<class T> decltype(ro::serialize(std::declval<T>()), std::declval<hsh&>()) operator <<(T j) {
          			decltype(ro::serialize(std::declval<T>())) ia{ ro::serialize(j) };
          			int i = crypto_generichash_blake2b_update(
          				&st,
          				&ia[0],
          				ia.size()
          			);
          			assert(i == 0);
          			return *this;
          		}
          	};

          So there is simple template metacode, and simple bit bashing code, and an MIT degree guarantees he will be able to figure out the template code, and the bit bashing code, but does not necessarily guarantee he will be able to connect one to the other.

          You will notice that there is no schema provision in this code, but I left that out because it is at a higher level, and were I to show it the code would become long and incomprehensible. Putting the schema in the hash salt (which is the recommended practice) at the bottom level instead of the top level, would have prevented the code re-use which the template code accomplishes.

          The second template for serialize is a good example of torturing the template system in ways its designers did not expect or intend in order to write code executed at compile time. They intended and expected us to use type specialization, but I don’t think I have ever used type specialization for that purpose.

  23. I AM says:

    Finally, I take umbrage at being called insane. Sure, I’ve called you a faggot a few times, but that isn’t the same thing. I’ve never questioned your sanity, and I’ve always taken you seriously, even when I think you’re wrong.

    • jim says:

      You make with great confidence assertions that are unlikely to believed.

      Doubling down on the confidence is not a tactic with good optics in this place. I don’t like it if it is insincere, and if sincere, I conclude madness.

      I am being polite in not calling you a liar, not saying that you are doubling down on the confidence because you know that your claim is transparently false.

      When the priesthood take over something (and back then, they actually called themselves priests) it is not a capitalist plot. It is a priestly plot. And when they take it away from capitalists, it is a priestly plot against capitalism. It just does not look like a capitalist plot on its face. It was a successful priestly grab for power, which power possessed by a priesthood with no effective discipline contributed to trapping them in a holiness spiral.

      • I AM says:

        Okay, I think we’re going off the rails here.

        I made a very specific claim: that the public school system was established by the great industrial interests explicitly (and self-avowedly) to further the scientific, rationalist, etc. Industrial Society of the early 20th century. This is a fact. They were interested in totally re-engineering society, and they did.

        You then asked for substantiation, which I readily provided.

        You then asked if I would confirm or deny the institution of indentured apprenticeship, to which I replied that I would endorse the existence of free and fair competition (for, implicitly, the best and brightest) between “craft schools” (undefined) and indentured apprenticeship.

        I happen to think that indentured apprenticeship would win, but that isn’t the point.

        I am neither being unreasonable nor falling into your “priestly power” frame. If every academic everywhere is capable of agreeing on six impossible things before breakfast, it means that none of them have any agency whatsoever. No power.

        I am for republicanism, decentralization, and free enterprise.

        Follow the money.

        • jim says:

          I failed to notice the substantiation. Please link to it.

          The public school system was created by priests in the nineteenth century, not industrialists in the twentieth. If industrialists got into the act in the twentieth they were retiring from industry and using their fortunes to buy status from the priests, like the Bill Gates foundation. And the priests had status that the industrialists hoped to purchase in substantial part because they had confiscated education from the industrialists nearly a century earlier.

          Windows is turning to shit because Bill Gates retired, and now he is busy inflicting holiness on black African children, which holiness gains him status and hurts the supposed beneficiaries. Rich men, then as now, attempt to buy status from the priests, but now their contributions create ugliness, hatred, and ignorance, whereas back in the days when the Cathedrals were going up, their contributions created lasting beauty.

        • Not Tom says:

          Republicanism is just a less terminal stage of democracy. Still has divided power, still many steps down from monarchy.

Leave a Reply