Marxism

The flat earther sees the earth is flat.

He then distorts or ignores all contrary evidence. The flat earther cannot explain why when I call my grandsons at sunrise, they are watching the sun set, nor why the stars in southern sky rotate around one point, while the stars in the northern sky rotate around the opposite point.

If you ask the flat earther about these issues, he will give a completely idiotic and incoherent explanation that that supposedly shows that sunset and the rotation of the stars actually prove the earth is flat. His explanation makes no sense, but if you complain that his explanation makes no sense, he will repeat it with added emphasis and demand that you present a rebuttal, even though you have just presented a rebuttal. If you repeat your rebuttal, he will again tell you that no one has rebutted him, and again repeat with ever greater confidence and certainty his completely incoherent and nonsensical explanation of why one person on a flat earth is watching the sun set, at the same time as another is watching it rise.

Similarly, a 911 troofer denying the airliner sized and shaped entrance hole in the Pentagon, and telling you that World Trade Center building seven suddenly went into free fall for no plausible reason. No matter how many times you tell him the photo shows an airliner size and shaped hole, and no matter how many times you tell him his video shows building seven starting its fall like a tree notched by an axeman, tilting to the south towards the terrorist notch cut in the building, and towards the square to the south of it, he will tell you that is not what the video shows, not what the photo shows. Or more likely change the subject, tell you a hundred things equally untrue, and then after telling you one hundred other things, then again tell you the photo does not show what shows and the video does not show what it shows. And this just goes on. He just will not concede what is in front of his eyes.

And, similarly the Marxist. But while Flat Earthers are stupid, ignorant, and crazy, and Troofers are stupid, ignorant, crazy and dishonest, Marxists are stupid, ignorant, crazy, dishonest and murderous.

Marxism, trooferism, and flat earthism all consist of breaking all the evidence in order to make it fit a bad theory. At some point, you notice stuff is not adding up, you have to toss your preconceptions, and start over. But whereas flat earthers ignore inconvenient evidence, and 911 troofers lie barefaced about inconvenient evidence, Marxists not only ignore evidence and lie about evidence, but murder witnesses, often major portions of the population.

The erroneous theory of Marxism is Marxist Class theory and Marxist economics. Marxist class theory makes no sense because they reify social classes as if they were individuals, as if the class was a single person with a single will, and Marxist economics makes no sense because they ignore the creation of value by capital and entrepreneurship.

A Bronze age Greek navigator settling the Aegean sets sail.

A rower asks him “Where the hell are we? We are lost.”

Navigator says “That is Kasos. Over there is Karpathos.”

Rower says “No it is not”

Navigator tells him “Shut up and row. Karpathos looks like that when you are this far away from it.”

A Marxist talks of “Capital” as if “Capital” was a person, a single person who rules the world.

Thus the Marxist theory of history is that capitalism is very recent, and consists of “the burgher” taking power from “the lord”. Not “a burgher”, nor “a lord”

In fact, of course, the French revolution was not burghers taking power, it was burghers having their property confiscated, and then being guillotined.

The world was capitalist for thousands of years before its most recent feudal period, it was capitalist during the most recent feudal period, and it was capitalist after the most recent feudal period.

A Marxist thinks that “Capital” is one person, and that that one person rules, that “the capitalist class” acts as one person, as a socialist central planner.

A Marxist sees coordination, that bread is delivered the supermarket, concludes that all capitalists are one capitalist, that all firms are one firm, that big capitalists command little capitalists, thinks the world is a socialist system with a central planning office in Wall Street.

Perhaps a simple way of clarifying what Marxist Class theory is, is that if you believe in Marxist Class theory, it logically follows that “Capital” was rationally pursuing his self interest by successfully seizing power from the French aristocracy, and you will with great confidence come up with some clever explanation of why this seizure of power and successful pursuit of self interest resulted in so many capitalists losing their possessions, and so many of them losing their heads.

A Marxist thinks that capitalists rule. He concludes therefore that capitalism is recent, since at sometime in the past, kings and aristocrats ruled.

Thus a Marxist thinks that the french revolution was “the capitalist class” seizing power from the feudal lords, and therefore it was in the interests of “Capital” to do this. Of course in actual fact, the french revolution immediately resulted in most capitalists having their property seized and resulted in very large numbers of them being executed.

The French revolutionary government debased the currency, and then set maximum prices for bread and such, with the natural result that no bread was available, whereupon it immediately set to work executing bakers, farmers, and so on and so forth, an outcome that businessman usually expect in any change of power, since any time power changes hands there tends to be a period of mobile banditry following the overthrow of the previous stationary bandit, until a new stationary bandit appears. The overthrow of the Aristocracy was utterly devastating to the interests of the capitalist class, and they violently opposed it from the beginning, but were terrorized into submission many of them being murdered in that terror.

If someone tells you capitalism is recent, he is a commie, and he plans to murder you. If someone talks of “Capital” as though it was a person, he is a commie, and he plans to murder you.

Thus the Trotskyite tells the peasant with one cow that his real enemy is the “kulak”, the peasant with two cows, and that the peasant should therefore ally with the Trotskyite Jews from the big city to kill his neighbors cows. “Hail fellow member of the oppressed classes. Jews are oppressed too you know”

Meanwhile the Trotskyites are telling the Orthodox Jews “Hail fellow Jews, we are suckering these Christians into allying with us Jews, and when we have them fighting each other, we will destroy them”

And so the Jews help the peasant with one cow kill the cows of the peasant with two cows. “Hah hah, says the Trotskyite, “Hail fellow Jews. Now that this Christian is socially isolated, we will take his seed corn. ” So they kill the cow of the peasant with one cow, then they pour petrol over his children and set them on fire to force him to reveal where the seed corn is buried, then they force him to dig up the seed corn, and then they kill him.

Then the Trotskyite, who never really cared about the seed corn, grabs one of his fellow Jews, and tells him he is a capitalist hoarder and oppressor of the masses, and tortures him with pliers and hot irons into revealing where his gold coins are. And having obtained the gold coins, tortures his supposedly fellow Jew some more, in the hope that there are more gold coins, but since there are no more gold coins his fellow Jew expires under torture.

Then the Trotskyite points out that all the noble work he has been doing for the oppressed victims of capitalism makes him holier than Stalin, and Stalin piously concedes his superior holiness, but finds some excuse to kill the Trotskyite before the Trotskyite is in a position to kill Stalin

The leftist who tells you “Hail fellow member of the oppressed, lets knock over this apple cart and grab some apples”, is very likely after your apple cart and your apples. Thus they announce they are friends of the American working class, who should ally with them against evil billionaires, while seeking to destroy the working class in favor of an imported vote bank living on crime and welfare – hence spotted owl, global warming, Paris Treaty, wildfires, and TransPacific Partnership.

Leftists were always telling us that the TransPacific Partnership was a plot by our evil capitalist overlords seeking cheap overseas workers, but it was Obama and the Democrats pushing it, and Trump and the Republicans that killed it.

The Marxist thinks that capital is one being, but in fact, “capital” is your local Domino’s franchisee, who is likely a white male like yourself, and likely about the same wealth as yourself, differing from you by about as much as the peasant with two cows differed from the peasant with one cow.

Troofers don’t stick to any one story of what supposedly happened at 9/11, flat earthers don’t try to make sense, and Marxists don’t try to make sense either, circularly arguing that since capitalists rule, anti capitalist actions and policies are actually pro capitalist. Thus, for example, capitalists supposedly want to be taxed to support fatherless spawn, so that they can sell them stuff.

Failure of reality testing: Same problem with Marxists, flat earthers, and Troofers.

Flat earthers are stupid, but not evil. Too dumb to realize they are not making sense.

Troofers and Marxists are stupid and evil, and because Marxism is a rationale for murdering innocent people and taking their stuff, Marxists a lot more evil than Troofers.

One sees stuff that seemingly does not make sense – the islands of the Aegean viewed by a flat earther, the absence of a banged up airliner in front of the Pentagon, the fact that there is bread on the shelves, and start concocting a nut theory.

Round earth makes sense of what you see. Rule by “Capital” fails to make sense of what you see. You can see the capitalist right in front of you when you buy a pizza, and he is not “Capital”

One’s physical intuition is led astray by the vastness of the earth, so that it looks flat except under rather special circumstances.

And under those special circumstances (navigating by looking at distant familiar landmarks over a long distance of ocean), one is apt to get weirded out as one’s flat earth intuitions fail, and to avoid unnerving weirdness, one either has hang close to shore, or stop looking at familiar distant objects, or actually see the roundness of the earth as one sees the roundness of a child’s ball and know in your guts that you have traveled a small but perceptible angle around it.

The navigators of the Chinese treasure fleets had to hang close to shore for psychological reasons, sailing a very indirect and dangerous route to minimize the disturbing sight of landmarks falling below the horizon. The irrationally shore hugging path they followed shows them to be flat earthers, while Europeans have known the world was round since before the dawn of history, probably as a result of settling the Aegean Islands.

The islands of the Aegean are close enough that you can generally see one from another, but far enough apart that if you are navigating by looking at the land on the horizon, you are going to be weirded out and get lost if you fail to recognize you are navigating on the surface of a sphere,

A troofer’s intuition for small objects colliding at low speeds is misled by big things and high speeds. He expects to see a banged up commercial airliner sitting in front of a dent in the Pentagon, so he tells you there is no aircraft wreckage.

In fact, everyone in the vicinity reported a rain of aircraft wreckage in sizes from confetti to pocket handkerchief. The plane flew inside the building, creating Wiley Coyote style hole in the building, a commercial airliner sized and shaped entrance hole, and then exited the building in a very wide variety of paths and ways, mostly in the form of very small pieces, the largest intact part being one of the wheel hubs.

Had the troofer watched more Wily Coyote cartoons and fewer Scrooge McDuck cartoons, he would have found the commercial airliner flying into the Pentagon easier to believe.

“What?”, thinks the troofer. “Where is the banged up airliner sitting in front of the Pentagon?”, and then proceeds to construct an enormously over elaborate conspiracy theory, which overcomplication rapidly descends into incoherence. And because his theory makes no sense, it becomes a pile of lies, in part he deludes himself, but in part he intentionally and maliciously deludes others, so a natural error of erroneous intuition becomes a system of deliberate lies propagated by malicious, hostile, and disruptive conspiracy, which inevitably becomes a vehicle for evil people pursuing evil purposes, madness promoting evil, and evil promoting madness.

The Marxist see the natural order of the market and assumes it was commanded by a single entity: Today “Capital”, an entity with a striking similarity to Satan, that commands the world through Wall Street.

So if someone is working at the corner store, the Marxist does not see the shopkeeper as working for himself, even if the shopkeeper himself owns the shop and is right in front of the Marxist. Rather he sees the shopowner as yet another employee of “Capital”.

The Marxist observes that things generally work, that there are light bulbs in the sockets, bread on the shelves, toilet paper in the toilets, and assumes this coordination occurs by command of a single entity, assumes that we are already socialist, that we always have been socialist, it is just that some time in the past the commander was “the feudal class” and now it is “Capital”, or “the Capitalist”

Genuine and natural error leads to genuine delusion, genuine delusion to loss of interest in having a consistent and complete story, logical incoherence to deliberate and conscious lying, systematic and coordinated lying becomes an evil priesthood pursuing evil purposes by evil means, vicious, hateful, degenerate, and depraved, while the underlying genuine error means that the evil, hatred, malice, and cynical manipulative lies never entirely replaces the genuine and unfeigned madness, stupidity, and ignorance

The Marxist thinks that Capitalism is a system of government, that Capitalism is the government, that the government puts bread on the supermarket shelves. The Marxist thinks that “You did not build that”

The capitalist took all this stuff from the lords, thinks the Marxist, so the Marxist will take all this stuff.

If moneyed interests controlled America’s armies, they would be a hell of a lot more interested in oil than in opium. Why aren’t the Arabs savages in the desert on the fringes of a petrocolonialist patchwork? Why is America not putting the ludicrously weak Venezuelan government to the sword and replacing it with ExxonMobil? Why is development in Antarctica forbidden?

I wish America’s armies *were* controlled by moneyed interests. If the US army was fighting for “Capital”, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia would be divisions of Exxon Mobile. That the war is in Afghanistan, rather than Venezuela, shows that it is about performing the holy sacraments, not profit.

Abortion is a holy sacrament. Nine year old girls putting a condom on a banana is a holy sacrament. And to these sacraments they have recently added the holy sacrament of twelve year old boys forced to wear dresses and forced to sit on the lap of a transexual. The Afghan war is being fought to force Afghans to perform our sacraments. If we were fighting for sane and practical reasons, if we were run by “capital” rather than a holier than thou priesthood, we would invade Venezuela, which is sitting on an enormous lake of oil which their internal disorder prevents them from pumping effectively, and a pile of gold which they cannot mine, because every time they make a deal with a mining company they attempt to shake down the miners before the miners have actually extracted any gold.

Venezuela is where the oil and gold is. Afghanistan is where the heresy is. Plainly, therefore, we are ruled by priests, not warriors.

The inability of the Venezuelan government to pump oil or mine gold falsifies Marxist economics, and the fact that we have not put their ludicrously weak government to the sword and converted them into an ExxonMobile division falsifies Marxist Class theory.

Modern type capitalism, the capitalism of the for profit joint stock corporation, the capitalism of Ayn Rand’s hero engineer CEO mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make it widely available, the capitalism that gave us technology and industrialization, started with the restoration, centuries after feudalism in the sense of William the Marshal ended, and centuries before feudalism in the sense of warrior and aristocratic power, the system of Russia before World War II, German before World War I, and England before the Crimean war, ended. England industrialized under divine right monarchy.

Corporate capitalism makes it possible for capital to be put in the control of smart people, though it certainly does not guarantee it, thus makes industrialization and technological advance possible. This is entirely orthogonal to the system of government. Today Dubai is simultaneously feudal, monarchic, and corporate capitalist, as England was from 1660 to the early nineteenth century, and it looks to me to have a technological lead on the USA and England, though its system of governance would be familiar to a Middle Easterner of the ninth century.

Leftists were always telling us that the TransPacific Partnership was a plot by our evil capitalist overlords seeking cheap overseas workers, but it was Obama and the Democrats pushing it, and Trump and the Republicans that killed it.

The worse the reality testing, the greater the evil. Thus communists enormously more evil than Nazis, Nazis more evil than the darkly enlightened, because their purported virtue comes cheaper.

Observe that as progressives get further and further out of contact with reality, their evil gets greater and greater, as for example their support of wildfire policies that burned eighty five rural whites alive.

Communists were originally more evil than progressives, because Class theory was more deluded than that all men are created equal. But as progressives accumulate more delusions, they become more evil, because their ever greater purported virtue becomes ever more detached from reality.

Tags:

294 Responses to “Marxism”

  1. Koanic says:

    The Earth isn’t flat, but it should be. So we can put laserfences along each edge to prevent the shadowspawn from the Dark Side overruning the Light during the 1,000 year eclipse. Dyson spherecucks wrecked – square planetary engineering ftw. Fight me.

    Re OP: Agree.

  2. Reactionaryfuture says:

    Marxists are just classical liberals 2.0, and if anything they are less insane. And moneyed interests are at play, it’s just that this aspect is confused by marxist adherence to classical liberal premises. It has been the foundation money raised by capitalists and weilded by capitalists that has been decisive.

    We could also question how less worse off the Venzuelan economy would be without sanctions.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      What took you so long, RF/NIO?

      CR has been in desperate need of a backup for 6 months now.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      You (Chris B) have been saying all along that Communism is more right-wing than Liberalism, accusing Land’s tech-comm and Jimians of being the real Liberals. It’s about time you explain to this community the principles of your weltanschauung, since CR won’t.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      (Plz take the bait; dis gon b gud…)

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Classical liberals can run a society- they just immediately get out competed. Marxists can’t run a society- people immediately start starving to death.

      As for sanctions, do we prohibit them from buying food? Because that is what they are running out of.

    • EuropaDelendaEst says:

      I read the first three paragraphs of the article again after reading this comment and it fits very well. So I’m going to go ahead and accuse you of being a crypto-marxist seeing that you are basically defending them.

      “Marxists are just classical liberals 2.0, and if anything they are less insane.”

      Liberal societies work much better than marxist societies which basically starve everyone to death, so your opinion seems pretty much contrary to evidence. You can’t be less insane when you are 30 times worse at reality.

      “It has been the foundation money raised by capitalists and weilded by capitalists that has been decisive.”

      How? Explain, where’s the evidence?

      “We could also question how less worse off the Venzuelan economy would be without sanctions.”

      Franco kept Spain fed with less natural resources and worse sanctions, right after a civil war too. This is just typical distortion and moving goalposts, now it’s not Venezuela’s mismanagement of its own resources, it’s something else.

      And Africa isn’t Wakanda because of evil whitey too.

    • RF, your approach to analysis is one-sided, because you only care how wrong a philosophy certain people have in the abstract sense, and ignore the other axis: how seriously the take it, do they implement it 100% or do they have a lot of common sense inherited from Tradition which makes them willing to make a lot of special exceptions to their ideology, which in turn makes things work less badly. In this sense, CL is better than Marxism. It is older. Inherited more sense. More special exception. Why, JS Mill explicitly said business competition is a kind of harm, but the utilitarian must make a special exception for this kind of harm and allow it.

      I really enjoyed your Journal of NA. Strangely, neither you nor MacIntyre realized how MacIntyre’s summary of the origins of Western philosophy, from Homer to Aristotle, make a strong case for capitalism.

      Let me summarize it. Virtue is defined as socially useful activity. It is socially useful for soldiers to win wars, hence it is socially useful for them to have virtues like athletic ability. Socially useful virtues must be rewarded, incentivized. How to determine who has how much virtue? By competition, like an athletic competition. But, the problem is, people tend to game the rules. Hence, it is important to have the kind of culture where it is valued to pursue excellence for its own sake, and not for the rewards, hence not to game the rules. But you still need the competitions.

      In NRx analysis, culture is status. That is, nothing ever works without rewards, but rewards do not have to be a bag of gold, it can just be the respect of other people. If other people do not respect virtue, only a handful people will pursue virtue. So it means that a culture of excellence for its own sake means winners of competitions get rewards, and the people who do not focus on winning but on excellence get rewards too, but of a different kind, less official, formal and tangible, more like a general respect.

      Hence capitalism. Making good shoes cheaply is socially useful. Hence it needs to be rewarded. Hence the market. The market is even better than an athletic competition. A gold medal does not make the fast runner faster, but more money to invest does make the excellent shoemaker able to expand the business and make more shoes.

      Only problem is gaming the rules. Like, emotionally manipulative ads. Sometimes such rule-gamers outcompete excellent producers. Happily, there is a solution very much in line with NRx thinking. A system of double rewards. The market picks its winners, and rewards them with money. Money can be reinvested or used to buy status. And on the other hand, the King also picks his own winners. He picks those who focus on excellence, not winning. Who do not game the rules. He does not give them much money, that is for the market to give, but gives them status. Knighting etc. the King is the font of honor, he gives them honor. Makes them respected. Similarly, whenever it is not expedient to outright ban getting rich on vices, selling booze, drugs and gambling, the King can give dishonor to them, give them low status, they will be rich but not really respected, not invited to the best parties, not married to the daughters of highly respectable people.

    • What sanctions? There is an arms embargo and sanctions on selected government officials. They are absolutely allowed to sell oil for food. Even Saddam was allowed to sell oil for food. And, I think, Saddam’s regime had less hunger problems, despite being a desert.

      Why do you regurgitate the most transparent leftist lies? There are no sanctions that would have anything to do with feeding people.

    • Money is power. Guns i.e. governmental power is also power. When they compete, money hires mercenaries. Aristotle explicitly wrote rich people topple democracies by hiring mercenaries. Mercenaries do not play a big role in the modern world. Hence, in the modern world, guns, state power, always trumps money.

      Money can influence elections, public opinion, by buying media, buying speech. But the state can simply outlaw speech by calling it hate speech. Trump spent less than Hillary. It is not always more money that wins elections. And I would bet that most of what Trump said to win the election will be outlawed as hate speech.

      Woke Capital is a strong evidence of the state making capital its bitch, not the other way around. http://stonetoss.com/comic/burger-kang/ the capitalist wants an ad purported to sell burgers to actually sell burgers. When it actually sells poz instead of burgers, it is the state making the capitalist its bitch.

      • BC says:

        >Money is power. Guns i.e. governmental power is also power. When they compete, money hires mercenaries. Aristotle explicitly wrote rich people topple democracies by hiring mercenaries. Mercenaries do not play a big role in the modern world. Hence, in the modern world, guns, state power, always trumps money.

        If Money was power, then the Mamluk’s wouldn’t have lost to a bunch of Portuguese pirates and Carthage would have won its wars against Rome. People are power and people fight harder for a cause they believe in than one they don’t.

        >Money can influence elections, public opinion, by buying media, buying speech. But the state can simply outlaw speech by calling it hate speech. Trump spent less than Hillary. It is not always more money that wins elections. And I would bet that most of what Trump said to win the election will be outlawed as hate speech.

        Trading status is more effective than money and the priesthood currently has a near monopoly on status.

  3. Mike says:

    >England industrialized under divine right monarchy

    I’m going to have to throw a Glorious Revolution of 1688 at you and stop ya right there chief. How does the Glorious Revolution have anything to do with monarchy? Wasn’t it the whole catalyst for Parliament overthrowing kingly power? And isnt 1688 well prior to the Industrial Revolution (to be fair, stock corporations and patriarchy were all still in place at this time).

    • jim says:

      Whig history.

      After the Glorious Revolution the Lockeans were not in power. They were exiled.

      Your version of the Glorious Revolution is the Whigs rewriting history to project their 1860 victory back to 1688 in order to give themselves legitimacy and take credit for the achievements of capitalism and science, which capitalism and science they opposed then as progressives oppose capitalism and science now.

      The Whig version of the Glorious Revolution is inconsistent with the Lockeans being forced to flee, just as the Communist version of the French Revolution is inconsistent with the capitalists being robbed and murdered.

      The flight of the Lockeans is the gaping hole in the Pentagon. By which I mean it shows Whig history is false in the same way that the entrance hole in the Pentagon shows trooferism is false.

      When the Regent got away with claiming divine right, the social, economic, and political order established by the Restoration lived. When he was unable to divorce Queen Caroline, then it died. Subsequently Whigs adjusted history to backdate their victory.

      • Mike says:

        Well what was the Glorious Revolution actually about then? Getting rid of Catholicism? They brought in a foreign, Protestant monarch (William lll was Dutch I think) to replace their own so whatever the reason was, it had to be pretty drastic.

        • jim says:

          Exactly so.

          After the civil war and the restoration, everyone knew that the state religion mattered a great deal. The whigs started arguing in the eighteenth century that it did not matter, and then in the nineteenth century, when they attained power, rewrote history so that the state religion did not matter and everyone acted as if it did not matter.

  4. Ad Hoc Reason says:

    Your problem, fundamentally, is that you’re an ideologue. That is, you see the world in ideological terms — whatever your ideology of the moment. Those who disagree with this ideology are naturally dissenters, and dissenters are invariably heretics to your quasi-ideology quasi-religion, and heretics are very bad people who must be censored, impoverished, driven from the public square, beaten up, and possibly killed.

    Your current ideology tars all heretics as “marxists”, and so that’s what you go around calling dissenters. And because marxists have a well-documented history of mass killings, you feel justified in accusing all heretics everywhere of desiring to induce mass killings. Whether they’re identifiably marxists or not.

    • jim says:

      Projection.

      Disagreeing with Marxist class theory, Marxist Economic theory, and Marxist class theory is no more an ideology than disagreeing with flat earth is an ideology.

      I talk to you about Trotskyite misconduct, and you respond by telling me about the trauma they suffered – that Jews were oppressed. Do I care about the emotional roots of their belief system? I care that their belief system has bad economic consequences and is inconsistent with what happened during the French Revolution when the bourgeoisie were persecuted and terrorized, not triumphant.

      The emotional roots of Trotskyism is an ideological argument. That Russian agriculture was destroyed by Trotskyism following the communist coup in Russia and that the bourgeoisie were terrorized during the French revolution are empirical arguments.

  5. Ad Hoc Reason says:

    At some point, one of two things will happen: you’ll realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is a marxist, or you’ll die.

    Unfortunately, due to your advanced age and the inevitable cognitive calcification, you will probably take your last breath before you realize that world history cannot be boiled down to a grand conflict between “warriors” and “priests”, or any other such inane oversimplification.

    • jim says:

      Everyone who believes what you believe is a Marxist. Marxist economics and Marxist Class theory is the definition of Marxism.

      Everyone who believes we are in Afghanistan for sincerely virtuous reasons is a progressive: Puritan descended leftism.

      Everyone who believes we are in Afghanistan for rational self interested reasons, to steal the vast natural resources of Afghanistan, is a Marxist because he is telling us we are ruled by capital, and “capital” is capable of acting in its self interest as a single individual can: Jewish descended leftism.

    • alf says:

      The leftist’s last defense is always ‘that’s an oversimplification!’ because when things are clearly explained, there is little room for lies.

      • Ad Hoc Reason says:

        What specific attributes do you associate with this “leftism”? As I’ve already stated, that term in my opinion just means “blasphemer”, “heretic”, or maybe “witch”.

        Object to an argument on factual, not ideological, grounds.

        For example:

        * I think it probable that citizens’ quality of life will be much higher if state coercive powers are judiciously applied to enforce carefully thought out regulations regarding buildings and physical space. In particular, the bipartite cancer of suburbia and architectural modernism are a literal Jewish abomination and must be wiped out and replaced with something much better. Perhaps the tens of millions of people currently drowning in the unremitting anomie of the suburban hellscape might greatly prefer to live in Paris-style walkable cities.* *before Paris became an African city

        * I would like to see governments enforce minimum acceptable standards of food quality. If you buy a steak, you should have the assurance that the animal of its origin wasn’t doused in hormones, antibiotics, runaway domestication and other genetic engineering, and so on.

        * I want to live in a world in which energy is effectively free. Petrol is a criminal enterprise and it’s ridiculous that the world needs to wage-cuck their lives away to enrich mafiosos. It’s offensive that we’re still driving around in technology not greatly different from a century ago. There should be a small, safe nuclear reactor in every house, automobile, and aeroplane, and that the enabling technologies are being suppressed is incomprehensible criminal. How is your NAPrinciple going to help me achieve this world?

        * As is becoming increasingly obvious, the purpose of Hollywood is to hypnotize and demoralize the white middle-class. Consequently, the closest anyone comes to haute culture is to rote-play some music written by men who lived 150 years ago.

        How will Jimian lolbergtarianism measurably improve my life on any important dimension?

        • jim says:

          > What specific attributes do you associate with this “leftism”?

          Leftism has no essence. Leftism is knocking over the apple cart to grab some apples, and so what is leftism at an one moment depends entirely on which apple carts are up for grabs at that moment.

          Leftism is disorder and dysfunction. There are only a few ways society can work, but a combinatorially large number of entirely different ways that everything can fall apart.

          At any given moment, leftism has one thousand points of ideology, and no leftist will deviate from any of them – for example you will not acknowledge the racial and religious character of the London acid attacks, you will not notice that misconduct resulting from alcohol is a problem of females and of certain races. But these thousand points of ideology are mutually incompatible, being targeted at different apple carts, and a leftist will at one moment emphasize one subset of them, and at another moment emphasize a different, and completely incompatible subset of them, like a Troofer who has one hundred mutually incompatible theories of how the towers fell, the only common factor being that Islam and Robert Mueller are entirely not guilty of any wrongdoing in any of those theories.

          Right now, whites are up for grabs, a few years back, fathers were up for grabs, and a few years before that, capitalists are up for grabs. And so leftism abruptly changes overnight, old type Marxism being superseded by cultural Marxism and bioleninism. Trotskyism was the peasants being up for grabs.

          The supposed theoretical foundations of leftism are whatever justifies the grabbing. Marxism is theoretical foundations for old type grabbing. You have been arguing for theoretical foundations for old type grabbing, but you are unable to say anything that would be heresy against theoretical foundations for new type grabbing.

        • alf says:

          As Jim says.

          Whatever increases entropy the most, that is where the leftism is at.

          There are some common themes that tend to help with knocking over apple carts, so you will see those. For example, your wish list for the West is in its majority comprised of More Rules. This tends to be typically leftist, for More Rules requires a Rules Committee to oversee said Rules, which the leftist would not at all mind being a part of, and consequently use the Rules Committee to knock over some more apple carts.

          So, as a rule of thumb, wherever you want more rules, I’ll want less.

          We used to have great architecture, with minimal government influence. Now we have bad architecture, with lots of government influence. Thus, less rules, not more.

          Used to have good food with minimal government influence, still have decent food despite increasing government influence. Soon leftism will have destroyed farmers’ livelihood and we’ll have crap food. Less rules, not more.

          Energy is good, energy is relatively cheap, although over 50% of what I pay for energy is government tax. Increasing as well, since the government does not want me to have use gas in my own house. Less rules.

          Good art can still be found, although it is a lot harder because of all the censorship. Less rules.

          • jim says:

            Superficially, there is nothing all that leftist about all the rules that Ad Hoc Reason calls for, but we know from past experience how these rules will be applied in actual practice. His program for building and architecture gave us Brasilia and the housing projects.

            His program is very much today’s Venezuela, and the Holodomor.

            “What?” he says: “In my program the people’s committee for abundant food specifically orders bread in the shops, so it is completely different from Venezuela and the Holodomor. In fact those outcomes are specifically forbidden, and should they happen we will shoot farmers and bakers and burn down farms and bakeries until abundant food is restored.” </sarcasm>

            He does not actually say “Burn down the supermarkets, slaughter the cows and burn the crops until abundant food is available for everyone”, but we have been around this path more than a few times.

        • pdimov says:

          “There should be a small, safe nuclear reactor in every house, automobile, and aeroplane, and that the enabling technologies are being suppressed is incomprehensible criminal.”

          You aren’t going to convince libertarians with this argument; the suppression (in this specific instance at least) is not being done by the “free market”.

        • Javier says:

          The only people who hate suburbs are bitter socialists who can’t afford property, people who are overrun with crime who want to see everyone else suffer the same fate, and slutty feminists who see suburbs as a hurdle to sleeping around.

          • PlannedObsolescence says:

            Your defense of our home (suburban is a metonym for us) is commendable, but the suburb is a compromise to cope with government policies, and has a lot of problems, importantly, the ability of sluts to skank around and faggots to publicly masturbate in front of the 12 year old boys of the lgbt-ally dhimmicrats who watch Captain Picard on TV (an unmarried middle age middle manager self-righteously fucking the wife of his dead employee and humiliating his son) and dream that they are in the world guided by reason with no violence in between getting henpecked by their emancipated wives and driving everywhere. The sluts are the ones who disrupt civilization from the privacy of someone else’s bedroom, and now, even their own.

            The suburbs can be what we see them as when men are unleashed to control and defend, and if conservatives can be convinced to truly want to be left alone instead of acting like media parodies of themselves, then regardless of what happens politically, government power can be expected to fade, so the suburbs can become more livable and do so faster than the cities. Maybe the Boomers weren’t wrong, maybe they are settlers and can deserve graves with headstones.

        • Koanic says:

          > How will Jimian lolbergtarianism measurably improve my life on any important dimension?

          By ending it.

  6. Ad Hoc Reason says:

    The simple fact is this. And I hope this isn’t too complex or Copernican for you to understand. Ideologies, all ideologies, are based on lies. That’s how they work. They start with a kernel of truth, usually profound truth, and then lacquer it up with piles and piles of bullshit.

    In order to induce people to behave in irrational ways. Predictably irrational ways. Irrational from the point of view of Darwinism. And the people who produce these things are, consciously or subconsciously, designing them for this purpose. And so they’re inextricably historically contextual.

    Trotskyite internationalism makes no sense whatsoever without the historical context of the Jews escaping the ghetto.

    Trotskyite internationalism [plus free-marketeerism] makes no whatsoever without the historical context of the Jews escaping the ghetto, entering America, and within two generations introducing a weaponized memetic complex in order to induce a substantial portion of the American population to act exactly against their best interests as men, as fathers, as mannerbunden, and as a nation (or nations).

    • jim says:

      You attribute to the trots a system of beliefs curiously irrelevant to the fact that they destroyed Russian agriculture, murdered very large numbers of peasants and murdered very large numbers of their fellow Jews.

      Which murders, like the superior holiness of which they were born, were entirely in accord with the individual self interest of individual Trotskyites.

      Trotskyite beliefs were not inducing people to act against their self interest. They were justifying self interested acts of murder, robbery, and torture by individual Trotskyites as more holy than thou.

      Stalin defeated the Trotskyites because his largely non Jewish bureaucracy acted in the collective self interest of his bureaucracy, while each individual Trotskyite tended to each pursue his individual self interest in torturing people for hidden stashes of gold, and similar activities.

      Trotskyite holiness was more holy than Stalinist holiness, but less effective in producing collective action. Trots tended to act in the individual self interest of the individual Trotskyite, sincerely believing that these actions were very holy indeed. Increasingly, we now have the same problem with Harvard holiness, as recently displayed in Haiti by the NGOs looting Haiti after the earthquake, causing famine and plague.

      The NGOs that came to assist Haiti instead stole everything not nailed down, and were very satisfied with their superior holiness in doing so. This misconduct resembles that of the Trotskyites shortly before Stalin destroyed them in that Trotskyite’s were incapable of collective action, pursuing their individual self interest.

      The earthly telos of holiness is to facilitate collective cooperative action, but the holiness spiral detaches holiness from its telos, as homosexuality detaches sex from its telos, resulting in loss of the capability to engage in collective action effectively.

      Gays cannot have children, Trots could not work together effectively, and Harvard graduates have recently lost the capability to work together effectively.

      • Encelad says:

        Speaking of Haiti, I read that one of the reason the locals are starving is because some branch of the International Community apparatus ordered to slaughter all the pigs they were feeding on, because “those pigs were sick”. Then they brought a new pig breed to replace them, but apparently, it had an abysmal fitness in that ecological niche, and they quickly died off leaving the people starving.

        Now, I always assumed that disaster was due to incompetence, like California fires. But you mentioned California fires being due to a precise policy of cleansing rural whites, so is the starving of Haiti done on purpose as well? Is that mobile banditry at work?

        • jim says:

          California is hostility to white people building outside the cities.

          Haiti is mobile banditry – a bunch of carpetbaggers. Turns out it is better to be ruled by low IQ stationary bandits than high IQ mobile bandits.

          The epithet “Carpetbagger” implies a ruler with no attachments to those he rules, and no intention to stick around to see the consequences of his ruling acts. The yankees who came to loot the South had all their stuff in carpetbags, with the intent of moving on to the next target when the current target was ruined, and the yankees who came to loot Haiti had all their stuff in one carryon and one checkin bag.

        • Ad Hoc Reason says:

          Every crisis is scientifically engineered by someone to extract maximum personal, familial, and ethnic gain possible while maintaining plausible deniability.

          To find out who precipitated the crisis, ask cui bono?

          • jim says:

            Marxist accounts of who benefits are invariably as absurd as Troofer accounts, a mixture of barefaced lies, Troofer style, with sheer insanity, flat earth style.

            Individual self interest is to pursue ever greater holiness, resulting in collective acts that are wildly contrary to individual and collective self interest, hence the Russian complaint that America is “Not agreement capable”

            Meaning that anarcho tyranny result in there being no one to negotiate with. Russia agrees on one thing with one part of the American elite, and then the rest of the elite wander off the reservation and do something insane and different.

      • Ad Hoc Reason says:

        >You attribute to the trots a system of beliefs curiously irrelevant to the fact that they destroyed Russian agriculture, murdered very large numbers of peasants and murdered very large numbers of their fellow Jews.

        That’s a lie. I don’t attribute to the Trotskyites a system of beliefs at all. I attribute to them a Jewishness with a blinding hatred for the White Russians who kept them safely locked up in the Ghetto for many hundreds of years.

        Man is not an ideological animal. Normal people authentically believe what their subconscious rationally calculates is optimal for them to believe. This process can update on a daily basis if need be. In 2019 Anno Domini this takes the form of asking schoolchildren “What gender do you feel like today?”

        So when the Jews escaped the Ghetto, they spontaneously, organically optimized for the ideology most likely to kill as many goyim as close to the Pale of Settlement as possible.

        If Trotskyism was killing “very large numbers” of their “fellow Jews”, then it is very confusing indeed that, at the very height of Trotskyism, the Jews were fleeing into Bolshevik Russia.

        • jim says:

          > I attribute to them a Jewishness with a blinding hatred for the White Russians who kept them safely locked up in the Ghetto for many hundreds of years.

          That hatred may well explain part of it, a large part of it, but fails to explain why so many Russian Jews wound up persecuted, and quite a lot of them dead.

          Trotskyites, for the most part, are Jews, and Trotskyites hate Jews more than anyone hates Jews, more than Stormfront hates Jews.

          The Trotskyites said to the peasant with one cow, “You are oppressed by the peasant with two cows, and we Jews are also oppressed, let us join hands against our oppressors”

          And they said to their fellow Jews “Let us join hands against those Christian dogs. We will double cross the Christian dog peasant with one cow.”

          And then they betrayed both the peasant with one cow and their follow Jews.

          That is leftism, not Judaism.

          Jewish cohesion has been collapsing. Observe for example that they lost the diamond trade to the dot Indians. This loss of cohesion has in part been a result of Jews loyal to Israel physically moving there, but Trots were and are spectacular and brutal betrayal of their fellow Jews and hate their fellow Jews to this day.

          Hatred of near is distinctive of leftism – Progressives of Christian/Puritan origin are genocidally hostile to Christians and Christianity, but don’t care much about Jews one way or another. Trots care about Jews one hell of a lot.

          Because leftism is social entropy, incohesion is diagnostic of leftism, and thus hatred of near is indicative of leftism, caused by leftism, and causes leftism.

          American Trots have pretty much forgotten how much they hated the peasant with one cow, but they really remember how much they hate their fellow Jews.

          The big problem with trots was not that they were and are Jewish, though that is undoubtedly part of the problem. The big problem however is their Marxism, not their Jewishness.

          > If Trotskyism was killing “very large numbers” of their “fellow Jews”, then it is very confusing indeed that, at the very height of Trotskyism, the Jews were fleeing into Bolshevik Russia.

          Evidence?

          The height of Trotskyism was the liquidation of the kulaks. When were Jews fleeing into Bolshevik Russia? The Trots were not in a position to betray and murder their fellow Jews until the civil war was over, and in wars, Jews are notorious for choosing the wrong side, and paying for it after the war.

          • Ad Hoc Reason says:

            How many Jews were killed by Jews vs. how many Christians by Jews? A few Jews dying here and there is just collateral damage to a few sufficiently bloodthirsty fellow Jews. I notice that there were no Jewish kulaks.

            Supposedly there was a continual net Jewish inflow from the Soviet Revolution to the start of WWII. Unsure about finer details.

            • jim says:

              When communism first grabbed for power in Russia, it was nearly all Jewish.

              By the time of the Hitler Stalin pact, it was, as Hitler favorably commented, almost Judenrein.

              Therefore, the Jews got it harder than the Christians – and they got it mostly from their fellow Jews.

              The distinguishing factor of that regime was leftism, not Jewishness, and the distinguishing factor of leftism is hostility for near.

              From its Jewishness, one would expect Christians to get it worst. From its Leftism, Jews to get it worst. And, lo and behold …

              Left wing Jews have the same attitude to Jews as puritan descended progressives have to Christians.

          • Ad Hoc Reason says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Unsupported assertion. Present argument and checkable evidence, and I will allow it through.

              Not going to have debates of the form “Is so.” “Is not.”

              I allow myself to respond to unsupported assertion with “Nuts”. If you don’t like it, have respond with something better than “Not nuts”, or I will delete the conversation.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          AHR,

          You misdiagnose the etiology of gender-bender agender-agenda and the rest of it. If you think that it benefits “the capitalist class,” need to explain how capitalists benefit from sexual and racial anarcho-tyranny versus having a society with an orderly and meritocracy-minded base population. Do rich people economically benefit from lording it over a dysfunctional freakshow?

          Likewise, you bring up Jews; but it is Jewish elementary school children who are most likely to “give their bubeleh a heart attack” by coming out as xir/xor/xar fruitcakesexual velociraptorkin, i.e., the madness strikes primarily the children of the priesthood (academia, journalism, entertainment, bureaucracy, pedagoguery, etc.), even if it’s originally designed with the children of Christian white rednecks in flyover country in mind as its targets. Jews are overrepresented among both the cognitive and financial elites, and Jews have totally drunk their own kool aid, got high on their own supply, thus abysmal TFR among Prog (“Reform”) Jews and high inter-marriage rates, oy gevalt. The result is Jewish power gradually waning, superseded by mystery-meat shitskin power.

          All of which suggests that the problem is one of priests running amok, not capitalists or goycidal chosenites running amok. The thing about Nazbol is that it misses the structure of the game for its various constituent players. A few members of the Cathedral are capitalists, and many members of the Cathedral are Jews; but the Cathedral benefits neither capitalists nor Jews. Those who practice selection-for-holiness usually end up belly up, sooner or later. First as a class, as their cohesion falters; then as individuals, as their breeding is characterized by dysgenesis. Yes, Jim is an ideologue – and his ideology has a very strong explanatory power. Unlike Nazbol.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “They start with a kernel of truth, usually profound truth, and then lacquer it up with piles and piles of bullshit.”

      Why would they even need to be founded on truth?

      “In order to induce people to behave in irrational ways. ”

      Not really. Women are attracted to powerful men, men are attracted to power. Ideologies offer power with a bullshit cost in order to prevent defection. Just like bootcamp helps you murder foreigners and take their land, bullshit helps you murder your neighbor and take their stuff.

      • Ad Hoc Reason says:

        Compare ideology to advertising. It’s much the same phenomenon. It’s an ever-escalating arms race. 150 years ago a highly effective ad was a little blurb in a newspaper. 100 years ago it was a radio spot. 50 years ago it was a television ad. Today I don’t know what it is, but I know that they’re all highly visual and designed to literally hypnotize and they’re still decreasing in effectiveness.

        To get the same effect an ideology also has to keep getting stronger to counter ever-increasing natural immunity. Because the interests of the regime pushing the ideology and the interests of the ordinary man are very different, the ideology will represent the interests of the regime and attempt to induce the man to behave in a way conducive to the interests of the regime at the expense of his own fitness.

        I don’t know why people develop resistance, but they do. It is a well-studied fact that all advertisements only ever get less effective, and continually do so. And when you think advertising and ideology don’t coincide just think of all the World War propaganda posters.

        • jim says:

          Again, you are using the Marxist model where this ideology is pushed by a single entity with a single will.

          Which model is as absurd as any troofer lie.

          Ideology grows more extreme because priests are competing with each other to be holier than the next priest, not because the laity is becoming cynical. Laity cynicism restrains the priesthood, rather than causing them to escalate.

  7. Ad Hoc Reason says:

    [*deleted*]

  8. Ad Hoc Reacon says:

    Last post. And it will be brief.

    Charles Darwin taught us that given sufficient time, that which works will persist, and that which does not will disintegrate into the annals of nonexistence.

    This iron law applies to power as it does anything else subject to the process of natural selection, which is most things.

    It follows, therefore, that all ideologies, which are all based on lies, are maladaptive. Which is to say, that if authentically held ideologies induce the powerful to behave in irrational ways, irrationality being defined as that which weakens their power in the longest timeframe (generational timescale), then these ideologues will be replaced by those who are more ruthlessly dedicated to the pursuit of power.

    In accordance with natural law. Which is completely and utterly uncaring and amoral.

    It is therefore necessary to conclude, among other things, that our rulers are A) not authentically progressive (e.g. Bohemian Grove), B) are probably not telling the truth about anything else, and C) those with the altruistic compassion to “teach foreign girls how to put condoms on bananas” are being out-competed by those concerned with their own self-interest, viz. the accumulation of money and power.

    Your ideological stupidity, in other words, don’t stand up to Darwinian reasoning.

    And if your ideas don’t stand up to Darwinian reasoning, then you’re just as moronic as any evangelical christian. You might as well believe that the world was literally created in 7 days 6000 years ago.

    • jim says:

      Again, you don’t believe what you say you believe. Darwinian natural law applies to the individual, and you are attributing self interest maximizing behavior to the social class, to “capital” not to the individual.

      Trouble is that it can be sane for the individual to individually act in ways that result in insane collective action. Each priest maximizes his self interest by demonstrating superior holiness, resulting in collective action that fails to advance collective self interest.

      Forcing Afghan girls to put a condom on a banana, when one should be confiscating Venezuelan oilfields is contrary to collective self interest but it maximizes individual self interest.

      Your argument presupposes that we are ruled by “capital”, that “capital” is a single individual, and that that individual is pursuing his self interest.

      We are ruled by priests, and the priests are many, and each priest maximizes his self interest by maximizing holiness, resulting in insane, suicidal, and self destructive behavior.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Power is the ability to force others to do what they don’t want to.

      Leftism is about forcing people to do what they don’t want to.

      I’m not seeing why increasing leftism doesn’t lead to people more concerned with power.

      Now, you might claim it favors people who want power over only those immediately near them and not strangers, but that is what we see. Leftists have other people (the military) wage holy war while they spend all their time inflicing leftism on each other with the result that TFR looks like

      Afghanistan
      African American
      White Conservative
      White Liberal

    • Dave says:

      > “It follows, therefore, that all ideologies, which are all based on lies, are maladaptive”.

      No, it does not follow. An ideology might contain not one word of truth, yet still be adaptive if it enhances the fertility of those who believe it. Or it might work like a brain-eating parasite, winning Darwin’s game by propagating to new hosts faster than it’s killing off its present hosts.

      • jim says:

        An ideology is much the same thing as a religion. A religion is a synthetic tribe, and a way of creating consensus on the rules for how members of the tribe should treat each other, getting agreement on the rules of the game.

        The problem is that a religion may well be gamed – so that it becomes adaptive for the priesthood of the religion, and maladaptive for the ordinary members of the religion, evil priesthood, demonic religion. Marxism is one such. The sacraments of progressivism are rapidly becoming increasingly and overtly demonic.

        An earlier, and infamous example, was the worship of Moloch. You demonstrated your sincerity by burning your children alive in public – clearly maladaptive. But this guaranteed the state a loyal priesthood of sincere believers, and this demonstration of sincere belief won converts, thus the state religion could expand through both soft and hard power. This was so effective and successful (effective and successful for the state and the state religion, not for the adherents of the state religion) that the cure had to be genocidal.

        By denying a man property rights in his wives and children, progressivism radically impedes reproduction in both men and women. If animal rights activists forbade farmers to fence in their cattle and chickens, forbade them to own their cattle and chickens, pretty soon there would be very few cattle and chickens. This is more radically damaging to reproductive success than the worship of Moloch.

        We need a state religion in which it is OK to kill your wife and her lover if she wanders off, as in Old Testament Israel. By preventing women from defecting on men through hypergamy, this reduces the incentive for men to defect on women by spinning plates.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      >It is therefore necessary to conclude, among other things, that our rulers are A) not authentically progressive (e.g. Bohemian Grove), B) are probably not telling the truth about anything else, and C) those with the altruistic compassion to “teach foreign girls how to put condoms on bananas” are being out-competed by those concerned with their own self-interest, viz. the accumulation of money and power.

      Thanks for the valuable input, /leftypol/.

      We now know who the real rulers of society are: DoD contractors.

      Why do all boys (and their fathers, too) across America get unceasingly emasculated, intimidated, and humiliated, till their testicular fortitude, sense of self-pride, and inner resolve all crumble, resulting in generations of sissified, soyfied, crying sacks of FUD? Because that’s precisely what the Military-Industrial Complex demands.

      Who benefits whenever a white girl with a conservative familial background brings home a fine, upstanding gentleman, youthfully possessed of Ebono-Lyrical aspirations, eloquently self-described as “Mup da doo didda po mo gub bidda be dat tum muhfugen bix nood cof bin dub ho muhfugga”? Clearly, it’s an eventuality most desired by the 4D Chess-Masters at the Pentagon; if an average national IQ of 89 won’t save America, what will?

      When the future US President, Tranny-Saurus REKT xomself, takes stage to announce the dawn of a new era, one free of chromosomal or speciesist prejudices, whose pockets will thereby be enriched, right then and right there? No need to rack one’s brains about this one: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics – that’s whose pockets. (Joke’s on you, bigot; Tranny-Saurus will be a REPUBLICAN and vigorously uphold muh Constitution)

      Pic related:
      https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mgmFX7MQ0CM/hqdefault.jpg

      If there’s one thing that Russia, China, and the Ayatollahs shit tons of bricks about, that’s the prospect of America embracing mandatory veganism, queer bathrooms, mulattoization, and electro-shocks of goodthink shot straight into the prefrontal cortex; nothing projects military might stronger than TOLERANCE. The State Department shall lead the way!

      /s

      “O-o-o-oversimplification! The priests-warriors dichotomy is misleading! Jim won’t let go of his antiquated political instincts!” the leftist priest cries out as he implausibly insinuates that the warrior class is in control of society.

      Nah.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      (Jim, you may want to delete the 3 excessive posts that I wrote to bypass your spamblock)

      • jim says:

        I don’t understand why my spamblock malfunctioned. Do you have a clue?

        With only one link, should not have been the link.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          I think that the excessive irregular words did it; it probably identified an abundance of bot-like speech patterns that seem to not be of human origin.

          (Which is ironic, given the A. Wyatt Mann reference there)

  9. Paul the Troofer says:

    Jim your problem is that you are right about almost everything you write about, and your views are contrary to what the mass of mediocrity believe to be true. This takes a toll on a human, whether they would like to admit it or not. We are supposed to be living in an age of reason and competence, instead we live in an age of particularly advanced stupidity.

    With the greatest respect to you and your writings you are quite wrong about the events of 9/11.

    Both of the two towers disintegrated, and even if you had crashed a Jet full of TNT into the side of the building you would not have provided sufficient energy to cause the disintegration of the whole of either tower. Neither would sufficient energy have been provided if both jets had been twice the size and had 20 times the fuel.

    When the towers begin to collapse you can see the top halves of both towers disintegrate by demolition. It has to be by demolition that both of the top halves of the towers because a fire over a few floors and a hole made by a jet cannot possibly cause the disintegration of the top half of either building.

    I would say that a first year course at university on the topic of mechanics for physics majors as well as a similar course in thermodynamics would provide sufficient understanding to enable one to see that the official explanation is physically impossible.

    It doesn’t matter if a jet hit or a missile hit or what. Neither event would provide sufficient explanation for the disintegration of either tower or indeed building 7.

    I write as someone with more than first year physics courses under my belt.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      >or indeed building 7.

      Accounts of WTC 7 Damage

      1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

      2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren’t aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale

      3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn’t see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti

      4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

      5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren’t going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

      6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

      Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

      So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
      Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
      Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

      Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

      Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle

      7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. “I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,” Jennings said.

      8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

      9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

      10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn’t know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

      We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

      Q. Were you injured?

      A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn’t believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn’t see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia

      11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
      –FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri

      12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY

      13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

      Q. The door was blocked?

      A. Yeah, and we found our way — we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to — I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs

      14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn’t see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado

      (After collapse of south tower)
      15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters’ alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda

      16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn’t get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn’t get the door open.

      Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

      A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn’t get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn’t like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn’t reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn’t safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell

      17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

      18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

      19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It’s definitely going. There’s no way to stop it. ‘Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it’s already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

      20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
      The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

      Eyewitness accounts of the withdrawal from WTC 7

      1. They backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down. –Firefighter Thomas Smith

      2. Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. –FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers

      3. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. –Chief Frank Fellini

      4. We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale

      5. I remember him screaming about number 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don’t know when, but it’s definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you’re away from it, that’s an order, you know, stuff like that. –Firefighter Edward Kennedy

      6. Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area —

      Q. A collapse zone?

      A. Yeah — be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn’t have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That’s about it. –Chief Frank Cruthers

      7. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening. I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don’t know if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. So we had to be concerned about electricity, that this may be energized or not be energized. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

      8. “We heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. …We heard that all day long, all the warnings.” –Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray

      9. It could have been an hour, hour and a half we were doing that before we were ordered to move away from that part of Tower No. 1 because there was an imminent danger of collapse of World Trade Center No. 5 and 7. –Firefighter Vandon Williams

      10. Civilian photographer Tom Franklin: “Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building — WTC 7 — was ready to fall.”

      11. Unidentified speaker in video: “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

      12. CBS-TV Reporter Vince DeMentri, who sneaked past security barriers to get close to the scene:
      …Building 7 was going to collapse. That appears to be what has happened now. I don’t know exactly how many stories the building is, Dan, but standing at the base of the building and watching it burn about an hour ago, it looked to be on the order of 50, 60 stories. [If anyone has the audio leading up to “…Building 7 was going to collapse,” let me know. I’m curious to know why the CT websites include only this much of the clip.]

      13. So that was basically we watched that one come down. It was on fire first, I think the fourth floor was on fire they said. We were like are you guys going to put that fire out? I was like, you know, they are going to wait for it to burn down and it collapsed. So that’s when I knew high rise buildings you know (inaudible).

      Q: You were still there?

      A: Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand.

      Q: So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?

      A: 5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, that same rumbling. –EMT Decosta Wright

      14. We went to get the car. We were inside the perimeter, more or less — that’s where the car was — of where Seven World Trade Center was. We started back going east, I guess it is. …We were inside this perimeter although we didn’t realize it at the time we saw a rig with the compartments opened. We stopped. They were actually reversing. I kind of pulled up along side them. Murray yelled out the window “Your compartments are open.” The guy yelled something back at us. They kept backing up.

      We went forward to imagine it’s the corner of Murray and West Street. Just as we were approaching it, we saw person run north in front of the car, and then Joe Mazzarella who was sitting in the passenger seat just started screaming “Reverse! Reverse! Reverse! Reverse!” I didn’t even look. I just threw it in reverse and punched it. We flew backwards without being able to see out the rear, and building Seven came down in front of us –Fire Marshal John Coyle

      15. At this point, I moved up all the way to stairwell B. We got the lady out, passed her down, then they were trying to dig out, I believe it was a second Battalion Chief and I waited and stayed there with them until we were ordered—well, we were ordered several times, but the Captain of, I think it was a rescue company or a squad refused to leave. Finally he gave up, he said there was nothing he could do and we all left that area. This is in the collapse zone of tower 7.

      At this point, I went down back to the middle area of the pile and I proceeded to make my way to the north side of the towers. At that point, I ran into Lieutenant Simms, who had another complement of Ladder 20 there. At this point, I guess I had formally reported into Deputy Chief Visconti. He was up on the North End. We waited until tower 7 collapsed and at this point, we went into the area and assessed the damage that was done to the buildings and to see if we could control the fires that resulted from the collapse of tower 7. –Captain Richard Weldon

      16. At that time Seven World Trade Center was burning and in was danger of collapsing. …I guess it was a Chief was saying clear the area, because they were worried about number Seven World Trade Center coming down and burying guys who were digging. So basically we went back to the rig because they were clearing that area out. It took about three hours for Seven World Trade Center to actually come down. –Firefighter Kevin McGovern

      17. I remember later in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about Seven coming down. I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for Seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about Seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.

      As soon as it came down, everybody got up and tore ass west down Vesey Street. Everybody was trying to get into this building. I remember there were 150 guys trying to get through two revolving doors with full gear. Everyone is screaming. Guys were trying to smash the glass with their halogens to get through and ended up freaking out. Everybody was shell-shocked.

      That’s when Salka came up and he said all right now that Seven was down you can start getting closer and down things. There was no collapse threat anymore. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

      18. Eventually they had ordered everybody away from the area again because of building 7.
      –Lieutenant James Walsh

      19. We stayed in this area for a while, and we started wandering around, and we came around to where 6 and 7 were, and actually 7, we were coming down this corner going trying to find something to do, and that’s when they were telling us 7 is going to go, 7 is going to go, so we kind of backed away.
      –Firefighter Paul Vasquez

      20. Q: Did 7 collapse yet?

      A: 7 hasn’t collapsed yet. We were being told by — I guess everybody was being a little insubordinate that day. Everyone wanted to do as much as they could, but we were told 5 minutes [to cease rescue operations on the pile], I don’t know how many times. –Firefighter Gerard Suden

      21. They had figured they knew that building was going to come down. It was just a question of time, and everybody was awaiting that. –Firefighter Russ Stroebel

      22. A Battalion Chief was assigned to us. We took our apparatus to West Street to the north bridge, on that side over there, where we began to operate. We had identified different members who were deceased and trapped in rigs. We were about to proceed our operation there and this was in the afternoon, I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing.
      At that time, we had fallen back to probably opposite Stuyvesant High School, I believe it was on the west side there.

      Q. That’s uptown a little bit.

      A. Right. They had us fall back to there. We stayed at that position until exactly when 7 collapsed. When 7 collapsed, we responded again. We had an Engine Company, a spare Engine Company with us and ourselves. We responded to just behind 7, which was, I think it was Greenwich, was it Washington or Greenwich? I think it was Greenwich. Is this Greenwich?

      Q. It could be. I don’t have a bigger map.

      A. We turned the corner, 7 had just collapsed, the block that led into 7.

      Q. Pretty sure that’s Greenwich.

      A. Greenwich and Park was covered with debris, there were burning autos and all debris. It was starting to extend into the buildings on both sides of the block. We went to hydrants in that area. We had off duty guys in our cells, but the hydrants had no water. We did whatever we could. The rigs actually were starting to become in danger of lighting up themselves.

      We called trying to get water returned to us over here. Finally one of the members thought, we used it for a good period of time, we forced the door on one of the buildings there and used the water from the roof tanks. It was left in the gravity tanks. We took a two and a half line out of one of the doors. We were able to advance down Greenwich, stopping, putting fire out in the street, the cars and from getting into exposures.

      They were worried about 7 at the time. The decision was made not to do it, not to get anybody else hurt. That’s when we backed up and they said let’s wait for this other building before we continue any work, because where the bridge was in the direct path of 7. It was the north bridge where we were looking initially.

      We operated with the Tower Ladder there effectively on those buildings that were within our reach. Then the other part was unfortunately we couldn’t do anything at the pedestrian bridge but the concern of 7, which they had no idea which way it was going to collapse and they just knew it was going to collapse and they positioned us outside of it.

      The company to the south of us was — it was a double digit — I don’t know if it was 14. I’m just stabbing at numbers now. It was just so much debris between cars, it was hard to see what was good and bad, stuff like that. But that was our main position right there. I would say from approximately about at least an hour, hour and a half between 4 and 5. They made us evacuate due to the fear of 7 coming down.
      The Chief and myself went down to that area where we they wanted us to work. Seeing what we would need; torches, air bags, anything else like that to operate at that bridge.

      The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer

      23. I remember finding Engine Company 6’s rig, stripping that rig of fittings and hose to hook up to anybody else. I remember at that time also they were worried about Building 7 because when the second tower came down, they were worried about parts of – actually, when the first tower came down, they were worried about parts of Building 7 collapsing, so I remember getting into Building 7 and searching. I got separated from the crew that I had gone down with, because I stayed at the pump panel. They had gone around the West Street side of the building and into the rubble.

      I remember coming out of the building now because they were afraid of Building 7 coming down, and all the other buildings around it getting knocked down. So they took us out of the building. –Firefighter Anthony Salerno

      24. Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o’clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we’ve got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that’s when 7 collapsed. Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess. –Lieutenant William Ryan

      25. But anyway, more to the point, a rumor started to develop that tower 7 was going to fall on us or nearby us. Having just lived through the collapse and having Dr. Kelly just live through the collapse with both of us getting buried, this was not a very pleasing feeling. It really does make me understand a lot about psychological stress that can occur in these events because I would not have had the same worry about this if I hadn’t just come through one of them. We went outside to speak to the Chief, the head Chief. His name is Chief Haring. Great guy. But he said, you know, it’s not going to be a problem. Tower 7 may collapse. It’s not going to be anywhere near here. It’s not going to be a problem. But we were really concerned about this.

      By the time we were about done with this, we interacted with Chief Haring again. He basically was incredulous and said: “What are you crazy? You’ve moved into the collapse zone, and if this collapse occurs, the dust cloud is going to knock out that entire park. You’re going to be useless there. You’ve made it worse.”

      About midway into setting up physically the second triage area, hanging the IV bags and everything, a tremendous noise occurs, and it’s so loud that everybody rushes to the rear of the Pace University building, all the doctors, all the nurses. When the noise was over, we went to the front. The dust cloud from tower 7, just like Chief Haring said, wiped out that park. If we had had any supplies there, any doctors there, they wouldn’t have been killed. I mean, it wasn’t that massive the debris that fell on the park, but they would have been useless. The dust cloud went all the way up to the door of Pace University, up the stairs, across the street, right up to the door, the lobby door. –Dr. David Prezant

      26. “Then we were just hanging out watching building 7 ready to go.” –Firefighter Steve Piccerill

      27. We were down there for a while until we were ordered off, because they were worried about Seven coming down. –Firefighter Michael Palone

      28. I know when the Lieutenant told us where to go, that wasn’t the correct staging area, cause we were still too close to the buildings. They wanted everyone away from it. That’s when there was a third building that collapsed around that time.
      Q: Building Seven, which would be over here.
      A: Okay, 7 World Trade, that one collapsed.
      Q: 7 World Trade collapsed a little later.
      A: Yeah, a lot later. –EMT Alwish Moncherry

      29. From there, I think that’s when 7 was going to come down. So they backed everybody out, somewhere near Church & Trinity, I guess. –Firefighter Peter Metzger

      30. Eventually later in the day we had to evacuate that site because number Seven collapsed. Prior to its collapse, we evacuated all the supplies, the doctors, and moved over to Pace University into the lobby, and they set up another medical area. Most injuries we treated were eye injuries from the debris, basically cleaning out people’s eyes. –EMS Lieutenant John Mendez

      31. I think they were fearing about 7 World Trade coming down. –Lt. Anthony Mancuso.

      32. At that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. –Firefighter Matthew Long

      33. 7 World Trade Center? I couldn’t even watch that. I said that’s enough. I refused to watch that. I took R-and-R. I said you guys can watch that one. But they got streams and they contained the fire. I mean, the objective was nobody else got killed, the fire did not jump the street. –Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuona

      34. We were starting to gather over there, and we heard that there was a building in danger of collapse. This was a couple hours later, maybe, and that huge building — it was on that block. When that came down, we all ran down to the west side. –Firefighter Stephen Jezycki

      35. Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing. –Firefighter George Holzman

      36. Then at one point they chased us out of there for fear of collapse of a building; I believe it was Seven World Trade. So they got us out of there because they didn’t know which way that building was going to collapse. When Seven World Trade did collapse, we were in the Woolworth Building. You couldn’t even see. It was unbelievable. You couldn’t even see your hand in front of your face. That’s how much dust and debris was flying around. –FDNY Captain John Henricksen

      37. We heard a mayday for everybody to get out of the building (Verizon Bldg., next to WTC 7) — no, I’m sorry, an “urgent,” three “urgents,” and we came out of the building. I’d say that was like an hour and a half, two hours later. We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse [warning] on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse. –Firefighter Brian Fitzpatrick

      38. The only thing that had me really frustrated was they wasn’t really trying to let us go back down there. (After the collapse of the second building). I understand after it was unsafe. Cause I guess after that 7 came down. Well 7 didn’t come down until like 4, 5 o’clock. So I was just wondering, they just kept us cooped in there for a long time. –EMT Jarjean Felton

      39. During the search we were ordered by one of the battalions to move north above — towards Stuyvesant High School — under the overpass at Chambers Street, because at that point it was feared that Six [sic: Seven] World Trade Center was going to collapse. It did so later in the afternoon. –Lieutenant Francis Farrington

      40. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it,” after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out. (Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday pp. 175-76)

      41. While we were searching the subbasements (of building 6) they decided that Seven World Trade Center which was across the street was going to collapse, so they called us out. We were so far down we couldn’t hear them, but we came out after we searched the subbasements. Actually we came out on the Seven World Trade Center parkway street when came out they were calling us on the radio to tell us to get out. I then reported that the search was negative and then they wouldn’t let anybody near the site pretty much because Seven World Trade Center was going to come down. –Battalion Chief Frank Congiusta

      42. We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7.
      –Firefighter Pete Castellano

      43. The reason we were given for why we were moving was that 7 World Trade Center was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing. So we must have been somewhere in this area where we would have had a problem with that. …They wanted us to move the treatment sector because of 7 World Trade Center was imminently to collapse, which, of course, it did –Paramedic Joseph Cahill

      44. The rest of the day we were unloading trucks we were just doing whatever little things we could do, but they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to fall. –Firefighter Timothy Burke

      45. “We were asked to go out of that area due to a risk of collapse in 7 WTC. ”
      –PAPD P.O. Thomas Johnson

      46. …And that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building. –Battalion Chief John Norman

      47. “The three of us along with 2 firemen searched that area until we were told to leave due to 7 possibly collapsing.” –PAPD P.O. Thomas Hering

      48. All later attempts to return to the WTC were stopped by the pending, and eventual collapse of Building 7 and the uncontrolled fires. –PAPD P.O. Lawrence Guarneri

      49. A while later, an NYFD supervisor approached and ordered the rescuers away from the area because 7 WTC was in danger of collapse also. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O.

      50. At about 1300 hrs between repeating officers fruitless efforts to locate fellow officers and the warning of building number Seven’s possible collapse I started to walk uptown on West Street in hope of locating the PAPD Command Center. –Christopher Bergmann, PAPD P.O.

      51. An FDNY supervisor deemed the area we were in unsafe, and assisted people out of the immediate area. –M. McAdams, PAPD P.O.

      52. Reports of gas main leaks, bombs, small arms fire and buildings about to collapse forced us to again relocate further north on West Street. –Daniel A. Carbonaro, PAPD Lieutenant

      [The next three quotes are similar…from written reports by officers in the same command]
      53. Due to fire and instability of buildings at the WTC site we were directed to the MCC gym.
      – PAPD P.O. Thomas Mancini

      54. Due to fire and instability at the WTC site we were redirected to the MCC gym.
      –PAPD P.O. Quirk

      55. Due to the fire and instability of the buildings at the WTC site we were directed to the MCC gym.
      –PAPD P.O. Christensen

      56. Several attempts were made to assist the trapped, but we were kept out due to the uncontrolled fires and other building collapsing around us. –PAPD P.O. Patrick Versage

      57. Returned to the site on 2-3 occasions…in an effort to help with evacuation but was stopped due to the imminent collapse of 7 WTC. –PAPD LT. William Oorbeek

      58. Unfortunately we could not do much more because of fear that other buildings surrounding the Trade Center were going to come down. –PAPD P.O. John McClain

      59. For the remainder of the day , we made trips to the scene to assist in the search. Due to confusion and the threat of damaged buildings falling we were forced to retreat each time. We were on West & Vesey when # 7 collapsed. –PAPD Sgt. Stone

      60. So we were doing searches, stretching lines, we were doing everything that we could possibly do. We were kind of overwhelmed at the task at hand. Like I said we operated for about three and half hours and then we went to take breather, and as we moved out of the area we weren’t permitted back in the area by that time by a number of Chiefs that were in charge. –FDNY Lieutenant Brendan Whelan

      61. Once they got us back together and organized somewhat, they sent us back down to Vesey, where we stood and waited for Seven World Trade Center to come down. –Firefighter Frank Sweeney

      62. But they weren’t really getting [sic] guys get too deep into it because of the possible pending collapse of Seven World Trade. …We were staged there a good part of the afternoon until Seven finally did collapse. –Firefighter David Moriarty

      63. …they told us to evacuate the area for tower number Seven, building Seven, when they knew that was coming down… –Firefighter Dominick Muschello

      64. …Captain Verraile from 24 Engine said, “Hey, let’s just back everything off here because this building is coming down.” –Firefighter Howie Scott

      65. Then they said that the 47 story hotel building—I think it’s number Seven—was about to come down. …We were around for the rest of the afternoon. At about 5:30 that did come down. –Firefighter Edward Mecner

      66. They were saying building Seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We waited for building Seven to come down. –Firefighter James Wallace

      67. At 5:20, No. 7 finally falls. They’ve been waiting for it to go so they can move the firemen and search-and-rescue teams in. With the thunderous collapse, firemen bolt up from where they’ve been camped, on the south side of the Embassy Suites. Some have been sitting on plush hotel furniture carted into the street, eating food from the Mexican restaurant next door. There’s a stampede over pickaxes and oxygen tanks. They head out toward the crushed fire trucks. “They’re looking for their brothers,” says an ambulance driver.

      68. Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they’re not trying to put this fire out? I didn’t realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there. – Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

      Here’s a woman who thought the FDNY “brought the building down”
      69. Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: “What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. … I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. … By noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. … There was another panic around four o’clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running.” (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

      70. “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down. … I made it down Vesey Street to just in front of the overpass of 7 World Trade. People were saying don’t stand under there, it’s going to come down. … So at that point we were a little leery about how the bridge was tied in, so no one was really going onto it, and then they were also saying 7 was going to come down. They chased everyone off the block.” – FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy (FDNY interview, 10/11/2001)

      71. “And at that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. … Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down.” – Firefighter Matthew Long: (FDNY interview, 10/9/2001)

      72. Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: “We no sooner got going on something there when a chief came along and said, ‘Everybody’s got to leave the area. We’re afraid that Seven World Trade is going to fall down.’ (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

      and:

      “After being ordered back because of the fear that yet another building was about to collapse (7 World Trade Center, 40+ stories), Brenda [Berkman] and her crew went to find other firefighters who might have some tools or a radio. … That afternoon, 7 World Trade Center came down. ‘We had cleared an enormous collapse zone for that, and it still wasn’t big enough. When the thing came down, the rubble and the dust came across the West Side Highway, over and past the rubble from the towers that was there.’” (Linda Willing, “Report from Ground Zero: The World Trade Center Collapse,” FireWork, 9/2001)

      73. Byron Pitts, CBS News correspondent: “About an hour ago, World Trade Center building number 7 collapsed. …It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down.” (CBS News, 9/11/2001)

      74. Kansas City Star: “About 4:30 p.m., word went out to evacuate the area. Officials were worried that Building 7 of the Trade Center complex would collapse.” (David Hayes, “Amid despair, photographer’s work brought hope,” Kansas City Star, 3/28/2004)

      75. Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine: “Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. … Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. ‘That building is coming down,’ he said with a drained casualness. ‘Really?’ I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. ‘When?’ ‘Tonight … Maybe tomorrow morning.’ This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.” (Mark Jacobson, “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll,” New York Magazine, 3/27/2006)

      76. Christine Haughney, reporter, Washington Post: “Then a policeman directed me north. The Solomon Smith Barney building–Building Seven–was about to collapse.” (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

      77. Peter DeMarco, reporter, New York Daily News: “Seven or eight blocks down Greenwich Street, the No. 7 World Trade building, a smaller, forty-story structure, was on fire. The street was closed; the building was going to collapse.” (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 97)

      78. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer: “Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don’t want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse.” (“WTC: This Is Their Story,” Firehouse, 4/2002)

      79. EMT Jason Charles: “So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can’t go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in.” (FDNY interview, 1/23/2002)

      80. Fire Lieutenant Roy David: “At Pace University we had — we set up — I’m sorry, we set up in that lobby of that building, the lobby and the actual whole first floor. There was a threat of collapse of building number seven, so 225, we had to evacuate it.” (FDNY Interview, 10/12/2001)

      81. Liz Gonzalez, reporter, Telemundo/Channel 47: “They started evacuating the area because they thought a third building was going to go down. We decided to stay. We saw the third building crash.” (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 209)

      82. Sara Kugler, reporter, the Associated Press: “I saw hundreds of firefighters leaning against buildings, sitting on trucks, eating fruit and water that the Red Cross was handing out. ‘Where are all the injured?’ I asked. ‘They are not letting us in. It’s not stable,’ said the firefighters. … All of a sudden Seven World Trade Center started to collapse.” (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 210)

      83. Fire Chief Frank Fellini: So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.” (FDNY Interview, 12/3/2001)

      84. Firefighter TJ Mundy: “The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse.” (Report from Ground Zero by Dennis Smith. Penguin, 2002)

      85. Harry Meyers, NYPD Safety Chief “My biggest concern at the time was #7. It was burning, and I felt that was a danger to the rescuers and to any trapped survivors there might be. …We were all pretty much on board that tower 7 was going to fall. We just didn’t know when and in what direction. (Report from Ground Zero by Dennis Smith. Penguin, 2002. p. 160

      86. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden “We still had 7 World Trade Center, which was burning also. We were worried about that collapsing, and it did collapse, about six hours later. There was a conscious decision to let that building burn and just keep everybody clear.” (Report from Ground Zero by Dennis Smith. Penguin, 2002. p. 32)

      • jim says:

        tl;dr We have innumerable eyewitness accounts that there was a notch taken out of building seven like the notch that causes a tree to fall, and the videos show that building seven began its fall not by suddenly going into free fall, but by tilting southwards like a tree notched on one side by the axeman, as expected and predicted by those that observed the notch.

        And if building seven fell by terrorist action, not by demolition charges, they all fell by terrorist action, not by demolition charges.

        Plus, if you look at videos of the explosion that ensues when the airliner hits, looks like something that can take down a building. Anyone who does not think that is what it looks like has watched too many Scrooge McDuck cartoons and not enough Wily Coyote cartoons.

        • Paul the Troofer says:

          tl;dr notch that causes tree to fall doesn’t cause near complete disintegration of said tree.

          Once again, basic physics disagrees with you and the wall of text which preceded.

          • jim says:

            Building seven does not completely disintegrate until it hits the ground – and it hits the ground in the square to the south of it, therefore starts its fall by falling like a tree as expected and predicted by everyone watching it.

            Are you arguing that there were demolition charges and the demolition charges went off after the tower was half way to the square and a third of the way to the ground?

            Building seven starts its fall like a tree, not by suddenly and completely disintegrating.

            • Paul the Troofer says:

              Look,

              here is what happens when a building falls over like a tree.

              http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Building%20falling.jpg

              https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–mh0RTw89–/c_fit,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18mllsnbhj7pwjpg.jpg

              https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pktM__i-8IQ/hqdefault.jpg

              Notice the lack of disintegration.

              I actually assume you are over 40 to be honest. People familiar with education curricula will be able to confirm the constant removal of content from said curricula, however, when you did your high school diploma you probably learned enough about basic physics to know that the official story is shit.

              There are fucking good reasons why over 3,000 qualified architects and engineers many of whom are from fucking good schools are willing to put their names down saying the official story is bullshit.

              I get why you hate troofers. Many of them are in fact retarded. However, i’m gonna side with the physics i learned from a university equivalent to MIT and the other 3,000 qualified architects and engineers who are willing to face ridicule for going against the official narrative because they happen to have the balls and intellectual honesty to question the official bullshit.

              • jim says:

                Building seven does not disintegrate until it is hitting the square to the south of it. Falls like a tree till it is half way over the square.

                Are you telling me that there were demolition charges, but they were only fired when the falling building was half way to the square?

                Obviously building seven did not fall by demolition, therefore none of them fell by demolition.

                • Paul the troofer says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  The videos of building seven show what they show. I say they show the building falling over to the south, as everyone expected at the time because of the fire and terrorist damage. You say they show it falling like a demolition. You have said that already. I said the other thing already. Not going to have endless repeats.

    • I do not especially care whether 9/11 was perpetrated by somebody within our government directly, or was perpetrated by outside terrorists, because if it was perpetrated by outside terrorists, said terrorists were allowed to train in the US, USG ignored intel warning that the attack would happen, and those who funded the attack were allowed to flee back to Saudi Arabia in the aftermath and were never pursued.

      In both cases, an entity within USG bears moral responsibility for the attack.

      If it is so unbelievable for building 7 to collapse, why would the conspiracy demolish it in the first place? If 7 had to go for some hidden reason we do not know about, demolish it with explosives and say the terrorists trained in explosive demolitions and hid bombs in the WTC. If the official story is planes and a firefighter pulls the shell of a bomb out of the wreckage, big problem. If the official story is bombs, and a firefighter finds explosive material in the wreckage, more support for the official story.

      All of your conspiracy bullshit defies Occam’s Razor, because any conspiracy is going to take the path that is the most effective with the least likelihood of exposure. If the official story is obviously wrong to anybody who knows physics and thermodynamics, why would they not create a cover story that is plausible to everybody?

      • jim says:

        > an entity within USG bears moral responsibility for the attack.

        Sure: And that entity is readily identifiable: Robert Mueller, who ordered the FBI to find white male Christian terrorists regardless of whether they existed or not, and ignore Islamic terrorists even if they were conducting terror plots in front of his nose.

        Anyone pushing 9/11 trooferism is running cover for Robert Mueller.

        Anyone who talks of 9/11 without saying “Robert Mueller, Robert Mueller, Islamic, Robert Mueller, Islamic, Robert Mueller” is covering for Robert Mueller.

        Robert Mueller ordered the FBI to find dirt on Christians and ignore dirt on Muslims, directly leading to 9/11 and the mass rape of white Christian girls in the USA by black Somali asylum seekers.

        Trooferism is an FBI op to provide cover for Robert Mueller and the anti Trump investigation. Observe what Troofers say about the evil Orange Man. Most troofers are directly or indirectly in the pay of Robert Mueller or people in Robert Mueller’s pocket. If someone pushes trooferism, he is running cover for Robert Mueller, and usually will also condemn the horrid Orange Man.

        You can tell who is paying them by observing their reaction to the Orange Man. Trooferism may have begun as genuine and spontaneous madness, but these days it is a branch of the Robert Mueller investigation.

        If someone is genuinely and spontaneously troofer, he should be genuinely and spontaneously anti Mueller, and genuinely and spontaneously hoping and expecting that Trump will drain the swamp. We usually observe the reverse, the Troofer is anti Trump, pro Mueller, therefore in the pay of the FBI or the Mueller investigation.

        • Dave says:

          When exactly did Mueller give that order, considering that he became FBI Director only one week before 9/11?

          • jim says:

            Robert Mueller did not materialize from nowhere one week before 9/11

            Policy is always diffuse and seemingly set by consensus, and when the shit hits the fan bureaucrats circle the wagons and say no one in particular is responsible. But Mueller was assistant Attorney General back in 1990, ten years before 9/11.

            So he was big man in cabal that set the consensus, and when “the consensus” was that Muslim terrorists should be ignored, and White Male Christian terrorists found regardless of whether they existed or not, Mueller was point man for that consensus, and when the shit hit the fan, he was the man in charge of that fan.

            He was big man in the group that decided to give terrorists a free pass, and at the time the 9/11 terrorists got their free pass, he was the man in charge.

            You can truly say that Robert Mueller did not personally do it, it was the swamp that did it. But of that swamp, of the part of the swamp that decided to give the 9/11 terrorists a free pass, Robert Mueller is and was the leading swamp critter.

            • Koanic says:

              This satisfies one instance of my general curiosity about leaders of Leftist conspiracies / fish schools. Thanks!

        • Ad Hoc Reason says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Deleted for being incoherent and unintelligible. You are using a bunch of random reactionary shibboleths that you think signal “hail a fellow reactionary”, without knowing or caring what they mean, without understanding the account of world that they refer to, hence using them in meaningless and nonsensical ways.

            Try again after first learning how we use those words and what we are referring to.

    • Truth says:

      It’s bizarre that Jim who is so smart has the same failings he attributes to flat earthers when it comes to 9/11 truth. 911 truthers don’t say that building seven had no reason to collapse in freefall. They say the evidence indicates that it collapsed in freefall because all of its beams were knocked outward by explosions so that there was no longer any restraining force. The explosions were set to demolish the building presumably to destroy all kinds of incriminating evidence stored in the building by the CIA and others. Here’s a letter specifically saying that key evidence which according to Armstrong could have put vast numbers of New York bankers in prison was destroyed in the building seven collapse. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-31/martin-armstrong-exposes-dick-cheney-donald-rumsfeld-conspiracy

      The presence of an axe generally implies an axman and the tree falls like a tree which is exactly how you would expect a building to fall if an explosion took out its base. It can’t fall at freefall speed as long as there are structural steel girders intact holding it up or even just holding up the top with no support at the bottom. In that case it will fall to the side like a tree.

      Likewise, the 9/11 truther’s show videos with the initial hole in the Pentagon too small for an airliner. What is your answer to their pictures? they ask why the hole is precisely in the office where Rumsfeld had said an audit was proceeding to find a missing $2.3 trillion on 9/10/2001, the day before, destroying the audit operation. They ask why there are no plane parts and how an amateur pilot managed to bring a commercial plane down level with the ground and hit this office precisely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BktTBfUZYTg

      • Ehud ben Garrison says:

        >The explosions were set to demolish the building presumably to destroy all kinds of incriminating evidence stored in the building by the CIA and others.

        As a senior Mossad operative, I am gravely disconcerted by the MO used by our colleagues across the Atlantic. I’ve participated in special operations all over our Flat Earth, and never once have I took part in (or got clue of) such over-the-top evidence destruction as apparently occurred on 9/11. What next – dropping a NUCLEAR BOMB on a site to dispose of documents?

        Shit, CIA-Tyrones. Get it together.

      • Dave says:

        They stored evidence of their crimes in an expensive office building and rigged the building with enough explosives to bring it down at the push of a button, because that’s so much easier than buying a good shredder. How could Jim not see this?

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Dave, clearly you don’t get it – shredding those documents is *illegal* so they couldn’t just shred them.

      • Ehud ben Garrison says:

        >they ask why the hole is precisely in the office where Rumsfeld had said an audit was proceeding to find a missing $2.3 trillion on 9/10/2001

        Lol.

        https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.t165/

      • jim says:

        As usual, troofers change their story – then change their story back.

        You now concede that the building initially fell like a tree.

        That is what people who saw the fires and the damage caused by Islamic terrorism expected to happen. There is no mystery magic invisible demolition.

        And pretty soon, you will be back to telling us it fell straight down.

      • jim says:

        > Likewise, the 9/11 truther’s show videos with the initial hole in the Pentagon too small for an airliner. What is your answer to their pictures?

        liar

        They lie, you know they lie.

        Those are pictures of one of the many exit holes. The real entrance hole is airliner size and airliner shaped.

        The plane and most of the wings fit through the hole. The outer part of the wings did not enter the building which was blast reinforced, but there is damage to facade for the full width wingtip to wingtip.

  10. alf says:

    Been reading up on my Saul Alinsky, this bit on Alinsky organizing workers to strike against General Motors was interesting:

    ‘The first attack was against the behemoth of this empire, General Motors. A sit-down strike was launched against Chevrolet. John L Lewis, then the leader of the CIO, told me that at the height of this sit-down strike he heard a rumor that General Motors had met with both Ford and Chrysler to advance the following proposition: “we at GM are fighting your battle, for if the CIO beats us, then you’re next in line and there will be no stopping them. Now we are willing to let the CIO sit in at Chevrolet until hell freezes and suffer that loss in our profit IF you will hold your production of Fords and Plymouths [the price-class competitors to the Chevrolet] to your present market. On the other hand, we cannot hold out against the CIO if you boost production in order to sell to all potential Chevrolet customers who will buy your products because they cannot get Chevrolets.”

    Lewis, who was an organizational genius with a rare insight into the power mechanics of the status quo, dismissed it with a perceptive comment. It doesn’t matter whether this is a false rumor or true, he said, because neither Fod nor Chrysler could ever agree to overlook an opportunity for an immediate increase in their profits and power, shortsighted as it might be. ‘

    So essentially, not only does everyone’s favorite leftist acknowledge that the capitalists can’t cohesively organize, Salinsky’s entire strategy in fact depends on them being unable to organize.

    • alf says:

      (Alinsky naturally suffered from lack of comma usage, which, lucky for him, I have improved upon in the quoted paragraph)

  11. lol says:

    everyone who mentions flat earth has a IQ below 90 or is deflecting from something

  12. […] Source: Jim […]

  13. pdimov says:

    Flat earthers don’t exist.

    Or, to be more precise, unironic flat earthers that don’t glow in the dark don’t exist.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      I appreciate the CIA’s cyber-cultural department’s post-modernist sense of humor, though. Fepe (their parody of Pepe) is superb material. E.g.,

      https://i.imgflip.com/21n1fz.jpg

    • jim says:

      There is an obvious resemblance between a flat earther explaining the sun setting for my grandkids while it rises for me, and a Marxist explaining the Afghan war as motivated by desire to seize the vast natural resources of Afghanistan.

      Waiting for you to tell me that Ad Hoc Reason glows in the dark.

  14. I don’t see the Restoration as all that reactionary in the bigger picture. More reactionary than Cromwell’s revolution, without a doubt. But when the Parliament calls the King in to be King in the name of the Rights of Man and Parliament stays, and allows Whigs to continue to advocate for the Rights of Man, the King is not really a King, he is the CEO of a Moldbuggian republic of capitalists (not Capital) who can be hired and fired at will.

    Now, a republic of capitalists produces very good government, made England very rich and powerful, invented industry, conquered the world, and was a good thing for all of that. However, a republic of capitalists cannot prevent communism, cannot defeat leftward-swimming Cthulu, cannot put down the Peterloo rebellion without being smeared by the priesthood as unimaginably evil for a very moderate response to an armed rebellion. We see that priests are exercising kingly power under this republic of capitalists because when priests cry and shriek about the government using military force to put down a violent revolt, the republic of capitalists becomes more communist in response, and slowly became more communist until the present day.

    Parliament denied the King the divine right of a ruling warrior to have sovereignty over military force, and in doing so denied themselves this right, allowed priests to define the Rights of Man, who predictably said that Democracy, rule by those who inform the voter, is the only divinely-sanctioned form of government.

    • jim says:

      Nuts

      Whigs were out of power till the nineteenth century. That is a two hundred and fifty year run for the restoration social order, which order gave us science, technology, industrialization, a fertile elite with eugenic reproduction, and world conquest. If that is not reaction, what is?

      • Mike says:

        Playing devil’s advocate, how is the 1689 Bill of Rights NOT whiggish? Isnt the whole notion of a social contract based Bill of Rights hugely cucked?

        Especially this line (verbatim from the document) where they condemn James ll for not cucking sufficiently to Parliament:
        “By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament”
        And this, telling the new king what is not ok:
        “That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal”

        Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

      • Everything you listed is great and I support every inch of it, as I said in the first comment. The problem is that it could not keep itself reactionary, much like America for the first 150 years seems like a great reactionary society until you realize that it categorically cannot stop priests from taking over.

        Peterloo allowed Whigs to take power because Whiggery was allowed to become holy, and it became holy because Parliament had power over the King and not vice versa. Even when it was not ostensibly a majority in Parliament, its opposition was Burke, whose principles were based in the Enlightenment just like his supposed enemies’. The Whigs were powerful enough in 1775 to fight a proxy war with the Tories in the American colonies, and were powerful enough to win it as well.

        I would be very happy to replicate a 1688-style restoration and get 250 more years out of our society, but I would ideally like to replicate Charlemagne and get 1000 more years out of it.

        • The Cominator says:

          You only need to make one change to keep the equality priests out. Anyone who believes in marxists economics, female equality, or that all men are all equal disappears in the night and is never seen again.

          Anyone who advocates leniency for people with such beliefs also disappears in the night and is never seen again.

          James II problem was he was Catholic and the English were quite right to get rid of him (and Charles II should have agreed to his disinheritance in favor of the Duke of Monmouth). Neoreactionaries should always support national churches and be opposed to international ones. Orthodoxy is good but Catholicism since Gregory VII is bad.

          • Mike says:

            I agree with you that James was a problem, but the text of that Bill applied to all the new Anglican kings as well.

            • jim says:

              The text of the bill is that the state religion of England has to remain a national religion, and cannot be submitted to some outside religion.

              Seems quite clear to me. Nothing Lockean there – the complete opposite of Lockeanism. Lockeanism was not just for republics against Kings, it was against having a national religion. Locke would tell us that religion was a matter of private conscience. The Glorious Revolution told us it was not.

          • If that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes, though I think it’s possible to come up with an antifragile structure that inherently resists entryism rather than rely on the will of a single head of secret police.

            Not entirely on board re: Catholicism. Seems if the Pope is wielding priestly power and not kingly power, there are many benefits to having all of the Catholic nations be on the same moral page. (this is after, of course, the Church is purged of heresy)

            For example, that wars between them are not holy wars but warrior’s wars, shorter, more sane, and less bloody. Which was indeed the case up to the 1500’s and arguably far later.

            If you have many national religions, you get holy wars between white people. The structure of Orthodoxy does seem to strike the better balance, where doctrine is uniform enough to prevent holy wars, but the Church is not independent and foreign enough to try and wield kingly power over the nations.

            • PlannedObsolescence says:

              Maybe replace “head of secret police” with “king”, “secret police” with “official inquisition”, then disappearance with exclusion from positions of prestige and responsibility on the grounds that heretics are considered dishonorable. So Percy Shelley gets expelled and has to publish under a pen name after pre-clearing with the Inquisition.

        • eternal anglo says:

          Yeah Jim, how is the American revolution being an inside job consistent with Whigs not yet being in power? Was it that although the King was still ultimately in charge, Whigs nevertheless wielded sufficient soft power, or sowed enough doubt by insidious intellectual influence, to sway the outcome of the war? Or perhaps just one or two individual whig traitors like Howe were enough to tip the balance.

          • jim says:

            Whigs were not securely in power. They were furtive. Whigs in England before 1820 were like communists in the US before 1969.

            • eternal anglo says:

              If only we had an eighteenth century Moldbug to explain in detail how General Howe and the Caroline incident became possible, the same way Moldbug explained how the Vietnam war and Obama became possible. I suppose Carlyle is closest.

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          >its opposition was Burke, whose principles were based in the Enlightenment just like his supposed enemies

          What needs to be pointed out, is that Tories had an even bigger crush on Enlightenment than the Whigs. Burke’s enemy, Lord Bolingroke the leader of the Tories was an inspiration for Baron d’Holbach, and it was the exiled Scottish Jacobites that brought Freemasonry onto the Continent.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        Whigs were the dominant party in Parliament for most of that time, and Parliament had supreme legislative power in right and fact, and already had it before the Stuarts came around. “King” Charles II forfeited the very last vestiges of personal power when Parliament told him to, and did most everything else Parliament told him to; and when it appeared that his successor might not do everything Parliament told him to, Parliament fired him. These so-called “Kings” had no more power than the President of the USA does now; the only diff is that in the US they elect a President each and every term instead of letting him appoint a successor while reserving the right to fire him at discretion.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          By early 18th c. Parliament had already usurped most actual executive decision-making via the Prime Minister under Hanoverians who let them do it.

          • jim says:

            When King George the Third told the prime minister to take a long walk off a short pier, the prime minister resigned.

            Yes, the King had allowed the parliament to usurp most of the actual decision making. But until 1820 everyone believed that the King was the final decision maker by divine right.

            • Doug Smythe says:

              The final authority sure, but only in the sense that the Executive is always the final authority, like in America right now where the Pres can pardon any offender, cannot possibly be put on trial while President, can veto any law made by congress, and so on.

              • jim says:

                Well then, who then is responsible?

                Yes, it is the swamp, but some members of the swamp have more power than others.

                If the US goes to war when it should not, or fails to go to war when it should, fair enough to hold the president responsible, as for example the war in Syria.

                When the FBI chooses to ignore Muslim terrorists …

        • jim says:

          > Whigs were the dominant party in Parliament for most of that time,

          So says Wikipedia, but that is whig history.

          From 1660 to 1756 whigs were an obscure, minor and forcefully repressed religious faction, without pretensions to political power.

          In 1756 they furtively infiltrate the liberal party, which is not yet the whig party. This stage is like communists infiltrating American atom bomb project. Lord Howe’s treason and the American Revolution is part of this furtive, illegal, treasonous, and criminal operation.

          In 1784 they start openly and publicly organizing within the liberal party, which is still not the whig party.

          This so pisses off the King, that the liberal party, shorty renamed the whig party, retroactively renamed the whig party, is removed from power.

          From 1660 to nineteenth century, whigs were out of power. Factions that they secretly infiltrated often exercised power, and often furtively and criminally exercised power for whig purposes, as Lord Howe in the American Revolution.

          In whig history these furtive and treasonous acts, as for example Lord Howe, are deleted, and the whigs are represented as openly, officially, and uncontroversially ruling.

          This history is false: They did not rule until the nineteenth century. The liberal party was not the whig party, and when it started to openly and overtly become the whig party in the late eighteenth century, King George the Third kicked them out.

    • The Cominator says:

      The king had effective control of the army should he wish to exert it until the latter reign of George IV. George II personally led troops in battle.

      I’m not sure I agree with Jim on how much the Queen Caroline affair was the cause (I think the English also just despised him as a fat drunken fop and the queen Caroline affair was an excuse, I don’t think female equality really got going until the progressive era in the very very late 19th century) but Jim is correct in that it was in George IV’s latter reign where the English king’s lost power.

      What happened with George III’s involuntary confinement probably also set a bad precedent. George III WAS clearly mad in his latter years but before that nobody would dare to involuntarily confine the king (mad or not) unless they were also planning to overthrow and kill him (ie Henry VI).

      • jim says:

        George III goes nuts, bad precedent for the power of Kings.

        George IV sleeps with the wives of aristocrats, a famous and notorious cause of Kings losing power.

        And, of course, fashion: That he was fat, lazy, and had a bad tailor.

        The king sleeping with other men’s wives, with the wives of powerful and influential aristocrats, was the primary problem – in doing so he sawed off the branch on which he sat, as Sextus Tarquinius did.

        But the English responded to this problem by declaring that women could do no wrong, whereas the Romans only held that Lucretia could do no wrong, while taking it for granted that all the other wives were cheerfully complicit.

        • The Cominator says:

          George III’s involuntarily confinement being agreed to as being completely legal and doing it openly was a worse president. King’s had been imprisoned before but generally extralegally and generally by people intending on eventually killing them (this happened a few times during the Wars of the Roses).

          I’m not all too familiar with George IV sexual history other then I know he had a Catholic mistress at one point. I know he was widely considered a fat prodigal spendthrift fop and not at all.

          The king’s of France seemed to have gotten away with sleeping with the wives of aristocrats all the time… the French king’s lost power in a spectacular overthrow not just being kind of ignored like George IV and his successors were (I should note that William IV got some minor kingly power back but after him it was lost forever).

          • The Cominator says:

            Grrrrr worse precedent not “president”… I wish this site had an edit feature…

          • R7 Rocket says:

            George III suffered from an inherited genetic disease – porphyria – which made it increasingly harder for him to attend kingly matters. A death sentence for monarchy. George was a descendent of the union of William the Conquerer’s line with a continental European dynasty, Saxe-Gothenburg. Inbreeding was rampant among the continental European aristocracy and contributed to their inability to hold onto power against the Leftist priesthoods.

            • Eli says:

              It’s not so much inbreeding per se, but inbreeding combined with monogamy and primogeniture.

              Helen Dean King proved in the early 20th century that inbreeding can work, provided that the quantity of progeny is maximized, and each round’s/generation’s winners are picked via tournament/according to viability metrics.

              Euro kings did better, on average, than general population, with regard to increasing surviving progeny, but still tended to fall short on making impressive numbers (monogamy certainly didn’t help!). However, primogeniture is not the right metric when it comes to selecting the most capable ruler, albeit it’s probably the least conflicting rule, overall, minimizing court intrigue over succession.

              Ottomans practiced agnatic seniority, which as by-effect, led to most ruthless sibling murdering his other siblings to guarantee that his sons inherit. This led to a tournament like selection for the most ruthlesss to succeed.

              Saudis practice agnatic seniority also. So far, until this very last prince, that is, stable oil money has kept them fairly peaceful with each other. So far…

              Iron Age Judeans practiced primogeniture, by default. However, as the example of King Solomon (vs Adonijah, his older brother) shows, the younger brother could usurp the throne via malicious intrigue, so it was not generally unusual when primogeniture got broken (or see how Jacob tricked Easu or how Judah prevailed over his older brothers).

              Sir Henry Maine in his “Dissertations on Early Law and Custom” laments the barbarity and the lack of stability of agnatic seniority based succession. I see his point, but primogeniture with monogamy and high inbreeding leads to other types of disasters.

              • PlannedObsolescence says:

                So have the king marry the hottest commoner he can find instead of some princess from another country whose children are going to favor that other country or some international community. Also let Henry VIII have his annullment on the grounds that the purpose of a royal marriage is to produce an heir, or let him name a successor.

                If a nation isn’t a gene pool, what is it?

                If men and women aren’t pairing off by the closest approximation they can find to genetic quality, how are they?

                • info says:

                  Ancient Rome and Medieval japan had adult male adoption as sons on the basis of skill and loyalty.

  15. BC says:

    I’m pretty sure 911 Truthism was created by the FBI & CIA to take the blame away from them. Whenever a 911 truther shows I just assume they’re on retainer with both groups. The way to hide real conspiracies is by creating obvious fake ones.

    • pdimov says:

      At least half of trutherism is fake, but not all. All of flat earthism is fake.

      • jim says:

        All of trooferism is a total flagrant fraud.

        Every single troofer claim is as in your face insane and flat out fraudulent as every Marxist claim and every flat earth claim.

        (By which I mean every single claim that distinguishes troofers from non troofers, and Marxists from non Marxists)

        • pdimov says:

          I wasn’t referring to the claims, but to the people.

          • jim says:

            OK, some troofers are genuinely mad and stupid, rather than faking madness and stupidity for nefarious reasons.

            • The Cominator says:

              I think most troofers are mad and stupid.

              The government only needs to give the mad and stupid enough of a psyops push to get them all singing the same tune. Its about the only thing it seems the government is actually competent at…

              • jim says:

                If the troofers are genuinely merely mad and stupid, they seem to paying curiously little attention to the conspicuous misconduct of Robert Mueller and the FBI.

                Even if you genuinely believe that the towers came down by demolition charges, you really should be saying “And Robert Mueller arranged to fly airliners full of innocent people into the towers to provide cover for the demolition charges”

                Even if you want to believe in demolition charges, you have to explain the airliners that we all saw, and the only explanation that makes sense is Robert Mueller, which explanation makes sense because in a sense it is true.

                If genuinely mad and stupid, the word “Mueller” would be in my moderation filter, because troofers would be spamming me with conspiracy theories in which he plays a leading role.

                Plus, if these guys genuinely believe they are exposing a vast and powerful conspiracy that murdered thousands of Americans, they are being oddly incautious about their true names. They act with the arrogant confidence of people who believe themselves servants of the powerful.

                Obviously there is a basis of spontaneous and quite genuine madness and stupidity, the guy that expects to see a banged up airliner in front of the Pentagon, and feels that because he does not see it, that proves things are not as they are reported to be, but it has to be about ninety percent NPCs on the payroll of the Robert Mueller fourth branch of government working off scripts issued to them from above.

  16. Fernando Noronja says:

    I’m surprised, Jim, that you are trashing “troofers.” I get the analogy of the most extreme trooferd to Marxism—some are crazy, dumb, “useful idiots,” etc. And some believe nonsensical things, cockamamie theories, etc. But truthers broadly defined are just skeptics who question the official story from the federal government and the mass media. As someone who quite sensibly disagrees with the conventional wisdom on many topics, surely you can sympathize with those who doubt that unproven claims from Cheney and MSNBC are 100 percent accurate. For what it’s worth, here’s something I found intersting. This guy makes the point that you don’t have to ”believe in” any particular conspiracy to doubt the official theory. Anyway, Jim, I don’t get it. Are you seriously saying that doubting the government/media official story is moronic?

    • jim says:

      > truthers broadly defined are just skeptics who question the official story from the federal government and the mass media.

      No they don’t.

      The official story is that Robert Mueller and the FBI did nothing wrong, and the overwhelming majority of troofers are telling us that Robert Mueller and the FBI did nothing wrong.

      Troofers depicting themselves as as fighting official authority is like feminists depicting themselves as ground under the iron heel of the patriarchy. I was banned from Twitter etc under my political identities. Does anyone in power ban troofers? Troofers are just pushing the official story only even more so, so that they make the official story look like the moderate center.

      If they questioned the official story, Google would be de-ranking their pages, and Twitter would be shadow banning them.

  17. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Look if you want to use ‘Marxist’ in a wishy-washy way and basically mean “lefties, anti-capitalists of all kinds, anyone who disagrees with early Moldbug” that’s one thing.

    If you want to use ‘Marxist’ in a strict and specific sense and basically mean “people who base their policy recommendations on, and interpret the world through, the works of Karl Marx” then that’s another thing.

    But to insist on the strong definition and then go ahead and use it in the weak/loose sense isn’t ok. It’s the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.

    We get it: you love capitalism and examination of the behaviour of property owners is off the table for you. But don’t call right-wing critics of capitalism (in other words anyone who was opposed to the Whig agenda circa 1750) ‘Marxists’ because it’s not helpful, doesn’t further the cause of truth-discovery and is a total waste of time and energy.

    Speaking of which, this is near enough to NYE so I’m not even going to read the retarded replies that no doubt await on the previous article, nor any slanderous bullshit that comes out under this one.

    Giving this place up once and for all has been difficult. It’s not easy to resist the urge to defend yourself against hostile, dishonest people.

    But there comes a point when enough energy’s been sunk into something pointless and you realise it’s not going to get any better. It’s not like one more effort-post is going to lead to intellectual engagement on a foundation of honesty and accurate representation: it’s not. The lies will continue, the censor-and-reply will continue and the endless circle-jerk will continue: none of it will ever change.

    So that’s it: enjoy liberalism 1.0. Or I suppose by your lexicon, reaction 3.0. Instead of the reactionaries who opposed the Whig agenda 1750, or the reactionaries who resisted the sexual revolution, you can be the reactionaries who reinvented and greatly broadened Marxism.

    • jim says:

      A Marxist is a person who believes in Marxism.

      What is Marxism?

      Marxism is Marxist Class Theory, Marxist Economics, and the Marxist theory of history.

      This is the standard definition of Marxism. And in your comments you preach Marxist class theory (capital as a single being), Marxist economics (Venezuela), and Marxist theory of history (capitalism is recent, consisting of capitalists coming to political power)

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        So you’re going with the strong definition of Marxism: the works of Karl Marx.

        Fine, I’m not going to let you slip back into the loose definition then.

        If someone believes the social classes, which are completely real, should not be challenged but rather utterly reconciled in the interests of a healthy society complete with aristocrats, the upper- and lower- middle class, the masses of the workers and the hordes of the variously dependent, with outlier roles for eccentrics, social climbers, the mentally exceptional and the socially undesirable (aliens mostly),

        then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.

        If someone believes in a strong state which reserves the right to dictate to the individual what he may and may not do with his person and property, in the interests of improving the state of civilisation of the nation, from good order and discipline to the mandating of saving and investment,

        then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.

        If someone believes in race and nation, and holds that the English aristocrat and the English indentured serf are brothers while the English consultant and the Albanian consultant are not brothers and must not be treated as brothers,

        then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.

        If someone believes that history is formed by the unending struggle of human nature’s tendency toward entropy and chaos on the one hand, and the timeless institutions of order and civilisation on the other, where the best outcome is for chaos to always and everywhere be contained so that the great features of civilisation are protected, preserved and projected,

        then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.

        If someone believes that economies grow because people consume less than they produce, that producers should be rewarded and consumers viewed with scepticism,

        then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.

        As for the recent onset of capitalism, it all depends what you mean by capitalism. Here you perform the same switcheroo as you do with ‘Marxism’: when it suits, capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services, but when it suits otherly, capitalism is the joint stock corporation and deregulated laissez-faire autonomy.

        Hence when you want to cheerlead, capitalism is the timeless and eternal tendency of people to cooperate in order to share their strengths and accomplishments for the betterment of the world.

        When you want to oppose a strong sovereign, capitalism is the freedom from interference by the powerful in the affairs of the free.

        The former (human exchange) is eternal.

        The latter (laissez-faire: the sovereign MUST NOT do X Y and Z) dates from the blossoming of the Whig revolution, which can be tied down to 1688 for convenience.

        Its progenitors are Locke, Bastiat, Smith and Ricardo and everyone knows that, except when they pretend to be confused.

        • jim says:

          > If someone believes the social classes, which are completely real, should not be challenged but rather utterly reconciled in the interests of a healthy society complete with aristocrats, the upper- and lower- middle class, the masses of the workers and the hordes of the variously dependent, with outlier roles for eccentrics, social climbers, the mentally exceptional and the socially undesirable (aliens mostly),

          > then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.

          If you “reconcile” Marx’s “capital” with Marx’s “proletariat” (neither of which exist in the sense that Marxists believe) by a command economy, you have abolished “the capitalist class”, which is standard Marxism.

          Your program is, in practice, going to result in murdering the guy who owns my local Domino’s pizza, which is standard Marxism.

          You are dressing up Old Type Marxism in reactionary clothes, but when you tell us that London acid attacks have no racial character, are not attacks by people of a particular race and religion, that the alcohol problem is not a race and sex problem, that is not old type Marxism, that is the usual twenty first century Cultural Marxism. You propose to abolish not just the capitalist class, but the white race and the male sex, not just capitalists and proletarians, but fathers and children.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Communist Revolutionary’s refusal to name the race and religion of the acid attackers in London makes it even more obvious that he is a dirty commie academic… probably with blue hair.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          > If someone believes in a strong state which reserves the right to dictate to the individual what he may and may not do with his person and property, in the interests of improving the state of civilisation of the nation, from good order and discipline to the mandating of saving and investment,

          then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx

          Maybe not, but if they believe all that any disagreement they may have with Marx is strictly over particulars in the area of policy preferences, not fundamentals. Some Statists prefer to leave economic life alone and intervene only at the margins, some want to socialize all means of production and cause the former proprietors to be killed or expelled, others want to reduce the working man to the status of a woman or little kid and tell him what is and isn’t good for him- it’s all just technical trivia of public policy.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Long list of bullshit snipped:

          If someone believes

          then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.then they are not in agreement with the works of Karl Marx.

          Singular “they” so as to not offend trannies – dead giveaway.

          Guy is pretending to not be a leftist and can’t even do the basics.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 – and (you bigot) that teaches you that there are 520 valid Genders, one of them being “fake-fanny tranny.”

          • jewish pedophile says:

            There’s a doctor who specializes in giving trannies fake fannies made out of their ass flesh – aka literal “anal cunts.” Now that’s Clown World right there!

  18. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    By the way (and this should have gone in the other comment, which has probably been censored and replied to by now), this is worthy of further comment because it illustrates perfectly the proximity of libertarianism to modern liberalism:

    > “Today Dubai is simultaneously feudal, monarchic, and corporate capitalist, as England was from 1660 to the early nineteenth century, and it looks to me to have a technological lead on the USA and England, though its system of governance would be familiar to a Middle Easterner of the ninth century.”

    Dubai has a national debt of 137% of GDP. Its boom is one big Misesian malinvestment bubble and as soon as the party stops it’s going to come to represent the greatest collapse of any modern economy. Japan’s going to look like a story of steady growth in comparison.

    There’s nothing aristocratic about the UAE economy: it’s just crony capitalism driven by (((central bankers))).

    • jim says:

      > Dubai has a national debt of 137% of GDP.

      Liar.

      I cannot find statistics for the national debt of Dubai, but Dubai is most of the power and wealth of the UAE, and the UAE has a debt to GDP ratio of seventeen percent and falling – falling largely because Dubai GDP keeps soaring.

      Some Dubai real estate businesses owned by Dubai royalty and aristocracy owe a lot of money on their properties, and might go bust, but they are limited liability companies, not the royal family, and not Dubai. The real estate firm going bust does not mean the king or Dubai goes bust, just some of the King’s business ventures fail from time to time, while others are profitable. That is capitalism, while Keynesian stimulus is anticapitalism, exemplified by the damaging economic policies of the anti capitalist (“You did not build that”) Obama.

      Keynesianism fails, and is anticapitalist. Keynesians are anticapitalists, and usually Marxists, as for example you-did-not-build-that Obama.

      > There’s nothing aristocratic about the UAE economy: it’s just crony capitalism driven by (((central bankers))).

      The notion that Jews, or even capitalists, have any influence or political power in Dubai is as flat in my face deranged as the flat earther explanation of why I can talk to my grandkids on the phone while they watch the sunset and I watch the sunrise.

      Being a Marxist, you have to believe that they have power, even though it is absolutely obvious that they do not.

      • The Cominator says:

        Jim is right that their system right now works and would probably survive a bubble crashing.

        CR is right in that being gulf Arabs they will find a way to fuck it up soon enough.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          You repeat your claims, and give links, but your links contradict your claims.

          So, deleted for repetition. Change your claims, or give links that support your claims, or change your claims to something that you can find links to support, and I will allow it.

        • jim says:

          Deleted for telling us what Ayn Rand thinks.

          The Ayn Rand novels you discuss are based on famous non fiction books about economics – she takes a text book and makes sound economic theory into a story with colorful heroes and villains, thus any discussion of her works needs to be a discussion of economic theory. Regrettably, sound economic theory is not helpful in matters of love, sex, children, and family.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Tell you what, fuckface, it’s 2019 now so instead of delete-and-reply, why don’t you just ‘disprove’ comments that are never placed in the first place.

            You’ve got your echo chamber, I’ve got my hair or what’s left of it, because I’m sick to the back teeth of being the subject of your retarded lies. Why anyone reads this garbage once they cotton on to just how much of a damned liar you are is totally beyond me but each to his own I guess.

            It’s 2019 so no more responses. There’s no responses in this one. I have no interest in showing where you lied, how you lied or anything else: you carry on mate, lie lie and lie again it’s all irrelevant to me.

            • jim says:

              I tell you what I will allow, and what I will not allow.

              There is no censorship on this blog, in the sense that no facts or arguments are ever suppressed.

              When an argument is made, and responded to, and then you ignore the response and repeat the argument, that gets suppressed for repetition.

              When you tell us that person so and so believes all sorts of stuff, that gets suppressed if someone might reasonably doubt that it accurately reflects the beliefs of person so and so. If anyone wants to know what person so and so actually believes, they can read what he actually wrote.

              Off topic stuff may be suppressed, but I have a fairly broad idea of what is on topic.

              I suppress every comment you make that tells us what someone else believes, because every time, the beliefs that you attribute to him are implausible. And I will suppress your comment even if you include a link, because when I read your link, your interpretation of what he says in that link is never plausible.

              If you want a link to be seen by readers of this blog, don’t surround it by interpretation of what the author of that link supposedly says that is unlikely to be universally accepted.

              Off topic comments may be silently deleted. This includes comments by you that say nothing except that you are not speaking to us. For someone who is not speaking to us, I spend far too much time deleting your stuff. If you don’t want to give a substantive reply to someone, just don’t reply. This is not a feces hurling competition in which the last person to hurl feces wins.

  19. Fernando Noronja says:

    Here’s the link to this single page that I thought you might find interesting. http://ranprieur.com/essays/911FAQ.html

    • jim says:

      That link is a sock puppet of Robert Mueller and the FBI piously announcing that he is an enemy of the establishment.

      If he was actually an enemy of the establishment, would not be publishing under his own name.

      I actually am an enemy of the establishment, but you don’t hear me going out of my way to loudly advertise the fact over and over and over and over.

      The big central troofer lie is that it was not Islam – and therefore it was not Robert Mueller ordering the FBI to find white male Christian terrorists irrespective of whether white male Christian terrorists existed or not, and to refrain from finding Muslim terrorists, even if Muslim terrorists wearing high explosive jackets were spitting in their face and screaming “allahu akbar”

      They have a hundred stories, each inconsistent with all of the others, and the one thing all of these mutually incompatible stories have in common is that 9/11 had nothing to do with a bunch of Muslim terrorists getting a free pass from Robert Mueller and the FBI.

  20. Mike S says:

    Interesting your citation of Ayn Rand’s works regarding capitalism. This is way off topic, but what do you make of Dagny’s hypergamy throughout Atlas Shrugged? While I enjoyed the novel, at first I just couldn’t fathom how she could easily bounce from one lover to another like that.

    Until I started reading about game, and hypergamy came up along with all the other truths about women that you will not find talked about in Objectivist circles. Yet neither in theory nor in real life have I ever seen a man just be OK with his woman dropping him for another dude.

    Hank Rearden was my favorite character from that novel, yet I never could square him being OK with Dagny leaving him for John Galt. I don’t see Randian hypergamy as being in any way a stable or sane way to arrange sexual relationships.

    As a man, there will always be some other man that is better than you, wealthier than you, and so on. Why would any man willingly commit to a woman if she can just drop him the moment something better comes along? Now, granted, Dagny never married any of her lovers, but supposedly Rand had an affair with a much younger man. Supposedly her husband knew about it and was ok with it. I don’t know why but I guess I’m not the type of guy to willingly accept his own cuckoldry.

    There are a lot of things I question now regarding Ayn Rand’s philosophy. I’m currently sorting what the truths are and what the falsehoods are.

    • jim says:

      > what do you make of Dagny’s hypergamy throughout Atlas Shrugged?

      AWALT

      > yet I never could square him being OK with Dagny leaving him for John Galt

      Female sexual fantasy. Similarly all the books written by men for men, where the protagonist has half a dozen women who are not sisters, and yet they get on fine with each other.

      I was at a pool party, and there was a sucker there tasked with looking after his wife’s demonspawn – two kids fathered by a man with no job, an extensive criminal record, a massive drug habit, and propensity to stupid acts of violence and arson. He failed to pay attention to the kids, and they got in trouble in the pool, and his wife berated him.

      I told everyone that if I was in his shoes, would drown the bastards in a sack and have my wife produce replacements of my own.

      Letting bastards live incentivizes female hypergamy.

      • Mike S says:

        I doubt society would go along with euthanizing bastards though. Besides, if a man is so desperate for pussy he would marry such a bitch and help her raise the demonspawn, humiliations such as this seem a fitting punishment to me.

        I have another idea that may be more palatable to the masses. If a man takes on another man’s demonspawn, he shares whatever punishments they get in life for whatever crimes they likely will commit. Like a reverse corruption of the blood. Would probably discourage men from taking part in such cuckoldry in the first place. Maybe even sterilize the guy too. Since another man’s kids are good enough for him why does he need kids of his own.?

        Ok, enough. This scotch I’m drinking is starting to get to me. I’ll post more when I’m sober again.

        • jim says:

          Society goes along with euthenizing unborn babies at sixteen weeks – not much difference.

          Further, in the quite recent past bastards had a remarkably high rate of natural death that no one was excessively curious about, and I am pretty sure that today the children of fertile age women who divorce their husbands and take their husband’s children with them also have a curiously high rate of natural death, not near as high as bastards used to have, but still high enough to attract curiosity if it was safe to be curious.

          When women decide that their former husband was thoroughly beta, they lack enthusiasm for his infant children. The older the children, the less the impact, but if the child is still a baby at the time it is torn from its father, would be disinclined to bet on its survival.

        • Javier says:

          When the new silverback kills the old silverback, the female gorillas could stop him from killing all the baby gorillas if they wanted to, but they don’t. They go into heat instead.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        If Reaction is about talking about hurting little kids as part of some cheap tough-guy act aimed at impressing lumpenprole-tier THOTs (or whatever it is that motivates people to talk this kind of garbage) then Reaction deserves to be aggressively censored by whatever authority happens to be in charge, be it the Cathedral or something else.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          The bastardicide pill is a tough one to swallow, but surely men historically were not socially expected to take care of their whore-wives little brats from former lovers, and the authorities were disinclined to investigate “unfortunate accidents” involving the deaths of said rascals?

        • jewish pedophile says:

          I mean, the Bible allows parents to kill their own children… killing your spouse’s little misbegotten hellspawn from a previous relationship must not have elicited much more than a shrug.

          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Be sure however JP to check with your local Sovereign as he may have a very dim view of murder taking place on his territory. If it’s a Mannerbund that rules the territory, if they find out you killed a little kid and deem you a coward instead of a mere murderer you can expect that the punishment will be very nasty and none-too-quick.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              >If it’s a Mannerbund that rules the territory, if they find out you killed a little kid

              Stop right there.

              *Whose kid?*

              You can’t kill the children of people who serve God, King, and Tribe.

              But the children of whores, fathered by criminals, ought to be fair game; lacking a real owner, carrying bad genes, and apt to cause trouble, nobody will shed too many tears when they’re gone.

              The Mannerbund doesn’t care about the children of those disloyal to it, such as criminals and whores.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              Sovereigns that do not back a man’s right to own his wives and children will preside over a society that fails to reproduce… which is what we are seeing today with the (((Cathedral))).

            • jim says:

              > your local Sovereign as he may have a very dim view of murder taking place on his territory

              This presupposes equality between those who serve God King and Tribe, and those who parasitize upon them.

              The King has a duty to warriors and taxpayers, who have a duty to wives and children. The King has a duty to protect their wives and their children, and uphold their property rights, including their property rights in their wives and children.

              The King also has a duty to make war and peace, to ensure that if we are at war with the outgroup, everyone in the ingroup is at war with that outgroup, and if we are at peace with the outgroup, everyone in the ingroup is at peace with that outgroup.

              Peace with the outgroup is not quite protecting their lives and property, but it does mean being reasonably cooperative with their protection of their own lives and property.

              But bastards are not wives and children of the ingroup, nor are they an outgroup that we might get into war with, nor do they have an outroup sovereign that our ingroup sovereign needs to keep the peace with. So, should not be the sovereign’s problem or his business.

              And if he makes it his problem, he is undermining the property rights of his warriors and his taxpayers in their wives and their children, pretty much as he does if he sleeps with the wives of aristocrats, which is a notorious cause of the fall of Kings.

            • jim says:

              We treat a father who has had his son torn from him far worse than we treat the worst of murderers, and everyone is fine with it.

              An unborn baby at sixteen weeks after conception is as human as a baby twelve months after birth, but we have no problem murdering that baby very much against his father’s will, and will enslave that father and destroy his family’s property if he attempts to get in the way of the murder of his dearly desired child. Who is going to care about some demonspawn?

              • Mike says:

                Why do you insist that abortions are done against the father’s will? Aren’t a good chunk of abortion babies created from “accidents” that occurred out of wedlock where neither the father nor the mother gave a shit about the child?

                If it occurred within a marriage, then I would understand what you mean. And if I misunderstood you and you were referring to children being torn from their father via family court, and not via abortion, than I totally understand what you mean.

                • BC says:

                  >Why do you insist that abortions are done against the father’s will? Aren’t a good chunk of abortion babies created from “accidents” that occurred out of wedlock where neither the father nor the mother gave a shit about the child?

                  The number of men who would support abortion is close to zero if having a child out of wedlock wasn’t likely to result in the man being enslaved for at least 18 years of child support and potential jail time if he can’t pay.

                  Men want children but we also don’t want to be slaves.

                • jim says:

                  When women talk about the right to choose, it is pretty obvious that they are talking about this case, abortion as resistance to and defiance of male authority.

                  When you hear Christians talking about abortion, it is absolutely clear they envisage a situation where there is no male in the picture, he vanished at high speed.

                  When you hear feminists talking about the most holy sacrament of abortion, it is absolutely clear that they envisage a situation where Mr Beta Bucks is right there, and the abortion is an act of defiance against him and a shit test against him, where Miss Strong Independent Woman is preserving her options for a future booty call from Jeremy Meeks, and Mr Beta Bucks is being an arrogant male chauvinist pig by demanding that she throw away her chance for a future booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

                  I don’t know what proportion fit the Christian stereotype, and what proportion fit the feminist stereotype, but chances are the feminist stereotype is more accurate, because they have better access to the empirical experience.

                  The case the Christians have in mind is “poor me, with child and all alone!”

                  The case the feminists have in mind is “No man gonna tell me I have to give him a child!”

              • Doug Smythe says:

                I think killing a baby or little kid, or for that matter anybody who didn’t do something to have it coming to them, is self-evidently fucked in the head and prohibited by all the civilized religions and legal systems. If anybody needs to be executed here it should be the adulterers and fornicators; Islamic jurisprudence is a model for others to follow in these areas.

                • jim says:

                  Bullshit.

                  Universalism is always applied in a highly selective manner, to smash a certain group, knock over their apple carts, and grab their apples.

                  We are fine with late term abortions, and we are fine with ripping children from their fathers and placing them in extremely dangerous situations.

                  People think they believe that stuff, but they do not actually believe that stuff. It is totally who/whom. When a who child gets murdered, everyone is deeply concerned. When a whom child gets murdered, no one cares.

                  After the restoration, same system will apply, but which children are who, and which children are whom, will be different. A child will be who if his father is a soldier or taxpayer, a whom otherwise.

                  If the sovereign starts looking after the bastard children of feral women, he is their husband and their pimp – he is stealing the women of his soldiers and taxpayers. The supposed universal concern for all children magically and mysteriously mutates into a strangling concern for feral women and a terrifying lack of concern for the loved and wanted children of fathers, exemplified in the late term abortion debate, where not even the most extreme of Christians will propose that husbands and fathers have rights when their women spring abortion on them as a shit test, and the cheerfully homicidal conduct of Child Protective Services, which tears children from their fathers to place them in horrifyingly dangerous situations.

                  If people actually believed what you say you believe, Child Protective Services would be hanging from the trees by their necks.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  If anybody needs to be executed here it should be the adulterers and fornicators

                  1) “Fornicators” is a cucked Churchianity concern to allow them to ignore female misbehavior

                  2) If adulterers are executed who takes care of her* kids that you think they’re going to survive? Executing women is harsh and socially wasteful since most will fall in line if men are strong. Once in a while a man will have to kill his adulteress wife and the rest will see the example and men will make it vague but clear that they would do the same and women will be happy.

                  * Unless you mean “adultery” in the modern cucked sense of “anyone engaging in extramarital sex” rather than “sex with a married woman” in which case you’re doubly cucked on the idea of actual family formation – you can see the results of this view in modern society and how it’s dying due to lack of reproduction.

                • jim says:

                  Adultery means the same thing in women as in beer. If a man sleeps with another man’s wife, adultery. If a married man sleeps with a women who is not his wife, and not betrothed or married, not adultery.

                  If a man seduces or abducts a virgin who is not betrothed, and subsequently lets her go, fornication. If he keeps her, marriage. If a man seduces or abducts a non virgin and subsequently he moves on, no big deal. If she moves on, adultery.

                  Those are the old meanings of adultery and fornication. The new meanings are lies, for they declare like things to be unlike, and unlike things to be the same thing.

                  Eggs are precious and sperm is cheap, women are precious and men are cheap, thus normative words relating to love, sex and reproduction must necessarily have meanings that are completely asymmetric.

                • Mike says:

                  Steve, he mentions fornication and adultery. Fornication has (as far as I know) been defined as premarital sex. How the fuck do you think Doug believes that adultery means premarital sex when he gave you fornication in the previous sentence?

                  Also, doesn’t the Bible have pretty heavy-handed punishments for adulterers including death? I’m not saying it was common to kill them but I am not sure the Ancient Israelis saw it as wasteful either.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Not what those words meant in old testament times – not what those words meant in eighteenth century England either.

                  I support and endorse the family law of Deuteronomy as interpreted and applied by the court of King Solomon – meaning you can and should kill a man who sleeps with your wife or betrothed, and to do so is the will of Gnon, and if she consented to sex maybe her as well, but it is not the state’s business to kill him.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  How the fuck do you think Doug believes that adultery means premarital sex when he gave you fornication in the previous sentence?

                  Adultery is sex with a married women. Moderns who conspicuously worry about “fornication” are using a Churchian shibboleth – which is bundled with the idea of “adultery” having the meaning of extra-marital sex by men and a worldview where women are angels who never do wrong. The common use of fornication is “premarital sex” and I addressed his comment as if he meant them that way.

                  If he comes out and says “adultery is sex with a married woman” and that “fornication” is a property matter between a girl’s father and her lover then I stand corrected. I predict that he won’t.

                • Mike says:

                  Sorry Jim, was replying to Steve but your comment appeared first. Anyway, lemme go through these for the hell of it:

                  1. Man sleeps with man’s wife= Adultery. Duh, hopefully no one would disagree with this.

                  2. Married man sleeps with woman who is not his wife nor married/betrothed ( I assume a virgin?)= not adultery. Men in places of power do this all the time (think of all the mistresses kings had) but did regular guys like you and me often do this?

                  3. Man seduces virgin who is not betrothed= fornication. Makes sense to me.

                  4. Man seduces unbetrothed virgin, keeps her= marriage. Makes sense.

                  5. Man seduces non-virgin, man moves on= Nothing. Does it matter how the woman became a non-virgin (ie is she a widow or a whore). I’ll admit this one confuses me a bit.

                  6. Man seduces non-virgin, woman moves on= Adultery. Alright, I got nothing on this one. Isnt it adultery if a man sleeps with another man’s wife? No one is married here.

                • jim says:

                  > 5. Man seduces non-virgin, man moves on= Nothing. Does it matter how the woman became a non-virgin (ie is she a widow or a whore). I’ll admit this one confuses me a bit.
                  >
                  > 6. Man seduces non-virgin, woman moves on= Adultery. Alright, I got nothing on this one. Isnt it adultery if a man sleeps with another man’s wife? No one is married here.

                  Marriage is not a magic spell for making sex OK. It is a magic spell for making families possible and enabling men to raise their children, for enabling cooperation in reproduction, for enabling men to invest in their children.

                  We don’t prohibit some sexual activities because sex is bad. We prohibit some sexual activities because they make it hard for men and women to cooperate to raise children.

                  Female serial monogamy obfuscates paternity, and makes it difficult for a man to invest in his children, or even know them.

                  Male misconduct is not looking after his children. Female misconduct is making it difficult and unrewarding for men to look after their children.

                  Serial monogamy is women getting the best deal, short term, for their sexual and reproductive services. Men spinning plates is men getting sexual and reproductive services. Men, therefore, seldom ditch women, except for cause.

                  To provide incentives for cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and avoid defect/defect, the rule needs to be, that if a woman has sex with a man, she is stuck with him. If a man gets a girl pregnant, he is stuck with his child. (Patrilineality and patriarchy)

                  This facilitates cooperation by removing the advantages that nature gives women, (without, however, removing the disadvantages that nature gives women)

                  Serial monogamy is a manifestation of women withdrawing sexual and reproductive services in order to get a better deal. This maximizes male transfer of resources to fertile age women, but tends to impede male transfer of resources to children and to the post menopausal women helping take care of those children.

                  The problem is not people having illicit sex, but making what could well have been licit sex illicit by ceasing to have sex.

                  Whether sex is licit or not depends not on its relation to the telos of reproduction, but on its relation to the telos of family. And a woman not having sex with someone she previously had sex with puts her previous sex out of the telos of family.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  For case 6 Jim is saying that the act of seducing a virgin *is* marriage.

                  I’ll sign off on all of your 1-5 as well as 6 – I suspect that Doug won’t.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  5. Man seduces non-virgin, man moves on= Nothing. Does it matter how the woman became a non-virgin (ie is she a widow or a whore). I’ll admit this one confuses me a bit.

                  The idea is that your society will suck if you threaten men with punishment for this since all men naturally will want to take advantage of that situation and if you punish the men rather than restraining the women the men who will act on it will be the men with nothing to lose – which will make those men higher status in the eyes of women which will cause no end of problems.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so. Women have more power to incentivize bad behavior than anything state, church, family, or society can do to disincetivize it, so we don’t want to define bad in ways that get them thirsting for bad boys.

                  Closely related: We need it that part of being high status in the male hierarchy is that you get to use socially encouraged and state supported violence, and that part of being a criminal is physically humiliating punishment, getting smacked around in the street and having to suck it up. We need to make bad men cringe fearfully before good men, so that women will want to have sex with good men and not with bad men.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  > “If he comes out and says “adultery is sex with a married woman” and that “fornication” is a property matter between a girl’s father and her lover then I stand corrected. I predict that he won’t.”

                  You predict incorrectly, except that calling it a property matter is imprecise (the householder probably wouldn’t get as upset if at all if you seduced his maid).

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You predict incorrectly, except that calling it a property matter is imprecise (the householder probably wouldn’t get as upset if at all if you seduced his maid).

                  I’m glad to be wrong.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >3. Man seduces virgin who is not betrothed= fornication.

                  Only if he lets her go. If he keeps her, if the sex leads to marriage, then it’s not fornication – it is marriage.

                  Bringing back marriage-by-abduction means exactly that: you can take an unbetrothed virgin away from her father, *but you must keep her*. Letting her go is the crime, not taking her in.

        • jim says:

          The persona in which I remarked that if my wife had hellspawn bastards I would drown them in a sack and get some children of my own from her is a non political persona, and the people at the party were non political people. But the reaction from the assembled white males, most of them married with children, was relief, not hostility. People are, in their hearts, less politically correct than you think, less politically correct than they themselves think.

          People are today comfortable with horrifying and ruthlessly destructive measures to keep men in line, in particular the seizure and destruction of their children, and come the restoration, will be comfortable with horrifying measures to keep women in line.

          Society has never, and will never, officially execute bastards, but within living memory, was disinclined to be excessively curious about their mysterious deaths.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Could probably keep them in line just fine for the most part with ordinary domestic chastisement administered with suitable instruments (those super-long plastic spoons homebrewers use seems about right), and failing that more public means like stocks, nuthouse, jail, etc. none of which are horrifying to a reasonable person.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              Have you ever had to watch over kids whose father was in prison and whose mother whose a trashy foul-mouthed slut, Doug?

              Have you ever had such kids throw garbage at you, beat up other kids under your watch, and generally give a headache to everyone around?

              When they grow up, do you believe that they will be law-abiding, productive citizens – or will they follow in their father’s footsteps and commit crimes against ordinary civilians?

              • Doug Smythe says:

                You can easily avoid this problem by not getting mixed up with trashy loud-mouthed sluts who have borne children to jailbirds. Then they’re the Sov’s problem. If and when they start committing offenses against the Sov’s laws then he can go ahead and hang them, lock them up, whatever as he sees fit and do it all with perfect justice.

                • jim says:

                  All women are like that. It is not readily identifiable “trashy loud mouthed sluts” The very worst are lawyerettes from high status universities. You are better off with a truck stop stripper than a chick from Harvard Law.

                  All women respond to the same incentives and the same stimuli in the same way. As I said, my act works, and Richard Feynman’s act worked, but if General Butt Naked showed up wearing his trademark necklace of fresh human eyeballs, an AK-47, and absolutely nothing else, we would have been shit out of luck. I married a virgin, and she honored and obeyed me all her days, and I suppose Richard Feynman married a virgin, but that was because General Butt Naked did not get to them first.

                  Problem is that the Sovereign is giving them child support, or making random beta males give them child support to the children and alpha widows of alpha males. Because Mr Betabucks has put up with these hellspawn for a few months, he is now legally obligated to support them for life.

                  This financially incentivizes the alpha fucks, beta bucks strategy. This was a way hot chick, which is why Mr BetaBucks took her in despite the attached hellspawn. But before him, she had been fucking a stony broke violent thug.

                  The correct action of the sovereign is to tell the alpha widowed mothers of hellspawn to get married or else, if they will not get married, shotgun marry them to whosoever will have them, and not be terribly curious about what happens the alpha widow hellspawn.

                • Mike says:

                  I don’t know exactly where I stand on the “final solution to the bastard question” (hehe) but I will say this obvious fact; there was, up until very recently, numerous restrictions and taboos surrounding bastards. In fact, I think at one point, probably a good while ago now, the Catholic Church wouldn’t baptize a bastard child (don’t quote on me on that, but I think so).

                  So the point isn’t that we are burning 6 gorillion bastards, the point is that we have tons of evidence that people, not long ago, treated bastards in a way that was much like the way we might treat someone who is “racist” today. And so this is good evidence that we should not be overly merciful towards bastards.

                • Eli says:

                  Dated a Harvard Law student very briefly, several years ago. Rich father, comfortable life w bar hopping adventures. Definitely a ruthless slut. Can personally attest. But it’s hard to avoid sluts— who’ll give you and your organs out at first sign of boredom — nowadays.

                  And yet a few years even before that, we were at a bachelor’s part in Vegas. Chatted with a super drunk prostitute wearing no underwear. Turned out she was raising children borne out of some loser and kept loyal to him (as much loyalty as prostitutes are capable of). She wanted a hug from me. I felt bad for her, as she really turned out to be a rather lonely person. (Nothing happened there, btw)

                  In retrospect, the prostitute was no worse a woman than the Harvard lawyerette.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Doug Smythe

              So-called reasonable sheeple are just fine and dandy with the horrifying treatment and enslavement of fathers by the (anti)family courts.

          • Zach says:

            lol drown them in sacks…

            That being said I don’t give two fucks about any child except my own. I find them somewhat revolting. Why? Probably because they are mirror images of their revolting parent(s).

            Must say though, I don’t have it in me to drown helpless children. I wish I did. Life would be a lot easier when things don’t weigh too heavily on the mind.

            I find the urge strong, maybe too strong, to draw lines in the sand and virtue signal. I wonder if it’s just all bullshit. Probably is.

            • Koanic says:

              If you love your kids, you will not gift them a future populated by demons wearing human skinsuits. Everything written about hunting undead is just a metaphor for killing Sodomites, adulterers and bastards.

        • Koanic says:

          You are right. Women are attracted to the man who can put down a daycare full of bastard toddlers without losing any sleep, for the same reason the lioness is attracted to the lion who slays her cub.

          You are not cut out for the army of God. Perhaps knitting is more your speed. You can knit jock straps for those with more testicular fortitude while they focus on more masculine pursuits, such as pounding out the next generation.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            If they want my respect they’ll have to pound on one another as well. I won’t knit for them, but will give them due respect as tough guys. For where I’m from, if you want to act the part of Billy Badass, you’re not just signaling to females that you want to fuck. You’re signaling to other men that you want to fight. Leading a three-fold social classification:

            -Tough guys. Act like lions. In the course of acting like lions, get called out by other lions, made to give physical demonstration of lion’s prowess. You don’t have the win the fight to have tough guy status- any fight has a winner and a loser- but you do have to fight.

            -Regular guys. They don’t go around for looking for fights and generally don’t get any trouble in return. Not necessarily an impediment to getting action with the THOTs as the latter can be very easily governed by giving them some coke and putting a few drinks in them (not too many for optimal results), and with minimal game. Once they start jumping around and acting stupid, have at them, it’s not hard.

            -Fags. Somebody who puts on tough guy act and talks a bunch of bullshit with neither the intention nor ability to back it up. Not to be confused with homosexuals who can be respected in their own right as long as they mind their business. “Fag” in the sense of a warrior who is dishabilitated for cowardice and traditionally in this process the others would break his staff into faggots. Fag unlike mere homosexual universally shunned and subject to extreme victimization. The stigma of fag however can be easily avoided by not talking tough-guy garbage to begin with; that way, you’re not subject to their jurisdiction and don’t have to live by their rules.

            • Koanic says:

              The place you’re from sounds pretty gay. They don’t even stone Sodomites.

              • Mike says:

                How about you read some of Doug’s work on his blog before making a definitive judgement:

                https://dissentingsociologist.wordpress.com/2018/04/23/progressivism-on-steroids-the-conservative-anti-humanism-of-jonah-goldberg/

                This is just one article, you’d have to look around it yourself to see what you like best or hate most.

                Speaking of which, Doug, if you are listening, are you coming out with any new content soon? Your stuff is pretty great and I’d love to see what you have to say about the events of the year.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Glad you like the blog Mike, I will probably have new content this year, but the focus is going to be more on elaborating a Reactionary philosophy of law and the ideal State along the lines of discussions and debates in comments here than on current events.

                • Zach says:

                  I concur. Where are the reposts from that other dude from Thermidor? Doug put ’em somewhere.

              • Koanic says:

                Any place without the stones to stone Sodomites will receive definitive judgment from Jehovah, and wish they had perished in a day. The USA is land of the faggot, home of the slave. What a joke, to pretend concern for slutspawn, while letting pederasts parade and prowl.

                The ziggurats of South America stand mute testament that the degenerate white man cannot withstand the brown tide, much less the yellow. This is his last civilizational cycle in the Americas; the perpetual infinite Han have by rote mimicry crossed the Pacific whose swells their short nosed navigators could not breast.

                Who needs the long-nose, now that the final frontier of space is cracked? Let him go the way of the Neanderthal, who gave fire and flint, but forgot to fuck and fight.

            • PlannedObsolescence says:

              There has to be a reason guys who don’t seem to care about winning in team fortress are accused of “playing for the other team”. Is it too systematic to simply be an insult? Unfortunately, no one really knows what fags are, and research is prohibited.

              Why can homosexuals be respected? Is it because they can back up their obnoxiosness with lawsuits? Some day will be the day of the brick, or, well, reemergence of testosterone and imposing rules backed by physical removal, thereafter whamen won’t say they find beta males “nonthreatening” (the threat being that the alpha man will follow rules the beta man makes fun of).

              Or maybe you expect to be able to rerun the last 50 years but do it right.

              In the last 50 years and the IQ range where contraception is the usual case, so reproduction is neither expected nor “accidental”, the parents are expected to be completely ready before starting. Is the expectation that, starting from a midcentury where contraceptives aren’t available and abortion is up to the father or husband, homosexuality wouldn’t grow into what it has become without the faghags attracted to the most disruptive men they can find because they’re married? Rome had an elite fertility crisis and rampant faggotry without modern contraception.

              Without contraception, would there be the claim that gays are just like us except that they like unmentionable things? That was midcentury gay propaganda. We need to restore the culture where the boss gives the promotion to the upstanding community leader.

              The desire to separate and protect men you don’t think you’re competing with while crushing men you do think you compete with is, well, normal. But, the solution to tough guys is simply to win, and people do compete with gays, at least for the level of discourse.

            • jim says:

              > If they want my respect they’ll have to pound on one another as well. I won’t knit for them

              No one cares about your respect. They care about the respect of women, who rather like the man who drowns children.

              > Not necessarily an impediment to getting action with the THOT

              AWALT

              If magic unicorns existed, Feynman would have scored in his Feynman persona.

              The man who knows what women are like is the man who marries a virgin who honors and obeys him all her years.

              The man who is looking for a magic unicorn marries a girl with two hellspawn in tow, believing he is rescuing her from her mysterious misfortune, believing she was looking all her life for mister betabucks, but was mysteriously unable to find him.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                It’s not *my* respect anybody should worry about (not a tough guy now or ever pretended to be, and this isn’t IRL in any case), it’s more that if people go around publicly shooting their mouths off in order to impress girls IRL they may find themselves required to back it up by the guys, with an outcome that may be less than impressive where girls are concerned if they can’t or don’t do it very well. With these same girls (for fun not marriage) a young guy is better advised to medicate them with a couple of lines and a judicious quantity of alcohol, yes some tough guy act is still necessary as in all human courtship but not the type that may unintentionally make a guy a person of interest to those who really are Billy Badass not just pretending.

                • jim says:

                  Reporting from the field:

                  Impressing girls is potentially dangerous. I take the appearance of considerable risks often, and sometimes real risks.

                  However, fortunately girls don’t really want what impresses men, confrontations between alpha male and alpha male. That would indeed be dangerous.

                  The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him kill her kittens.

                  Male understanding of alpha is exemplified by cowboy movies. Girls do not watch cowboy movies. Their perception of alpha is more primitive, cruel, uncivilized, and antisocial than that of men.

                  Heartiste regularly gives us examples of alpha as women perceive alpha, and I have written some posts on this myself.

                  We need to create a society that aligns female perception of alpha with the actual male hierarchy and with civilization, and such a society will necessarily resemble a savage society in the sense that a garden resembles a wilderness.

                  For women to want to sleep with the man they should sleep with, the man they should sleep with needs to be able to kill adulterers and bastards.

                  We cannot impose rules for prosocial behavior on high status males that run too far contrary to the primitive desires of women.

          • Zach says:

            Since I exist, I find your comment hyperbolic. The circumstances are what matter. If some rogue tribe came to slaughter my tribe then I would have invented the wood chipper just for infants in retaliation.

            • Koanic says:

              Traditionally you swing the bastard by his legs in a hyperbolic arc to dash his brains out against the nearest wall.

              Yes, it violates taboo. Killing man, who is made in the image of God, violates taboo. That is why the Law requires purification before men stained by battle or death reenter society.

              If you do not kill demons when they are babies, they will grow up to prey on babies. That is where we are now.

              The sword grants a cleaner death than old age. What we do to each other in the flesh is minor compared to what Jehovah does to us afterward in the spirit. There is only one word for deviating from His instructions: stupid.

  21. Jehu says:

    I kind of wonder about the flat earthers honestly. One of my friends from church has a son who got into that last year. Between that and the ‘flat earth rocketeer’, I have developed some suspicions.
    See I know from experience how much of an insane struggle it is to keep a denomination of Christianity from turning into the worship of demons. There’s a constant influx of paid infiltrators and agitators all the freaking time, beyond the usual cultural and political warfare, virtue signalling, and that’s saying nothing of the supernatural, which is also involved.
    I’m starting to wonder if the Flat Earth thing, which is a giant ‘fuck you’ to modernity, isn’t just a very advanced form of protective coloration. I mean, you couldn’t even pay leftist infiltrators to even just go to meetings, could you? They’d be way to afraid of the status effects to even have been seen to express even the most cursory interest.
    Consider that the “Flat Earth Rocketeer’ with his successful design, construction, launch, and piloting of his hydraulic rocket with >300 MPH launch speed has actually joined a pretty elite group of human beings. I bet he knows way more practical science and engineering than 100 randomly selected people who ‘fucking love science’.
    Can the flat earthers maintain an orthodox seminary for over 100 years? Nobody else seems to be able to, I hear even the less extreme Mennonite types are having a lot of infiltrator issues.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      >One of my friends from church has a son who got into that last year.

      Really?

      Flat Earth is an experiment in post-modernism. “Can you promote a position that (in our times) is obviously false, retarded, and crazy, and get other people to enthusiastically share your dank may-mays?” The people behind this internet psyop are great comedians, and the fact that — according to your account — some normies have taken to it demonstrates what a post-truth world we live in, a world in which the question whether or not an idea contains any truth-value has long ceased being a relevant factor for its ability to become popular.

      The people behind it glow in the dark, and it’s kind of an “inside joke” that only those who’ve been closely following the Troof Movement can really understand.

      Look:

      “I am no longer Flat Earth Asshole. The Flat Earth movement is overrun with government agents and full blown retards making unproven claims. I personally don’t think the earth is a globe spinning in space and if someone asks me what I think the earth is, I will gladly say “I don’t know” and leave it at that. I warned you all that this movement is a controlled movement and the cast of characters within the movement are mostly absolute frauds and liars. I will no longer associate myself with the term “Flat Earther” because it is associated with liars, frauds and garbage disinformation that is easily debunked. If you want to believe in unproven claims made by paid liars that is your business but it won’t be mine. I will do a farewell to Flat Earth live stream very soon and make the announcement that I will continue making videos but I will now focus on other conspiracies and I will let the controlled opposition run wild with fantasy Flat Earth claims that nobody has proven such as dome and sun reflection off of a dome, 360 ice wall, etc.

      “I am not giving up on exposing truth and in fact I expect to shock you with some of my new upcoming videos which will be just as entertaining without the garbage drama of discussing controlled actors spreading lies in the Flat Earth community. If you want to follow their bullshit that is your choice but just remember I warned you all about this “movement” and where it is headed.

      “If my name change bothers you enough to unfriend or unsubscribe….well good you are the type I prefer to see disappear from my life. I will wake up way more people without the term “Flat Earth” attached to my name. So with that said Flat Earth Asshole is DEAD!!! Jake The Asshole is my new channel name and now I am free to talk about whatever I want and I no longer have to address any of the controlled flat earth crap show or the lame ass agents put in place to bury Flat Earth in dogshit. All the FE characters are dead to me and I won’t ever watch them or respond to any of them ever again.

      “So as of now, a new era begins….THE ERA OF THE ASSHOLE!!!

      “Stay Tuned My Friends.”

      https://www.thedailyplane.com/my-farewell-to-the-flat-earth/

      Do you get the humor? It’s a parody of a parody of a parody, and personally I can’t get enough of that stuff. Props to the CIA, I say.

      • Jehu says:

        Notice how you can’t even touch it even in parody, without three extra levels of separation. Whether it is intended as protective coloration I can’t say, but if it is, its almost like that ultra black with the 99.9%+ absorption that the eye can barely focus on. It’s more powerful even than the homeless-appearing person invisibility field.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      The greatest Flat Earth article ever written, a must-read for everyone who wants to “grok” what post-modernism really is, is this:

      https://archive.fo/jmyTi

      This is pure gold, and the fact that the author really *is* a nutter only makes it that much more hysterical. Enjoy.

      • Jehu says:

        That is a pretty funny article. The thing is, it probably contains a higher ratio of truth than most MSM articles, particularly about the things that actually matter. People can function perfectly well as ‘Flat Earthers’ with various degrees of irony. They can’t survive what the Cathedral has planned for its white parishioners, or is that perishers? I can pull at least several capital T truths out of that article, among the rest of its dross. How many from your average CNN/MSNBC/etc article?

        • jewish pedophile says:

          Sure, but that is how limited hangouts* always operate: giving you a great pile of delicious red pills… and a little poop on the side, to spoil it all.

          So you see articles exposing real problems with Cathedral rule, problems that some elements within the Cathedral itself have to be aware of on some level or another, but then they mix in one or both of the following things: 1) propaganda intended to justify the Cathedral’s current policy despite its unfeasibility; 2) nonsense intended to discredit the Cathedral’s critics by making them look like a bunch of loonies.

          There really is no fundamental difference between the two strategies, which is why the same websites employ both. You use the first strategy to distract people from what the Cathedral is doing by blowing out of proportion marginal issues, or focusing on various bogeymen; you employ the second strategy as a false flag attack against yourself, in other words, “How do you do fellow anti Cathedral dissidents, oh look what I found: no detectable curvature, no measurable spin, no real photos of Earth from space.”

          A whole lot of (black budget) funding, and a whole lot of doublethink, the ability to simultaneously be aware and unaware of what you’re doing, are required to pull off that kind of operation. I suggest that instead of being upset at the Cathedral for playing such mind games with the public, enemies of the establishment should master the establishment’s tactics – and employ them against it.

          *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

        • jewish pedophile says:

          You should probably read the following paper by CIA’s Randy Burkett if you want to know what kind of psychological manipulation they use to induce an otherwise normal person to “come out” as a Flat Earth Activist:

          https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-57-no.-1-a/vol.-57-no.-1-a-pdfs/Burkett-MICE%20to%20RASCALS.pdf

          It’s about the recruitment of agents, but the principles also apply to the long-term retainment of agents and the ability to get them to do as they are told. Fascinating stuff IMO.

        • jim says:

          Purple pill, deadly lies mixed with relatively harmless truths – the slate star codex shtick, the Jordan Peterson shtick.

          Add some barefaced lunacy to discredit the relatively harmless truths.

          “The Dark Web”, Jordan Peterson and Slate Star Codex, are purple pill, a sweet touch of truth to make the deadly lies go down better. Flat Earthers, Troofers, and Marxists proclaiming “hail fellow reactionary” are purple pill mixed with barefaced lunacy.

          The rebuttal to Jordan Peterson is that his purple pill on women leaves men just as involuntarily celibate as the blue pill on women.

      • barf says:

        I understand things less, not more, after reading that. Damn, I wish I wasn’t too autistic to get these jokes, I bet they’re funny.

        • jim says:

          Reading actual or simulated madness is apt to subtract information, since it muddies the waters.

          Hence I delete a pile of Marxism and Trooferism.

          The link in question is deliberately designed to muddy the waters, since it mixes relatively harmless red pill truths, deadly blue pill lies, and sheer insanity intended to discredit the red pill truths.

          It is funny if one understands it as crafted for that purpose, and indeed overcrafted for that purpose, but will leave you confused if you take it at face value, for its purpose is precisely to confuse.

    • jim says:

      > See I know from experience how much of an insane struggle it is to keep a denomination of Christianity from turning into the worship of demons. There’s a constant influx of paid infiltrators and agitators all the freaking time, beyond the usual cultural and political warfare, virtue signalling, and that’s saying nothing of the supernatural, which is also involved.

      Exactly so. Dalrock’s blog is largely about this.

      Whether or not literal demons are behind this, metaphorical demons, metaphorical worshipers of metaphorical demons, literal worshipers of metaphorical demons, ironic literal worshipers of literal demons, and unironic literal worshipers of literal demons are behind this.

      • Jehu says:

        Soros is enough of a literal demon for my tastes, to say nothing of the devils that have controlled the various foundations in the US pushing the Cathedral for so long.

  22. BC says:

    So as 2018 has ended and 2019 is beginning it brings me back what could have been with Trump. He could have marched with 100,000 redhats at his back at his inauguration swept Antfi out of the way and started his presidency by firing everyone in the DOJ, FBI, and CIA with his own personal army at his back. He then could have everyone reapply for their jobs and his men interview them and only select people would implement his agenda. The republic might have been saved.

    Could have it played out that way? Who knows? Predicting alternative pasts is even harder than predicting the future. But we do know how it played out: Trump tried to persuade DC to do the people’s bidding. It didn’t work as Trump was stabbed in the back by people he trusted over and over again.

    Today the left’s control of social media is total, preventing any chance another Trumpian style candidate and they just won a major election with mass voter fraud and got away with it. No further Trumps will be allowed to win the ballot box. The republic is dead and Jeff Sessions(Cursed be his name) killed it.

    Trump has made great strides at fixing the socialist mess Obama made of the economy but without any power to go around the information censors and no gatekeepers and with no ability to imprison people for voter fraud, there’s to make those changes permanent, I fear they will go moments after Trump is deposed in 2019 or 2020. Mass Socialism appears to be in our near-term future assuming the left doesn’t misplay their hand and try something more extreme.

    • Mike says:

      I can assure you, they will misplay their hand. Question is, will we survive their misplayed hand. The lefties as you noted, are already getting pretty gleeful. Just saw an article from WAPost that was titled, “Populism may lose its gains in 2019”. Of course that may just be desperate, wishful thinking on their part, but tbh they are probably half-right.

      I think populism is here to stay in Europe and it may eventually evolve into a more reactionary form of government given time. Meanwhile I think that here in the US, as you said, the left may make a final push.

    • Zach says:

      Zman is blaming Trump for Governing like Jeb. I think Trump isn’t really capable of doing anything given Washington. But he’s not as tough as I would have liked. Seems every President turns out to be like every other.

      • jim says:

        WE shall see. If he makes the Democrats agree to the wall, he is not Jeb.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          At the absolute minimum he forced a lot of GOP members to openly declare against the wall when Jeb! would have done his best to help ensure that the traitors were never exposed.

  23. Ad Hoc Reason says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Repetitious assertion. We had that debate already, you guys were refuted, you ignore the refutation and repeat the claims.

  24. glosoli says:

    >If moneyed interests controlled America’s armies, they would be a hell of a lot more interested in oil than in opium.

    It’s fairly common knowledge in many parts of the financial-sphere that ALL of the Middle Eastern wars, and the Arab/North African Springs were ALL for the same reason: to keep the oil price high to support the US dollar. Did Jim forget these wars?

    Jim will come up with some other reason, because he lacks the background knowledge to reach the conclusion that many others have reached. Who cares, Jim is just one guy, and an Australian at that, painting his narrative to lead his sheep to (((greener))) pastures, where Jesus is not required, but an earthly King always is. Sad.

    • Simon says:

      >and an Australian at that

      lol

    • jim says:

      Nuts.

      If that was true, we would be in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. Arabia and Venezuela would be divisions of Exxon Mobile.

      Venezuela is where the oil and gold is, Afghanistan is where the heresy is. These are holy wars, not wars fought for sane and rational purposes.

      • glosoli says:

        The tide has turned since 2014, the rats have jumped ship, left the US for dead. Trump realises the game is up, hence trade war and hence troop withdrawal, no more wars to prop up the oil price, the financiers have squeezed every drop of blood from America. A new world awaits….

        A serious question for Jim. Do you consider that Egypt under Pharaoh at the time the Israelites were there was also capitalist? And if so, why?

        • jim says:

          Obviously Pharaoh was socialist. “Bricks without straw” is a typical failure of central planning.

          The ten commandments, and especially the tenth commandment, forbid socialism, and supposedly reflect the ancient practice and policy of the Patriarch Israel, so yes Israelites were capitalist. The law of Deuteronomy and the proverbs of Solomon presume a society of employers and employees.

          More generally, it looks like the collapse of Bronze Age civilization was the collapse of socialism, and the restoration of order in the iron age was the return of capitalism. Exodus and the destruction of the Canaanites was part of the movements of people, massacre of populations, and burning of cities that occurred in the collapse of Bronze age civilization – the collapse of a socialist civilization, the collapse of an advanced civilization that had succumbed to socialism and female emancipation.

          • Mike says:

            I realize that you are not literally projecting 19th and 20th century “modern socialism” (for lack of a better term, I don’t know what else to call it, maybe the welfare state?) onto the past, but I think a better term to call it would just be plain, old leftism. Because I think there was more to the collapse of Egypt, and God knows how many other civilizations, than simple economic miscalculation. Saying “leftism” as a whole encapsulates all the little things; female emancipation, acceptance of homosexuality or trans, not exalting manly virtue, general utopianism, decline of martial vigor, and yes, some economic stupidity.

            • BC says:

              > Because I think there was more to the collapse of Egypt, and God knows how many other civilizations, than simple economic miscalculation.

              The collapse of most of the bronze age civilizations appears to show kinship with the current collapse we’re observing in Venezuela. As things got worse, the government became more socialist and controlling. Huge areas suddenly became depopulated where mighty cities once stood. We don’t know what happened to the people, but they might have all starved to death since they were certainly no longer around. Armies were no longer to able to stop bandits and pirates, and the lifeblood of the civilizations trade networks came to a screeching halt. Writing disappeared because the people were too poor to afford it.

              • pdimov says:

                Instead of “all collapses are caused by socialism” I prefer “all collapses are caused by dysgenics.”

                • Mike says:

                  Galaxy Brain: Civilizational collapse is caused by the Cyclical Theory of History articulated by people such as Oswald Spengler. No matter how well you construct your society, it will collapse.

                • pdimov says:

                  Do cyclical theories by themselves explain why or when there’s a sudden collapse instead of a slow decline?

                  In the dysgenics theory the collapse occurs when the population’s IQ falls below the threshold required to support the current societal complexity (which tends to increase because complex societies are more efficient, and can’t easily decrease in an orderly and gradual manner.)

                  (In the socialism theory the collapse occurs when the producers can no longer support the consumers so the state starts confiscating their capital, further decreasing production in a downward spiral.)

                • jim says:

                  Dysgenic collapses are long slow dark ages.

                  Socialist collapses occur faster. Bronze age collapse was both dysgenesis and socialism. Today, primarily dysgenesis, but we also face a left singularity.

                • jim says:

                  Collapse is multi causal. There are a combinatorially large number of ways things can go wrong. But the biggies are dysgenesis, socialism, and holiness spirals.

                • Mikw says:

                  Haha I was mostly just meming but if I’m being serious I don’t think Cyclical Theories give a concrete explanation for collapse or even decline. What they do give is a meta-narrative of how a society can lose its spiritual or esoteric strength, while maybe giving concrete evidence of how this manifests itself in the society.

                  Cyclical theories at a gut level make sense to me simply because, well, nothing lasts forever, and we have seen in history how certain events and catastrophes seem to repeat over and over. Its pessimistic as hell to contemplate, because fundamentally it means that whatever society or state you create, it’s doomed to fail. But I think that’s the beauty of it, it mimics human life and death, and parallels ancient religious concepts (ever heard a reactionary mention “Kali Yuga”).

                • jim says:

                  No doom. We understand the causes of failure and can choose to prevent them.

                  We know how to fix dysgenesis. Simply fix elite fertility – by ensuring that the elite can have young, virgin, obedient, faithful, wives, by ensuring that smart women aspire to be wives and mothers, rather than career gurls. Socialism is now a well understood failure mode, and socialists are the equivalent of flat earthers, obstinately denying the undeniable.

                  Holiness spiral is not yet a well understood failure mode, but we of the Dark Enlightenment understand it just fine.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’d say Egypt was peak capitalism, hence peak leftism.

                  A leader had consolidated all industries for his own benefit. Not socialist, as he didn’t give a shit about his people, just about his own wealth and power. Kinda like now in Venezuela.

                  >There are a combinatorially large number of ways things can go wrong. But the biggies are dysgenesis, socialism, and holiness spirals.

                  Nah, this is the biggest: pissing off Jehovah> Do enjoy the read:

                  http://forgetfuljust.tumblr.com/post/172876299240/egypt-the-base-kingdom

                  ‘No man-made government can stand among us in the current day without allowing the Progressive agenda to advance toward dystopia.’

                  True dat.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  If Venezuela was run for the personal profit of their leader, they would be pumping their oil and mining their gold.

                  That people are starving shows that they are pursuing superior holiness, not profit. Warriors need subjects, merchants need customers, but for priests, we are all sinners.

                  The end outcome of peak leftism is that everything is destroyed, and everyone gets murdered, as in Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Szechuan province. Venezuela is currently in the “everything gets destroyed” phase. Recollect the Zealots in Jerusalem, under siege by the Romans, destroying their own food supplies.

                  That is leftism. It is not capitalism.

                • glosoli says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You already said that. I already replied.

                  My argument is that the priestly classes attacking capitalists and warriors ends in famine and mass murder. Your argument is that capitalists have it coming, and that real socialism has never been tried. It has all been said before. You reply by listing even more sins committed by actually existent capitalism, and piously disowning yet again the crimes of actually existent socialism. Just not going to let you do that on my blog, because it is an old and much repeated argument.

                  Not allowing you to repeat your point yet again.

                  Repeating my point yet again: Why socialism needs killing fields.

            • jim says:

              Absolutely. If the Admonitions of Ipuwer are any indication, Egypt had the all the bad things of modern western leftism. But if the old testament is any indication, also had recently existent socialism.

              • Mackus says:

                I’ve heard interesting interpretation of Joseph seven lean years.
                Joseph was hired by pharaoh to take command of Egypt’s economy, and confiscated large amounts of grain from peasantry, and micromanaged everything, typical central planning BS. After couple of years of such management, unsurprisingly Egypt’s agriculture was ruined, so then came seven lean years.
                So Joseph dream was self-fulfilling prophecy.

                • BC says:

                  One of the more interesting things we’ve been able to learn about bronze age civilizations is all of them appeared to be doing this sort of socialist behavior, at least at the point where writing was being used to keep records. We don’t have a lot of written records from this period.

                  Lots of modern historians interpret this to mean that the all-powerful state was behind the large-scale trade going on between these civilizations and that all the advances of this period came from these socialist governments that controlled everything. See Socialism works!

                  The problem with this idea is we have plenty of examples of long-distance trade in stateless societies entirely driven by the desires of individual traders. The earliest civilization that we know of is Sumer, and they were clearly practicing capitalism right down to compound interest and large-scale private trade. Socialism clearly came late to the Bronze age world.

                • jim says:

                  My interpretation of the evidence is that the states became increasingly socialist, and then one day the King found it mighty difficult to defend and assert the property rights he claimed: Ulysses and suitors, and the Admonitions of Ipuwer, both depict a situation where an alarming number of people were cheerfully helping themselves to the King’s stuff.

                  The collapse of Romania followed this pattern. Everything not nailed down, walked. Admonitions tells us that the fields were not planted, presumably because he who planted, would not harvest, as in Venezuela. This would have resulted in a Venezuela situation, where the population, their ruler having run out of other people’s money, flee the country looking for more of other people’s money.

                  In the midst of this breakdown, the children of Israel, being accustomed to private property rights, grab a somewhat whitish member of the Egyptian priesthood to lead them in protecting their private property rights. Initially the priest argues magic and gods, but ultimately it comes down to naked violence, and he leads them out of a collapsing Egypt. Since they have a system of private property rights, as prescribed in the ten commandments, they do OK while everything around them goes to hell.

                • Koanic says:

                  He didn’t micromanage after, much less before. The tax was created afterwards, and the famine did not recur. Nonsense theory.

                  Joseph was a self-made steward. He was a competent manager and delegator, not a micromanager, much less a socialist. His speech to Potiphar’s wife shows a keen appreciation for property rights, and total absence of envy and covetousness – rather the opposite, gratitude and stewardship.

                • Koanic says:

                  Furthermore, the famine was in the whole Middle East, necessitating Israel’s sons to visit Egypt to buy grain. The theory is fundamentally incompatible with the core narrative.

                • Koanic says:

                  The self-fulfilling prophecy dream was his stars and sheaves bowing to him dream, that caused him to be sold to Egypt, so that he would be in a position for his father and brothers to bow down to him.

                  So Jehovah does use self-fulfilling prophesies, as well as the reverse – warning prophecies that avert themselves if heeded.

              • The Cominator says:

                I wonder why socialists never mention Ptolemaic Egypt.

                It was militarily inept and of course the peasants were miserable (but peasants and slaves in the ancient world were generally miserable) but it was probably the most successful command economy in terms of producing surpluses in history (if you judge what the Romans seemed to say about it). Economically it seemed to actually work unlike every other historical command economy…

                • jim says:

                  I was under the impression that Ptolemaic Egypt was a market economy, where the state effectively owned the farmland, but each year rented it out to farmers after each flood. What is the data indicating it was a command economy?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim, perhaps I am wrong and am confusing it will earlier Egypt…

                  I was under the impression it was a command economy but that it worked would incline me to think you are correct .

    • pdimov says:

      >to keep the oil price high to support the US dollar

      High oil prices are not in America’s interest. They benefit Saudi Arabia and Russia.

      • glosoli says:

        Heh, right, just watch the US shale oil producers all go belly up as the oil price sinks. They need c.$50 per barrel to breakeven, Saudis and Russia need c. $5.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Not once does the Bible mention the Americas – obviously we’re all in the “Middle East” – what they want you to think is the Middle East is fiction.

      Keep believing their lies sucker.

  25. vxxc says:

    Cheer Up!

    Things are turning around. Literally.

    German man drives into crowds, injures 5.

    …in what authorities said Tuesday appeared to have been intentional attacks against foreigners….“The man had the clear intention to kill foreigners,”
    Some of the victims were Syrian and Afghan citizens.

    https://apnews.com/8db8e130ade34109b89af9903a846891

  26. neal says:

    Energetic hydromagnetic pools of carbon must be approached with good respect. You all would say that is sleeping angels or some kind of material.

    Might be helpful to see what is called demons as alchemical reactionaries.
    Health and Safety. They leak out of the ground in hillbilly country.
    Walls fell down, bridges. Do not cross when warned.

    Everyone wants to know why the Bible stuff happens.
    Always too big or too small to grasp in minds.
    Perhaps another bridge, more or less.

  27. I’m curious what your take is on Russia’s Yeltsin years versus the Putin years.

    At least in my view, speaks to the necessity of a King to keep your capitalists national and not international. Capitalists are part of your bandit clan and you don’t want them able to defect, to rob you blind and flee to another clan’s protection. International capitalists tend to act like mobile bandits, like carpetbaggers.

    Or, arguably, Russia was plundered by agents of the West during the Yeltsin years and Putin put a stop to it.

    • BC says:

      Read the archives. Jim has multiple posts on Harvard’s looting of Russia during the Yeltsin years.

  28. vxxc says:

    O/T – Army makes recruiting push in Seattle and other large cities – pushes adventure, patriotism instead of bennies.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-recruiting-tech-industry-seattle.html

    As far as the Military fertile Recruiting Crescent in from W.VA through south and rural areas I’d argue that men sign from there not because of bennies pitch but in spite of it. The article and the army itself recognize new recruits come from the same families and communities.

    Enemy does same thing: Jihadis came back from Iraq and signed up their villages in Libya.

  29. […] sometimes pronounce instead. Concerning the correct disposition of illegitimate children, they determine […]

    • Roberto says:

      The killing of minimal-value children, including one’s own, has been standard practice up until recent times. E.g., in Russia they used to gather orphans on boats, set sail, then drown the boats with the orphans. The Bible explicitly legalizes the killing of one’s own misbehaving son, and killing children (at least male children) belonging to other tribes during wartime is certainly condoned.

      It’s also ironic that you use prison-morality to justify a blanket prohibition against bastardicide; jailbirds are not exactly “teachers of the law.” In fact, chivalric so-called virtues have always been used as a pretext to gang up on men who do the right thing.

      There is no reason why age should grant one immunity from physical removal; moreover, privileging the young above the old is especially weird and derives from toxic Enlightenment ideology. In fact, killing unowned children should be a far less serious crime than killing any adults; saying otherwise indicates that one possesses a feminine-typical sort of thinking, not a logical-masculine one.

      “Think of the children!” is the morality of priests concerned with holiness, not warriors concerned with triumph and prosperity.

    • Nikolai says:

      It’s debatable whether or not a man should kill a child resulting from his wife’s adultery. For other types of illegitimate children, there are a few solutions to go through before even considering murder. The most obvious being to make said children legitimate through shotgun marrying the feral woman and her demon lover.

      Completely agree with your larger point though. Far too often masterful reactionary essays are ruined by a couple of completely unnecessary lines advocating horrific solutions to sound tough or exaggerating the extent of a problem to sound redpilled. It’s like a drop of shit in a barrel of fine wine.

      • The Cominator says:

        Wife’s adultery or a total wastrel father should be mandatory early term abortion but killing live children for anything other then to horrify fanatical terrorists (and in that case sometimes it is horribly the only thing that works) is not something we should do… and the optics of mentioning it are bad.

        Orthodox culture did not kill unowned children they were left at the altar of the church to be claimed as slaves or later serfs for whoever wanted them.

        “Completely agree with your larger point though. Far too often masterful reactionary essays are ruined by a couple of completely unnecessary lines advocating horrific solutions to sound tough or exaggerating the extent of a problem to sound redpilled. It’s like a drop of shit in a barrel of fine wine.”

        Yes…

        Reaction should adopt a modified don’t be evil motto in that we should say “be evil to progressives Marxists and Sunni Muslims only”. Unowned children unlike unowned women are generally in their situation through no fault of their own. Under our system they will not be a large scale problem and the few cases that do result… I don’t think it will undo the whole system to show some small measure of pity. If they have bad genetics sterilize them perhaps.

        • Nikolai says:

          Children in the womb are ‘live’. As Jim says, a child sixteen weeks after conception is just as human as a twelve month old. The optics of mentioning ‘mandatory early term abortion’ are just as bad as bastardicide. This would be painfully obvious if we weren’t immersed in modernity, where abortion is so ubiquitous.

          • The Cominator says:

            Not being Catholic I don’t agree.

            People are bothered by late term abortions especially partial birth. Abortion in the 1st two months bothers only a certain type of Catholic. And Catholic objections to abortion should be considered self serving and designed to flood America with Latin Americans because the bastard slave camps and in some cases “death camps” that Jim has mentioned before… they existed for sure but they were ALL catholic institutions.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              Bryce Laliberte (indeed a Catholic) argued that, since the zygote carries all the DNA that forms a human, and is in the process of becoming human, the zygote literally *is* a human. Thus, “Thou shall not murder.”

              There you go:

              “In human reproduction, conception occurs from the union of the sperm and egg cells. These sperm and egg cells are human, yes, but they are not themselves a human, and so they should not be mistaken with the resulting zygote. The reason that this mistake should not be made is due to the difference of composition between the haploid cells (the gametes sperm and egg) and the resulting diploid cell.

              “The haploid cells contain, each in themselves, a half of an animal’s genetic makeup, or DNA. In the case of humans, a half is 23 chromosomes, and considering these are human haploid cells, they will only result in a human diploid cells (it is absurd to say that human haploid cells would result in a non-human diploid cell, this is simply illogical, and contrary to scientific knowledge).

              “Upon union, the sperm’s and egg’s corresponding sets of chromosomes will come together, becoming 46 chromosomes, and from that moment on, that will be the genetic makeup of all the resulting human cells from that zygote (which is the single diploid cell that results from the union of sperm and egg). There will be inconsequential differences (due to radiation, viral disease, etc) between that zygote’s set of DNA and the human’s DNA when it is born, when it is 5, when it is a teenager, when it is an adult, when it is elderly, and when all the way through when it dies. It is, in other words, the point at which all humans gain their genetic structure.

              “Considering we are defined by our DNA in contrast to all other animals, there is no scientific test more appropriate than DNA to determine the species of a living thing. Since then, the zygote is the singular container of that human’s DNA, it should be considered a human, not merely human such as a human skin cell, human heart cell, human hair, etc.

              “The reason for this is due to the fact that, destroying, for instance, my arm will indeed destroy that arm, even a human arm, but my arm is not in itself a human. I am a human, my humanity being verified by the DNA that I am made up of. The arm will die without being attached to me, but the container that holds my DNA will continue living. If you were to kill me in entirety (bring my entire body to death), you will have stopped the living unit of which that DNA was contained in, and that DNA will stop reproducing. In other words, you have killed an individual member of the human race, distinct and distinctive on objective terms due to my unique set of DNA.

              “In comparison to a zygote, if you kill a zygote, you will be doing the exact same thing as killing me; you will be stopping the continual living of that DNA which otherwise would have continued living.

              “Why have I just established that the zygote is a human, not just human like human hair? I establish this so that it is established that the moment of union of sperm and egg, when the zygote is formed, that it is when a new, individual member of the human race, distinct and distinctive on objective terms due to its unique set of DNA. It is an absolute change; before, there was not a human, and then, there is a human. There were no moments at which you had what was “50% of a human,” but what was an absolute and substantial change in being, which was at the creation of the new unique set of DNA.”

              https://amtheomusings.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/abortion/

              Interesting perspective.

            • Nikolai says:

              The state forcing women to have abortions will bother most people, regardless of how far along the baby is. And it will bother them a lot more than furtive permission of bastardicide, since one is homicidal state intervention in deeply personal matters and the other is the state failing to question convenient disappearances.

              And yes, Cominator, you saw right through me. I oppose infanticide solely to overrun the US with Catholic Latin Americans. That’s why I voted for Trump, the wall is a small price to pay for overturning Roe v. Wade. With enough Salvadorians being born, we can finally establish the Papal States of America. /s

            • PlannedObsolescence says:

              The Church also took an excessively hard line on protestantism, protestants can be ignorant, and while protestant preachers have a responsibility to know the truth, they might need to maintain a community. There are lots of reasons why killing a human can be a legitimate thing to do. What makes PP so outrageous is how they go out of their way to desecrate the corpse.

              What people don’t want to see is sacrilege against marriage with the abort the baby and break up thing, which women actually regret. Conflation only confuses anti-abortionists, abortion laws with exceptions for rape and incest are typical for a reason, remove rape and add fornication and adultery (the casual acceptance of adultery on King of the Hill is depressing enough to make Bill and Bobby fat and keep Boomhauer from getting married, while Hank can only live with himself by pretending his work is important).

      • jewish pedophile says:

        >The most obvious being to make said children legitimate through shotgun marrying the feral woman and her demon lover.

        The demon lover is often in jail, or otherwise not around. Meanwhile, the post-wall chick may already be married to Mr. Betabux, no doubt expecting him to invest in the demon lover’s progeny. The kids themselves are usually “up to no good.”

        Not saying that killing them should be obligatory, but… it’s understandable.

        • The Cominator says:

          The demon lover being in jail is mostly a black and hispanic problem. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen if the demon lover is huwhite but its rare.

          • jim says:

            In the incident at the party, demon lover was white and in jail.

            From time to time at the party males would reassure she was better off without a violent permabroke drug addict with no visible means of support that she had formerly provided with substantial support and who engaged in stupid acts of violence and destruction, setting fire to their own car and their own rental home, and with a wealthy handsome man who provided her and her with lots of love and care. She nonetheless did not seem terribly grateful to him.

            • Doug Smythe says:

              Thinking that the correct disposition of women like this is to make them servants of a household instead of trying to marry them off. (AWALT- but this one sounds more like that than the norm).

              • Doug Smythe says:

                My personal observation is that when these women re-marry it’s always to these overly caring types whose lives get made a living hell as a result. They don’t want to do the things it would take to govern these women correctly even if those means were lawfully available to them.

              • Koanic says:

                No, she is still powerful, because still hot. Have to kill the whores, especially the whores with kids. Women go wild for a woman-killer. It’s the only way to impress them with male authority. A live whore sends a clear message to all ‘ginas in the vicinity: you can get away with it. Do not permit the corruption of the Sisterhood’s hivemind.

        • Nikolai says:

          >The demon lover is often in jail
          Abolish jail. Punish small crimes with fines, more serious offenses with whippings/canings, grave crimes with death.

          >otherwise not around
          If we can find runaway children/wives/slaves, then we can find runaway demon lovers and force them to stick around. But if we can’t, or if he’s dead, one of the demon lover’s siblings should marry the woman and care for the child. Wives and children are kind of property and property transfers to relatives upon death, and people are more apt to treat nephews and nieces well than they are to treat step-children well.

          If no immediate family members of the woman or lover can bear the burden, there’s always orphanages, monasteries, serfdom and slavery.

          >Not saying that killing them should be obligatory, but… it’s understandable

          If your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant, yes perfectly understandable. Finding a feral single mom and killing her kids is significantly less understandable. I’m afraid the fifth commandment does apply to inconvenient children as well.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            If anyone watches “Vikings” TV show there’s a detail that goes to illustrate one of the very serious problems bastards could cause in the old regime: they could attract followers and become usurpers if it turns out their illegitimate father was somebody important.

            • The Cominator says:

              When Germanic customary law was stronger then the Christian prohibition against bastards inheriting (I’d say that was true until at least until the time of Henry II) this was an issue but no so much after it.

              William the Conqueror was originally William the Bastard but from Henry II’s time on we don’t generally here about KNOWN bastards inheriting (there were unknown bastards concieved in adultery who did) major titles. There was talk of Henry Fitzroy (Henry VIII’s bastard son) being named in act of succession before Edward was born but he died.

              Edward IV of England was widely thought to be the offspring of his mother and one of her bodyguards but nobody could prove it.

              Louis XIV was also almost certainly concieved in adultery (though its possible under the circumstances she had permission to go try to continue the dynasty…) as Louis XIII produced no non stillborn children with his wife for years and years nor children with any other women and his wife suddenly has two kids.

              • Koanic says:

                “Bastard” means very different things in societies which condone polygamy and slavery, vs those that don’t. Western monogamists cannot distinguish between “bastards” who had biological fathers and those who didn’t. The latter are the problem.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                > When Germanic customary law was stronger then the Christian prohibition against bastards inheriting (I’d say that was true until at least until the time of Henry II) this was an issue but no so much after it.

                This makes me think that one of the reasons for the degraded social status of the bastard was not just that the rights of the father are violated, but that having kids out of wedlock is a slap in the face of the Church’s monopoly on regulating marriage and on pronouncing people married and consequently make inheritance a matter of procedure rather than blood.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  It’s tantamount to how the medical college feels about people pracitising medicine without a license. Bastard medicine you might say.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “This makes me think that one of the reasons for the degraded social status of the bastard was not just that the rights of the father are violated, but that having kids out of wedlock is a slap in the face of the Church’s monopoly on regulating marriage”

                  This was almost it entirely. Bastards had almost no legal disability up until after William the Conqueror (aka William the BASTARD’s) time and none really under pre Christian Germanic law.

          • BC says:

            > then we can find runaway demon lovers and force them to stick around.

            Can we? We’re not able to do so in the USA despite massive amounts coercion applied to men concerning child payments. The people forced to make child support payments are all of the noncriminal class who have actual assets for the state to steal, stable jobs, and less than mobile. This makes it easy for state agents to rob them. Demon lovers, on the other hand, are mobile by nature, do not have stable jobs, and have nothing to steal leaving the agents of the state highly under motivated.

  30. Michael Rothblatt says:

    Jim, calling them Marxists may not be true, but it is certainly more true than calling us lolbergtarians, given that all the Marxist anti-capitalist writings are taken almost verbatim from the writings of the Romantics. But I agree with the strategy of calling them Marxists, I used something similar myself, except I called them Red Khmers. Of course, nearly all anti-capitalism, both left and right, descends in one way, or another, from the writings of Adam Ferguson and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, so it’s all going to sound mostly the same.

    • jim says:

      > calling them Marxists may not be true

      If Marxist Class theory (reify the classes as if conscious individual beings, as if they acted in class self interest rather than individual self interest) then Marxist.

      If Marxist History (Feudal lords, Aristocrats, and Kings used to rule, now Capitalists rule) then Marxist.

      Ad Hoc Reason tells us he is Nazi, but the Nazis did not believe the Marxist theory of history. When Hitler said “Jews”, he meant Jews. When Ad Hoc Reason says “Jews”, he means the military industrial complex, he means warriors and merchants.

      Carlylean Restorationist and Ad Hoc Reason are obviously of the established priestly classes.

      If Whig history, (Leftism has been winning since the Magna Carta, and it is a good thing, Whigs have been in power since 1688) then progressives.

      If women are supposedly naturally virtuous and a civilizing influence on men, then progressives.

      The progressive account of women is wildly contrary to what is in front of everyone’s nose: If General Butt Naked showed up wearing his trademark necklace of fresh human eyeballs, an AK 47, and absolutely nothing else, the chicks would be all over him. If you believe that magic unicorns with rainbows coming out of their asses can be found at Church socials or at Harvard Law School, you are a progressive.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      [*Deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Deleted for telling us what Michael Rothblatt thinks.

        When you tell us what someone thinks, it is highly unlikely that that person agrees with your account.

        When you tell us what someone thinks, he invariably thinks that Marxism is true and right and good, and that he opposes Marxism because he is an evil Jew

        When you tell us what someone else thinks, he invariably agrees with Marxist Class Theory and Marxist History, it is just that he identifies with the bad guys. When you call someone a “Jew”, it does not mean what Hitler meant when he called someone a Jew. “Jew” is not used to refer to actual Jews, but rather means the “Military Industrial Complex”, what I call Merchants or Warriors. Which I suppose are according to you run by “Jews”.

        If you want to argue Marxist Theory, do what no Marxist anywhere ever has ever done: acknowledge that you are debating with people who do not believe in it and attempt to provide evidence and argument for it.

        All further comments telling us what people think will be silently deleted, because I have posted this response far too many times.

  31. full show says:

    This reminded me of old Moldbug.. and that’s a compliment.

  32. Mihc says:

    What about the female?
    Device-like, she’ll return any truth you spell out about any subject with one or two of

    1) This is insensitive
    2) You’ll never understand me [How I wish I never did, honey. You should understand yourself to appreciate how]
    3) You’re saying this to hurt me! [This is the default when you point out the contradiction between what she says now, and 10 seconds to 5 minutes earlier]
    4) You are squeawking!

    She may also show some talent at inciting male violence against you — while not knowing she did it (talents tend to compound with each other…)

    The Troofer, the Marxist, the Flat Hearter, all lose out to the female.

    • jim says:

      You only have this problem when you fail her shit tests.

      Women are fine under male authority, and the purpose of their shit tests is to find a male capable of mastering them.

      Which does not make shit tests any easier to pass, but know that you must pass them.

  33. […] Jim gives Marxism, as currently applied, the beating it deserves. […]

Leave a Reply