Reaction 101: Priests and warriors

We are always ruled by priests or warriors.

Priests are in the business of controlling what people think, warriors in the business of controlling people by hurting them and breaking their toys.

So who else matters?

Merchants can control people by offering them value, hence get targeted due to envy and covetousness, but merchants have no substantial incentive to cohere into guilds, whereas priests naturally cohere into priesthoods (see the Climategate files for this process in operation) because if you hear the same story from several different people it sounds a lot more convincing, and warriors naturally cohere into armies, because otherwise, likely to die.

And the rest should do as they are told, and if we make sure they get a wife, children, and a home by doing what they are told, they will surely do it.

If merchants group into a cartel, that would profit them collectively, but any one merchant has large incentive to defect on the cartel, and there is not much the cartel can do to stop him, whereas the priest does not profit by defecting on the priesthood. The warrior sometimes has large incentive to defect on the army, but there is a lot the army can do to stop him.

By “priest” we don’t mean someone overtly in the business of making supernatural claims. We mean a member of a priesthood, and by a priesthood, we mean what the Chinese call a “knowledge faction” – a bunch of intellectuals who conspire together to give everyone the same story and use the same shibboleths, so that it sounds more convincing.

In practice, even when a priesthood vehemently denies making supernatural claims, as for example the communists vehemently claiming to be strict materialists, they frequently wind up sounding remarkably similar to those that do make overtly supernatural claims. Thus “occupy” meetings sound like prayer meetings. The Occupy Priest chants an incantation, and the congregation chants a response. Similarly the Chinese communist party is always talking about faith and values. Everywhere in communist China there are official party books about “How to be a good party member who has faith”, “Chinese people have faith in the party”, “Have faith in the …” In China, you are forbidden to call Communism a religion, but it is perfectly OK to call Communism a religion in every way short of actually calling it a religion and the Communist Party itself does this all the time.

The claim that all men are created equal is transparently supernatural. The Marxist theory of history is the God of nineteenth century Judaism renamed “History”, a thinly disguised supernatural claim. Holocaustianity is the tenth commandment inverted, a somewhat better disguised supernatural claim.

But what makes a priesthood a priesthood is not supernatural claims. Long lived religions usually restrict their supernatural claims to unfalsifiable issues, like transubstantiation and so forth. In the long run, falsifiable claims, claims about this world, claims that conflict with science, lead to problems, as for example the progressive claim that men and women are indistinguishable, a claim that every music video must endorse, which restriction makes music videos and comedians boring. What makes a priesthood a priesthood is that they get together to get their story straight, so that all of them are on message – which is what makes them a knowledge faction. Lots of people are knowledge workers, but the essential element that makes a priesthood a faction is that they coordinate to get their story straight in order to make it sound more convincing, and what makes them a priesthood, a knowledge faction, is that they seek power by controlling what people think.

To be effective, a priest needs to be part of a group of priests who back each other up by telling the same story, and a warrior needs to be part of a group of warriors that back each other up by physical violence, thus warriors naturally cohere into armies capable of ruling, and priests naturally cohere into priesthoods capable of ruling, while capitalists naturally compete for workers and customers, workers for jobs, entrepreneurs for capital and workers, so do not cohere into groups capable of ruling. If you see a capitalist who appears to rule, for example George Soros, he is a hireling of those who do rule.

When we are in power the state religion will make overtly supernatural claims, but these claims, unlike the supernatural claims made by the current state religion, such as that all men are created equal, will be entirely unfalsifiable, and will never draw faith into conflict with science, for in such conflicts, science always loses totally and devastatingly, as for example in Global Warming debate, and the ensuing destruction of science is bad for your society, your technology, your economy, and your military capability. The reason that our nukes do not work any more is because men and women are supposedly equal. Nukes don’t work for the same reason that music videos and comedians are no longer entertaining. The state religion has to stay out of the way of science and technology, because science and technology are so terribly weak and fragile. Religions that make falsifiable earthly claims usually self destruct eventually, not because science defeats them, but because they blow themselves up, as for example the Jewish Zealots. The holiness spiral leads them to make earthly claims that require faith to be demonstrated by ever more disastrous earthly actions, as for example the Zealots destroying their own food supplies while besieged by the Romans, and transgenderism requiring one to castrate one’s own children and sit them on the laps of gays.

This account of priests and warriors make them sound like entirely bad things, that warriors are bandits, priests conspiratorial conmen. That is the libertarian and anarcho capitalist position: bandits and conmen.

The reactionary position, on the contrary, is that warriors performing the right role of warriors is the most honorable profession, and in a good society warriors shoud be honored, and that priests performing the right role of priest is an honorable profession, and priests should be honored second only to warriors.

Obviously we need warriors to prevent bandits. The defense of property and freedom is costly, the price is terribly high, and the honor due to warriors is part of the fair price we must pay for the security of our persons and our property.

What about priests?

Priesthood is rather more complicated. The state cannot really enforce law. Your computer is not registered with the government. You have to enforce your property rights in it. The government will back you up, but this only works because there is widespread agreement on property rights and right conduct, shared beliefs about good conduct with other members of the ingroup. That the state is all powerful is bluff and illusion. We are never out of anarchy. The state is a ramshackle ship on a storm tossed sea. It cannot really enforce law, only back up private enforcement. And private enforcement will only work if beliefs about what should privately be enforced are widely shared.

And lately these beliefs have been radically and rapidly changing – most notably in the direction that women and gays can do no wrong. The old testament position that if one’s wife or betrothed slept with another man, then it was fine to kill them, seems more in accord with human nature.

The American position on hot burglary, when a burglar openly and obnoxiously burgles an occupied dwelling, is that it is that it is totally OK to kill the burglar on sight without warning. The british postion is that it is totally and absolutely to do anything violent to the burglar, no matter how violent the burglar is, especially if you are white and the burglar is nonwhite. Similarly, the American debate about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman – some people took the position that it was totally OK for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon, if Trayvon was on top hammering Zimmerman’s head against the concrete, while other people took the position it was not OK for a “white” man to kill a black man, no matter what the black man was doing. (Zimmerman got white status from both those who supported him and those who condemned him. Those who condemned Zimmerman called him white, because they hate whites, even if they themselves are whites, especially if they themselves are whites. Those who supported him called him white because they wanted to claim a man who can shoot straight while blood runs over his eye as of their own race, called him white for being able to shoot straight while having his head banged on the concrete. One shot directly through the heart.)

The Book of Deuteronomy tells us that adulterers should be killed, but takes no position on whether it should be state, Church, family, or offended husband that kills adulterers. The position of the Rabbis at the time of Roman rule, the time of Jesus, was that it should be church (temple) that kills adulterers. The law as interpreted and applied at the time of King Solomon was that it was the offended husband, which is very much in accord with human nature. Gnon tells men to defend their own.

Adultery means adulteration as in beer – a man sleeping with another man’s wife or betrothed. If a man sleeps with a woman not his wife, but that women is not married or betrothed to another man, this is not adultery in the sense used in the old and new testaments.

If it is right for a man to defend his television set with deadly force (the American position) it is surely right to defend his capacity to reproduce with deadly force. State, family, and church should apply less extreme measures to adulterers, as they do to burglars, while backing the choice of the man who was personally threatened to use more extreme measures to adulterers, as he can to burglars.

The useful and proper function of warriors is to prevent mobile banditry – the stationary bandit prevents the mobile bandit. The useful and proper earthly function of the priesthood is to get the ingroup all on the same page of right conduct – to create a synthetic tribe, to get everyone feeling like part of the ingroup, and to promote shared values of right conduct, to get everyone acting like part of the ingroup.

You want everyone to agree on what constitutes cooperation, what constitutes defection from fair and reasonable expectations, and what constitutes defection so serious that violence on the spot is necessary and justified. And the legitimate earthly job of the priesthood is to form, represent, and communicate this consensus.

A priest should be in the business of teaching values and managing group identity, managing shared mythos and shared values. Thus something very like a priesthood creates something very like a religion, not necessarily in that it is about overtly supernatural claims, but in that it is an adoptive kin group based on shared values.

That the claims of traditional Christianity were either verifiable or unfalsifiable makes it a lot less supernatural than its new age competitors such as global warming or cultural Marxism, whose claims are not only supernatural, but entirely falsifiable, and usually falsified.

You want your warriors to be fighting for God, King and Tribe, as well as for gold, pussy, and land. And if you don’t have a priesthood that is on your side and on the warrior’s side, you don’t have a tribe.

For being a warrior to be an honorable profession, the warrior must fight not only for gold, pussy and land, but for God, King, and Tribe. If a warrior fights only for gold, pussy, and land, not honorable. If only for gold and pussy, he is a mobile bandit, which is the most dishonorable of professions. And without a good priesthood, hard to have a good tribe.

And since the west is detribalizing, since the priesthood is hostile to us and to our warriors, we are going to be overrun by mobile bandits soon. The great asylum seeker migration, which is largely military aged males, prefigures this.

From the time we defeated the Mongol hordes in Hungary in 1241, to our defeat in Afghanistan in 1840, the west was uniformly victorious for six centuries. (The Mongols were victorious in Hungary in that they successfully devastated and terrorized it, but were defeated in that they were never able to control it, that they never were able to draw revenues from it, that they kept on losing large amounts of treasure, men, and horses in it, and that the west gained the secret of gunpowder from them.)

Since then, since 1841 we have been suffering defeats by ever weaker enemies, notably the hilariously humiliating British defeats in Basra, the Persian Gulf, and Helmand province. The writing on the wall is that the west is ripe for conquest, like a wealthy elderly widow in a neighborhood that has turned bad. Not so much conquest by a major power like China, but rather a dark age collapse, when ever changing minor actors engage in mobile banditry – closer to the New Year rape festival in Cologne, or the car burning festivals in Paris, than D Day. There is a lot of loot and pussy for the taking, and neither the will nor capability to defend it. Something is like to go pear shaped sooner or later. The forever war in the middle east is a sign that the west has delusions of power – that its actual military capability is far less than it is used to, far less than everyone tends to take for granted. The west has not fought a war against a substantial enemy for quite a while, and has been losing, or winning inconclusively, against absurdly weak and tiny enemies.

As a warrior is honorable when he fights for God, King and Tribe, as well as for gold, pussy, and land, a priest is honorable when he performs the earthly task, the task in this world, of ensuring that there is a tribe to fight for, and that the tribe has agreement on what constitutes good conduct such that good members of the tribe do not feel like fighting each other, that the interactions are, as far as possible, cooperate/cooperate.

Since our current State religion is headed towards suicide and mass murder, we are going to need a replacement, assuming we survive at all. And that replacement has to grant warriors honor, and enable men and women to form families.

Tags: , ,

268 Responses to “Reaction 101: Priests and warriors”

  1. Koanic says:

    Amen.

    Let us pile the heads of the Progressive priesthood into a skyscraping ziggurat on Harvard Yard. So postmodern, it’s post-mortem – decapitation as the ultimate deconstruction! It is the only way to end the systematic and structural oppression of the feminine body by the masculine so-called “head”.

  2. Ron says:

    if there is a Western civilization after the smoke clears the writings of this blog will form a pillar of that civilization.

  3. vxxc says:

    At least JIm you understand Honor and Virtue as well as interest.

    By Virtue I here mean Right or Wrong.

    Beware using game theory terms.

    To Warriors when terms like Defect/Cooperate are used with equal weight they are listening to someone they can’t trust.

    We’re still quite here and we have a Constitutionally empowered Commander in Chief in Trump.

    The Warriors still exist. Suffering on waiting for clearer skies – and behold the sky grows lighter. I mean with the priesthood degenerate traitors it falls upon the warriors-who yes still exist. We don’t lose militarily Jim we are betrayed at table by our suits in the State Dept, politics, etc.

    We haven’t lost a campaign militarily since 1942 Philippines.

    We did lose in North Korea 1950-51 but only after the impossible constraint of not using air power against the Chinese staging areas and bridges was applied. That’s like telling infantry to fix bayonets only – no bullets.

    As for using military power to make Arabs or Pashtun’s white: we can’t even make our own Blacks, Browns white. The Asians seem to be more interested in being white Jews [their mistake]. That’s not a military failure anymore than “Civil Rights” was a police failure. Had the blacks been policed Civil Rights wouldn’t have exploded into a crime wave – had they been policed as blacks I mean. We aren’t being driven from the battlefield Jim – so no military defeat.

    Finally a note on viewing all matters from the standpoint of interest: that was Napoleon’s chief defect in thinking per Metternich. Napoleon did not believe anyone could succeed in public life unless primarily motivated by self interest.
    Remember Metternich beat Napoleon – and Metternich was motivated by Duty and Honor to his Sovereign Francis I of Austria.

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/napoleon-bonaparte-a-portrait-by-prince-metternich/

    [Metternich on Napoleon] “His opinions of men were concentrated in one idea which, unhappily for him, had in his mind gained the force of an axiom. He was persuaded that no man, called to appear in public life, or even only engaged in the active pursuits of life, was guided or could be guided by any other motive than that of interest.

    He did not deny the existence of virtue and honour ; but he maintained that neither of these sentiments had ever been the chief guide of any but those whom he called dreamers, and to whom, by this title, he, in his own mind, denied the existence of the requisite faculty for taking a successful part in the affairs of society. “

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      You know what they call winning militarily and then losing politically is called? Losing. Sun Tzu says if you know yourself and know your enemy, you need never fear defeat, but if you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will be defeated every time. Our military follows the commandments of the Harvard clerisy, and is thus prohibited from knowing themselves or their enemies. It is not surprising that even effective military action is surprisingly less effective than we should expect.

      The military is rotten, just as much as the priesthood is, as evidenced by Mattis. The best, most warlike general our society could stand, and he cucks over not being able to throw away lives in the Middle East like he is playing with plastic army men in the sandbox. The military needs purges as badly as the priesthood does, and we need some colonels that have steel in their spines and balls to fix things. We do not have colonels, so far as I am aware, and we have no priesthood.

      • BC says:

        >The military is rotten, just as much as the priesthood is, as evidenced by Mattis. The best, most warlike general our society could stand, and he cucks over not being able to throw away lives in the Middle East like he is playing with plastic army men in the sandbox.

        The Marines did a very in-depth study proving that women in combat were a disaster. Mattis responded by overriding their policy and placing women in combat and promoting a black woman as a General in the Marines. He’s a typical progressive entryist, who speaks warrior quite well. He’d be an ideal candidate for the left to assume total dictatorial power in a coup.

        • Ad Hoc Reason says:

          >The Marineth did a very in-depth thtudy proving that women in combat were a dithathter. Mattith rethponded by overriding their polithy and plathing women in combat and promoting a black woman ath a General in the Marineth. He’th a typical progrethive entryitht, who thpeakth warrior quite well. He’d be an ideal candidate for the left to athume total dictatorial power in a coup.

          Gee, I wonder who could be behind this…

          • jim says:

            Predictably, a commie arguing Marxist Class Theory tells us that gays in the military are no problem, and General Mattis is no problem.

            Gays in the military destroy unit cohesion. No nation with a gay parade wins wars. The priests of our state religion (and it obvious that Ad Hoc Reason is a priest of the state religion, or an NPC working off a script written by them) want gays in the military in substantial part to destroy the military.

            • J says:

              Closeted gays, sadists and other perverts – of any gender – are effective fighters and the back bone of military forces.

              • jim says:

                Nuts.

                Gays cannot fight, because they don’t cohere in a manly way, they cohere in a way that is not exactly feminine, rather they cohere in an effeminate way which is unsuitable for warfare or indeed any dangerous group activity such as firefighting.

                Nations that normalize perversion lose wars. This is obvious, and used to be well known.

              • Koanic says:

                Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in what he is saying, in that Western Sisservilization has emasculated its unmen to such an extent that only the deviants are still capable of pulling the trigger. With predictable results being infantry gets defeated wherever they engage against men with a positive birth rate.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  You will still find a few manly men among straights. No manly men among gays.

                • Koanic says:

                  Obviously he is a lying liar who lies. But I am thinking of the maxim that only a small percentage of infantrymen actually shoot to kill the enemy. Perhaps it has ever been thus – at least there have always been a 10th of men who were 10x deadlier. But I imagine successful societies make the majority of their fighting men into proficient unconflicted killers.

                  However, in the Weimar West, and particularly by the definitions of its effete psychologists, the normal man is an incompetent killer, and only the deviant is lethal. Moreover, because Weimar society does not offer a warrior the appropriate rituals and support, killers also tend to become broken, deviants or both.

                  I suspect I would be among the proficient killers, despite never having killed anything I couldn’t carry home. And I know that I would be considered deviant in the eyes of Weimar psychologists, whom I would cheerfully butcher.

      • vxxc says:

        We’ve learned the trade of war.

        What have you learned?

        On the subject of losing I’ll bow to the clear expert.

      • JoeFour says:

        “The military is rotten … as evidenced by Mattis.”

        Yes … and here is a link to article by a West Point grad explaining why …

        https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-blog-about-military-matters/60879683-the-u-s-military-s-marathon-30-year-single-elimination-suck-up-tournament-or-how-america-selects-its-generals

  4. bogbeagle says:

    “The American position on hot burglary, when a burglar openly and obnoxiously burgles an occupied dwelling, is that it is that it is totally OK to kill the burglar on sight without warning. The british postion is that it is totally and absolutely to do anything violent to the burglar, no matter how violent the burglar is, especially if you are white and the burglar is nonwhite.”

    This is a misrepresentation of the British position. Many a violent burglar has been deemed to be ‘lawfully killed’ in Britain.

    Just this year, a pensioner stabbed to death a burglar … and faced no charges.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5580925/Pensioner-78-stabbed-burglar-bailed.html

    As I understand it, the law here requires that your actions be ‘proportionate and reasonable’. The mere presence of another human on your property is not … and quite rightly … sufficient reason for a killing.

    • BC says:

      >As I understand it, the law here requires that your actions be ‘proportionate and reasonable’. The mere presence of another human on your property is not … and quite rightly … sufficient reason for a killing.

      You’re a slave.

    • Someone who enters your property through force is absolutely liable for a killin’.

      The law is hazier on people who accidentally enter your land, or guests who are told to leave but will not.

      If you have fences and lock your doors, this makes the issue morally transparent. No one who jumps or breaks a fence, or enters a locked house can be trusted to leave peacefully, or not kill you on sight if you give him a “warning”.

    • jim says:

      > Just this year, a pensioner stabbed to death a burglar … and faced no charges

      The pensioner was charged and imprisoned for stabbing a violent hot burglar who had repeatedly engaged in hot burglary and violence against old and frail people, and who was threatening the pensioner’s wife.

      The burglar, despite an unending series of crimes had still been in circulation.

      The pensioner faced charges all right, but public outcry led to him being released.

      Notice the swift efficiency with which the pensioner was detained, and the curious inefficiency that allowed the burglar to endlessly continue breaking into old people’s homes, robbing them and beating them.

      • Alrenous says:

        Burglary in England and Wales was up 17,100% from 1898 as of 2002. And yes, that’s per capita. It’s very obvious the police are on the side of the burglars.

        You can see this in every public school. Bullies are allowed to do many things to other children which are very illegal if adults do it to other adults. However, if any of the victims fight back in a way likely to be effective, all of a sudden teachers remember their police powers. Lots of schools with ‘zero tolerance’ policies for violence, and what they mean in every case is zero tolerance for self-defence.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          Exactly so, across the world. The little bitch who slaps you on the back of the head for shits and giggles is tolerated to continue doing so. Breaking your first on his nose gets you suspended.

          • Jehu says:

            Not sure if its true anymore, given how ubiquitous surveillance is in schools, but when I was in school back in the 80s, I figured out how to handle little shits like that.
            See if you do the usual posturing thing leading to a fistfight, a crowd gathers, and teachers and other authority figures basically have to take notice. And their rulebook says they have to be idiots and punish both of you, especially if you’re white and the little shit isn’t. On the other hand, if you just strike immediately and strike hard, it is way easier to get away with it.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              Yeah, I’ve never done the ol’ posturing for the crowd thing. I’m a rather agreeable person IRL, and would often turn the other cheek for minor slights – but, as we all know, that always invites escalation of hostility, emboldening the bully, so in many instances I had no choice but to strike back with full strength.

              That would deter the bully (they are not used to being unexpectedly knocked out by their otherwise unresponsive victims), at least for a while, sometimes even permanently, but the pedagogues have often dismissed the notion that I acted in self-defense; when they arrive on the scene and see the bully lying on the ground and you kicking him from above, they treat you as an aggressor, regardless of “who started it.”

              Another reason to end mass mandatory schooling. And to send female teachers back to the kitchen; they have no business handling violent boys.

              • Jehu says:

                Did the standard posturing thing at least a couple times, with the predictable results. Thing is, I was actually hoping to de-escalate the situation. But I learned the hard way that that (the de-escalation) wasn’t going to work and that just going 0-100% in two seconds was the way to go. And of course, once I’d inflicted my quota of damage, it was time to leave. That worked way the hell better than being punished for defending myself in a fight I attempted to de-escalate at every turn of the posturing dance.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          (My choice of words — “breaking your fist on his nose” — tells you that I’ve been there and done that. Honestly, if you’ve never been in a fight, you are missing an integral component of modern boyhood. Judge for yourselves whether or not that’s a good thing)

          (By the way, the guy whose jaw served to fracture my finger bone became a bodybuilder shortly after the event. I think it must be typical: bullies only start exercising and “getting big” after losing one too many fights)

          • Simon says:

            No need to signal on an anonymous blog mate.

            • jim says:

              Every man needs to have fought a man.

              Every man needs to have killed an animal and eaten it with company, and given thanks for that animal.

              Every man needs to lift iron.

              Every man needs to own a woman, and it is hard to do that, unless you have also done the others.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              Nonsense. People signal even when they’re asleep. The question is what’s being signalled. Some familiarity with fistfights is not that bad a thing to signal in a post extolling jocks over nerds.

              • Simon says:

                You’re signalling unverifiable information on an anonymous blog. At the moment you’re signalling a complete lack of self awareness, and low social status.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  If you say so.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Actually that doesn’t make any sense.

                  Say, there was a post about Game, and someone would give their account of interaction with the ladies, which account may or may not describe a successful seduction. Would you rush to dismiss that account as “unverifiable information on an anonymous blog”? If the seduction has failed, according to the account, would you then tell the commenter that he was “signalling a complete lack of self awareness, and low social status”? Lol. We’re allowed to share things from our lives, both good and bad; and if you’ve ever been in a fight, or bullied at school, you would be able to tell that I ain’t making stuff up.

                  Nah, I think that you just don’t like being reminded of what boyhood was like, for some reason. Not my problem.

                • jim says:

                  From time to time I post anecdotes from my own life, which illustrate some point or claim I make. As does Jewish Pedophile.

                  That is how humans do it – and you are a lot more likely to hear the truth on anonymous and unverifiable blog, than on any other source, for on any other source, the truth teller will be punished.

                  Come the restoration, the official state religion will be restricted to speaking the truth and to unfalsifiable other worldly claims. And then you will get the truth from verifiable non anonymous sources. Until then, this is the best you are going to get.

                  I tell you that you need to fight a man, kill an animal, eat an animal you have killed with company, and lift iron, which kind of implies I have done those things. Am I lying? You cannot know, but these are not very improbable claims. Nearly all men my age have fought humans, killed and eaten other creatures.

                  And Jewish pedophile tells you he has fought a man. Hardly unlikely.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I’ve participated in several fights. I brought up a specific fight because I was reminded of having my own pinky finger bone fractured — it’s called a Boxer’s fracture, quite typical — while self defensively striking the guy in the jaw (huge mistake: never punch someone in the jaw, or the forehead for that matter).

                  Simon could argue that this account is off-topic, though that would be a rather petty complaint; I was responding to Alrenous, who discussed bullying at school, probably from his own experience – so I brought up something that happened to me personally.

                  Not sure why Simon is triggered by this account. To repeat: some annoying twat slapped the back of my head repeatedly. I got mad, forcefully punched his face, broke my finger on his jaw. He fell to the ground, publicly humiliated, definitely losing the fight despite me having a Boxer’s fracture. A few months later he was walking around school with much larger muscles; I assume that being humiliated by me caused him to re-evaluate his manhood or something, and he started seriously improving on his physique. I conjecture that many such bullies, having lost a fight that *they themselves* had started, act similar to the way he did.

                  Big deal.

                • BC says:

                  >or the forehead for that matter

                  I learned that the hard way when I was 12. I did all my fighting when I was a kid. By the time I hit adulthood getting into a fight was effectively a felony, so men could no longer solve their differences and thus bond through fist fights.

                • Koanic says:

                  I train on the bag always using open handed strikes, to avoid breaking my hand when I need it most. Remember that (UFC 1?) fight wherein Gerard ?Gourdeau, savate fighter, broke his hand on the Polynesian’s face and then lost the grappling match to Hoyce Gracie? I don’t want to die because of stupid.

                  Anyway, I found that you can actually punch much harder with an unwrapped wrist using open-handed strikes. You just have to learn the viable strikes and angles. Or use your knees like God intended.

                • Simon says:

                  >Nonsense. People signal even when they’re asleep. The question is what’s being signalled. Some familiarity with fistfights is not that bad a thing to signal in a post extolling jocks over nerds.

                  To the extent jocks are aware of nerds, they do not consciously signal at them.

                  You signalled as an anonymous commenter at anonymous readers you will never meet.

                  That you’ve never questioned the utility of signalling on an anonymous blog, or that this thought had never occurred to you indicates a lack of self awareness, and that you consciously or unconsciously felt the need to signal on an anonymous blog indicates low social status. Which I would expect from someone who can find the time to comment multiple times daily on jim’s blog.

                  >Nah, I think that you just don’t like being reminded of what boyhood was like, for some reason. Not my problem.

                  >Not sure why Simon is triggered by this account.

                  More indications of low/zero self awareness. Because some part of your identity is tied to your anonymous account on an anonymous blog, you think it is the same for me.

                • Simon says:

                  >From time to time I post anecdotes from my own life, which illustrate some point or claim I make.

                  It is your blog and your anecdotes relate to the topic at hand. jewish pedophile’s were apropos of nothing, and could have been better stated without reference to a detailed personal anecdote.

                • jim says:

                  > jewish pedophile’s were apropos of nothing

                  Jewish Pedophile’s anecdote was directly relevant to the comment by Alrenous, which was itself generally relevant to the blog post, being a complaint that priests were oppressing warriors, hostile to manliness, and repressing manly behavior among schoolboys.

                  I complain of priestly supremacy in the original post, Alrenous illustrates priestly supremacy by schools allowing bullying and punishing boys who defend themselves, Jewish Pedophile issue an anecdote on sound tactics for successful self defense – thus implicitly boasting about his use of violence.

                  In a blog that advocates that society tolerate private prosocial violence, and urges people to apply private prosocial violence (with appropriate prudence, discretion, and caution) regardless of whether society tolerates it or not, on topic.

                  Any report of successfully applying private prosocial violence, like any report of how to deal with women successfully, is going to sound a bit like boasting.

                • Koanic says:

                  It’s definitely important. I remember in ?junior high or thereabouts some older kid at camp was bullying me in a manner that should’ve lead to a fight, but from my churchian cuckservative upbringing I thought I wasn’t allowed to aggressively respond, so I didn’t. But as I walked away, I could feel it was the wrong thing, the cowardly thing, and when well away began to cry in shame, confusion and anger, caught in the conflict between my faith and my honor.

                  Had I been able to separate the falsehoods of my upbringing from the truth of the Bible, I would’ve fought honorably and not been mindfucked at an impressionable age. I still seethe with fury that my soul was compromised by these Hell-born faggot-livered lies, and wish to immolate the priests thereof to wash that stain clean in their blood.

                  Turn the other cheek is a mocking invitation to a higher-caste figure to brawl, similar to giving the other guy the first punch. It would be like a teacher rapped your hand with a ruler, and you stood and offered him the first punch.

                  The point of the offer is what follows, just like the point of giving one who sues your your cloak as well is that it places him in violation of the Law, which forbids taking it, whether given or not.

                  Jesus dominated every exchange in which he participated. Go thou and do likewise. If you cannot be perfect like him, at least be strong like Samson. Read what is there in the text, and ignore the interpretations of the stupid, weak and evil.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I guess Simon had his face punched in.

                • Koanic says:

                  I misspoke, I do use one close-fisted strike, but the wrist is the striking surface:

                  Bas rutten demonstrates the devastating wrist hook clothesline
                  discussion of open-hand “bone strikes” follows
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm0SyEqc7ns

                  Why aren’t open hand strikes used in MMA? Because they’re too effective. An open-hand jab is an eye gouge that measures distance for the power followup. Also, UFC regulation gloves make it difficult to pull the wrist back far enough to avoid the fingers gounging eyes.

                  https://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/m0wm2/openhanded_strikes_in_the_ufc/

                  For real fights, the Spartan taught to attack the eyes first. I chamber my rear-foot lowkicks with a measuring gouge-jab. (With a bit of practice you’ll learn to relax the fingers and angle the wrist slightly upwards to avoid finger jamming.)

                  It’s similar to why the form of knee strikes is artificial in muay thai and MMA. They’re aiming high to avoid the groin.

                • jim says:

                  In a real fight, you always strike at the eyes with your fingers, and the joint of the jawbone, just below the earlobe with your knuckles. Testicles are hard to hit. Solar plexus can get muscle armor in an instant.

                  But you don’t want to get into a real fight if you can avoid it. Likely to get hurt, and people disapprove. Better to physically dominate your adversary in a manner not going to cause permanent injury or even leave a mark, the ideal solutions being the rear naked choke, the Kimura, and the guillotine choke.

                  Unlike using the eye strike and the jaw strike, these will not get you into trouble, and will demonstrate overwhelming superiority.

                  In any fight where it is sensible to use the eye strike and the jaw joint strike, it is a lot more reasonable to have a weapon, any weapon. A chair, a bottle, a glass, and of course, everyone’s favorite, the 100% legal even on planes tactical flashlight with two 26650 batteries. No amount of martial arts training equals a flashlight with two 26650 batteries. Get the model with the mechanical click switch, as the slider switch never quite works, and the XHP70 led, because if you shine the XHP70 directly in someone’s face, they are blinded for several seconds.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Better to physically dominate your adversary in a manner not going to cause permanent injury or even leave a mark, the ideal solutions being the rear naked choke, the Kimura, and the guillotine choke.

                  As someone who spends his free time practicing this sort of thing I’d recommend against having the Kimura / Americana as your go to unless you know them well enough that you’re not reading internet advice. They rely on you being able to control one of your opponent’s arms with two of yours which is not something you can always count on. In addition they’re both moderately technical moves that require some precision to actually pressure the shoulder joint.

                  BTW, the TSA even specifically allows flashlights on planes on their list.

                  https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/all

                • jim says:

                  What do you recommend to physically control an unskilled opponent without injuring him or leaving a potentially inconvenient mark. Choke? Which choke?

                  Assume the party attempting the hold is physically stronger than his opponent, and more skilled than his opponent, because his opponent is completely unskilled, but is disadvantaged by the fact that he needs to control his opponent swiftly and totally, before someone else butts in, and is disadvantaged by the need to avoid marking his opponent.

                • Koanic says:

                  If you are fit and limber, the legal exposure from muay thai blows is much less than from using a weapon. And of course unarmed attacks can be deployed more quickly, without warning, and don’t require the logistics of carrying. For this level of intensity, one would only be trying to disrupt the eyes, not destroy them. Strikes are also faster than submissions. The goal is to leave quickly. Weapons and visible blood draw unwanted attention.

                  In my area of China, I’m comfortable carrying a shiv for extreme situations, and relying on unarmed for the rest. Any use of force by a gweilo would likely result in large fines or imprisonment, and a knife is likely the worst I’ll face, wielded incompetently. As I get older, I’d want something with heft for intermediate scenarios.

                  The danger of going for submissions is tunnel vision, which can be lethal. One shouldn’t go for kicks either in any situation that might involve an accomplice.

                  As LaFond often points out, when dindu wrangling, vs a pack, once contact is unavoidable, your goal is to swiftly humiliate the lead aggressor, converting his allies into mocking bystanders. However, if you cut him, those bystanders will be witnesses for the prosecution in court. So if you cut one, cut at least two.

                  The wrist clothesline is a good blow for taking out the dindu lead. If you put up your fists, he’ll likely mimic. Then step offline while striking around his block.

                • Koanic says:

                  I gave bad advice about opening with the clothesline. It’s slow, telegraphed, and punishes for a whiff. It needs to be in a combo, after a rangefinding jab. Chain it after a jab or a straight, to step left or right, towards or away.

                  Full sequence: hands up to provoke guard, fingertip rangefinding jab-gouge to take initiative, then
                  1. clothesline stepping left, OR
                  2. bladehand straight between his guard, followed by clotheleline stepping right.

                  Clothesline with the arm he’s closer to. It doesn’t matter if you overshoot, but if you undershoot you’ll hyperextend your arm and give him the dominant angle. Step back if he’s inside and forward if outside.

                  Anyway, if you work a freestanding kickboxing bag there’s usually a natural next blow dictated by your and the bag’s velocity and position. I’m just describing a subset thereof. You can do anything. But the clothesline is a fast surprise finish with lateral movement, all good things for a brawl vs untrained low morale opponents. If the KO fails, it can still unbalance or takedown, giving Mr. Pavement the followup.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  What do you recommend to physically control an unskilled opponent without injuring him or leaving a potentially inconvenient mark. Choke? Which choke?

                  Assume the party attempting the hold is physically stronger than his opponent, and more skilled than his opponent, because his opponent is completely unskilled

                  Collar choke works very well – advantage is that the move to stop it is unintuitive – he has to push your elbows together which isn’t the natural reaction.
                  The disadvantage is that you have to be close and able to grab inside a collar. No marks and it doesn’t even look very violent. If you’re good at it he’ll go out very fast.

                  Typical insert:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6XbXtrM_A0

                  Arm drag to rear naked is excellent if you have any surprise. You can escalate from the posturing to control very quickly.
                  Typical insert:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAarl0FjfGw

                • jim says:

                  There is an obvious problem with the collar choke, in that you have two hands and your head busy, while he has both his hands free and eighteen seconds before he passes out. And he is not under mma rules, not restrained from causing serious, and possibly fatal, injury. If I have both hands free, and the other guy has both hands busy, I can kill someone in less than eighteen seconds. I don’t want to give the other guy the chance to do that to me.

                  The collar choke will work under mma rules, but if someone did it to me in the field, where there are no rules, he would very likely die.

                  The problem is that I asking for a move that does not cause physical injury, and cannot be trumped by a move that does cause serious physical injury..

                  If the other guy has the advantage in strength and skill, or if he has a friend, obviously these mma/judo/wrestling moves are inappropriate. Then it is time for the flashlight or the bottle. Mma type moves are only for friendly fights, or when you have a large advantage and want to get away with violence in public.

                  Arm drag to rear naked choke looks better, since it holds him fairly helpless, but he still has eighteen seconds. A move that applies intense pain immediately, instead of threatening loss of consciousness in eighteen seconds, would be better.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  If the other guy has the advantage in strength and skill, or if he has a friend, obviously these mma/judo/wrestling moves are inappropriate. Then it is time for the flashlight or the bottle.

                  Agreed.

                  If I weren’t concerned about causing lasting harm and the situation was serious I’d go for a takedown and a very fast armbar – if I was facing someone without bjj training I could pull that off fast enough that a friend wouldn’t be able to injure me – at that point the fight would be one on one but the reason I would do this is because even though I used to train boxing I’m habituated at this point to grapple – it’s the main downside of training – when you train you’re going to react with what you’ve trained.

                  *If you can apply the collar choke* it’s amazingly effective – even against someone flailing. Pull downward on the collar as you apply the choke and he’ll basically fall forward (to his knees) – one of the foundations of all styles of grappling is that if you control the head you control the body. Of course if he has a knife in his hand you’re going to die or be very badly injured but uh, don’t fight a guy with a knife without a weapon that outranges it if you care about your life.

                  The arm drag is very effective because you can grab an arm (which is a very easy target to hit in an adrenaline filled environment) and if you pull it forward and down an untrained opponent will be off balance very quickly. From there you’re behind your opponent – which is the best place to control an opponent if neither of you is experienced in grappling. Once you have his neck there are no strikes he can get off and you can force him to carry your weight or even drag him to the ground. Don’t use this move against someone when he has a friend who might intervene because he can simply fall on you and even though having his back is a dominant position in a one on one fight if he has a friend it quickly goes badly for you because you’re the one pinned to the ground.

                  As I think more about it take it with a grain of salt when I say that a kimura is fiddly to apply correctly since even though I’ve applied dozens of kimuras in training and some have worked and some haven’t I’m trying to apply them to trained grapplers who know how to escape and can feel if the angles aren’t exactly correct.

                  This is a good grappling technique (video is an old video from Rener and Ryron Gracie) that I think is about what you’re looking for – you keep standing, it applies pain really fast rather than trying to choke him which can be slower.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBWcr22IUHU

                • jim says:

                  > If you can apply the collar choke* it’s amazingly effective – even against someone flailing.

                  If someone applied the collar choke to me I would instinctively flail by with an open finger slap to the eyes raking into an eye gouge and a knuckle punch the hinge of the jaw, raking into a grab for his neck. Then with my left hand holding his head with like a bowling ball with my fingers and thumb in his eyesockets, my right hand holding the back of his head by the neck, and my head pressing on the side if his head, would attempt to crank his head around, using the back of his head and his eyesockets as grip points.

                  Have you attempted to apply the collar choke against someone apt to flail in this manner?

                • jim says:

                  > This is a good grappling technique (video is an old video from Rener and Ryron Gracie) that I think is about what you’re looking for – you keep standing, it applies pain really fast rather than trying to choke him which can be slower.

                  > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBWcr22IUHU

                  This looks very good. All the other moves look to me that they would fail against an opponent not limited by rules or boxing gloves, and replying instinctively and suddenly with the most terrible moves of which he is capable.

                  I don’t want my eyes, nose, or jaw joint anywhere near an opponent with free hands, when I do not have a free hand to protect my face.

                  But this move is so fast, and so instantly discombobulating, that it will work even in a no limits environment, even against an opponent with no concern for your welfare.

                • Koanic says:

                  If you need to put someone into a lot of pain quickly, without leaving a mark, thai clinch and knee until he drops. Even if he has a knife I doubt someone untrained would accomplish much with those shots bicycling in. He won’t have an angle to get lethal penetration. If he makes space to get that angle, he eats another knee.

                  People always underestimate invisible internal damage, and I’m sure you can get a liver shot or equivalent off knees. It doesn’t take many undeflected shots to end pro fights.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvFiToT1vuc

                • jim says:

                  In the video, the salesman put the guy in the thai clinch, the guy in the video says that the punches to the ribs do nothing.

                  Year, punches the upper ribs, where he is punching while wearing gloves are likely to do nothing, especially from that position. Salesman says that the other guys is allowed to do anything he likes. If someone clinched me in that clinch, not going to punch like that. Not going to be wearing boxing gloves either.

                  As he pulls my head down towards his knee, going to lever myself up by grabbing his face by the eye sockets with one hand, and squeezing his throat with the other.

                  Thai clinch works against someone playing by the rules, who really does not want to hurt you.

                  In the video, worked because applied to someone wearing boxing gloves, so one guy could grapple, and the other guy could not grapple. Let us see what happens if the video was tried without boxing gloves.

                • Koanic says:

                  The point of the video was to show the panicked and ineffective reaction of an untrained brawly natural alpha when placed in a Thai clinch. Obviously the demonstration was not done at realistic lethality. No demonstration is ever done at realistic lethality, except in the Roman arena. But the unrealistic aspect was not that the clinchee was disallowed from eye gouging and ball grabbing. The unrealistic aspect was that the clincher did not tuck his head, scrunch his eyes, and convulse his entire muscle core into repeatedly driving one knee after another into the clinchee. The only reason such strikes do not result in lethal internal organ damage is that the body automatically collapses into the fetal position after receiving the first one.

                • jim says:

                  Lots of people have attempted to knee me. It has never worked.

                  Maybe if they were using the Thai clinch it would have worked, but in the video the clincher said that you have to work the clinchee this way and that so that he gets discombobulated, and then you knee him.

                  Pretty sure that if I was the clinchee, the clincher would be dead in the time it took to work me this way and that.

                  Grappling is for when you don’t really want to hurt the other guy. Looking for a grapple that works when the other guy may not be similarly restricted.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Have you attempted to apply the collar choke against someone apt to flail in this manner?

                  I have not – I’m extrapolating based on experience in grappling practice (both applying the choke and having it applied) – with all the limitations that implies.

                  The main reason I recommended a choke over a joint lock is because one of your stated conditions was that you didn’t want to seriously or permanently injure your opponent. Joint locks run the risk of both of those but they get to pain faster. It’s your choice which is more important. My personal go to in that type of situation is either an arm drag, a takedown or something very like the Gracie video I linked.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Lots of people have attempted to knee me. It has never worked.

                  Then you have never been kneed by a nak muay. I agree that the normal Westerner’s knee is unthreatening. I didn’t watch the video beyond the demonstration; I only cared to see how someone untrained reacts to the clinch. The answer is that he tries to squirm away, creating space for a max power knee, while not defending intelligently with his arms braced to check the knee. That is asking for a trip to the hospital with internal hemorrhage.

                  There is not much that Muay Thai doesn’t know about the standing clinch, and it is very relevant to street fighting on pavement, because they score takedowns heavily. Experts recommend it for practical self defense.

                  If you’re worried about someone killing you, you should not worry about leaving a mark.

                  Gloves make clinching less effective, and pro fighters are always intelligently defending to avoid the gut KO.

                  Nobody can take a full power knee to the gut:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQFzC5bYYxQ

                  I don’t know what pony tail said, but here are some nak muays:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlHxXC6t1I

                  Hit him with your femur:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POvmZ-uw3OI

                  “Breathing difficulties for weeks”:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VggDRaIFqzA&frags=pl%2Cwn

                • jim says:

                  > > Lots of people have attempted to knee me. It has never worked.

                  > Then you have never been kneed by a nak muay. I agree that the normal Westerner’s knee is unthreatening. I didn’t watch the video beyond the demonstration; I only cared to see how someone untrained reacts to the clinch. The answer is that he tries to squirm away, creating space for a max power knee, while not defending intelligently with his arms braced to check the knee. That is asking for a trip to the hospital with internal hemorrhage.

                  That was not because he was untrained. That was because he was trying to not hurt the guy clinching him, and was wearing gloves that prevented him from doing anything effective to hurt the guy clinching him. I am not trained either, and I know that my reaction would not have been to squirm away from the clinch, but, if it was a stranger clinching me, and I was in doubt that both of us would survive, I would immediately proceed to make sure that the guy clinching me was not the survivor.

                  I would squirm away if it was a friend, if it was someone I was worried about hurting – which is what in this video, it was.

                  > That is asking for a trip to the hospital with internal hemorrhage.

                  Someone who was quite good at martial arts repeatedly gave me a jump kick in the solar plexus. Pretty sure that a jump kick is more effective than a knee. The reason that he lived is that his friends intervened when I rendered him unconscious and police showed up.

                  I was completely untrained to deal with a jump kick, and initially stood around helplessly absorbing repeated jump kicks. And then I responded in a way that was clearly not covered or allowed by his martial art, for he was helpless to deal with it also.

                  Also standing around like an idiot in front of lots of witnesses and absorbing lots of jump kicks helped me no end in the subsequent conversation with police, which might have gone very badly otherwise.

                  For a knee to be effective on the clinchee, you have to get him discombobulated so that he does not see it coming, and get him in position, so that the full force of your knee is effective. And that is going to take quite a while, and by the time you have accomplished it, a clinchee who is not restricted by any martial arts rules, nor any concerns for hurting you, will have inflicted incapacitating or lethal injuries.

                • Koanic says:

                  Obviously the demonstration wasn’t perfect, but it was telling that he didn’t think to close up or take down, even though the latter was repeatedly and explicitly mentioned.

                  You shouldn’t clinch unless you know how to defend yourself in a clinch, obviously. If you do, then you’re fine against someone untrained.

                  > Someone who was quite good at martial arts repeatedly gave me a jump kick in the solar plexus. Pretty sure that a jump kick is more effective than a knee.

                  This sounds like nonsense on multiple levels.
                  1. Martials “arts” are just that, not fighting. Most of them are just art. I bet your friend practiced bullshido.
                  2. Jump kicks to the gut are much less devastating than knees to the gut. Jump kicks to the gut aren’t a thing. Maybe if he was going for the surprise jump kick KO to the head, that can work. But flying kick into the gut is silly. No leverage. You could just tackle him, and I bet you did.

                  > And then I responded in a way that was clearly not covered or allowed by his martial art, for he was helpless to deal with it also.

                  Yeah that was bullshido then.

                  > For a knee to be effective on the clinchee, you have to get him discombobulated so that he does not see it coming, and get him in position, so that the full force of your knee is effective. And that is going to take quite a while, and by the time you have accomplished it, a clinchee who is not restricted by any martial arts rules, nor any concerns for hurting you, will have inflicted incapacitating or lethal injuries.

                  I don’t know where you’re getting this. It’s a street fight. You’re not trying to fake out a pro. You can just go directly from the clinch to the knee, like this:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEhGZvTMRKw
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rh-Djizxt8

                  It sounds like you haven’t discovered that there are three real martial arts: wrestling, jiu jitsu and muay thai.

                • jim says:

                  Wearing boxing gloves, there was nothing he could do to take down the man with bare hands. Thus this supposed demonstration proves nothing.

                • jim says:

                  > I don’t know where you’re getting this. It’s a street fight. You’re not trying to fake out a pro. You can just go directly from the clinch to the knee, like this:

                  > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEhGZvTMRKw

                  That is not a street fight. That is obviously staged, two actors. One of the actors reels theatrically after being kneed, but the reeling not in fact the impact of being kneed but him performing. I don’t think the knee actually made contact, and if it did, he scarcely noticed.

                • Koanic says:

                  You can do takedowns with boxing gloves, but maybe the clinchee didn’t know that.

                  > in the video the clincher said that you have to work the clinchee this way and that so that he gets discombobulated, and then you knee him.

                  I watched it. No, he said he likes to do that. He’s being lazy and efficient and merciful and taking advantage of the typical reactions of the untrained. He’s letting them panic and flail in an unfamiliar position to drain their stamina and morale. He’s also got his head up aware of his surroundings. He is obviously more worried about accomplices than a knife.

                  It doesn’t *have to be* that way. That’s just a low-risk way for a veteran to neutralize a civilian’s mildly-dangerous energy burst, without expending his own.

                  The salesman was selling courses, not answering your question. You asked for a surprise move to subdue a wildcat safely and discreetly. I suggested a clinch and gut knee. Obviously if it’s not a surprise, then it’s a fight, and you should release the wildcat, preferably with an elbow or a throw. For example, if he is spinning around like the clinchee in the demo, then you have to throw him, because kneeing might cause you to fall. But if you achieve surprise, or he at least stays put for the blow, then he should become pliably preoccupied, at which point a joint lock or whatever would be sufficient. And since apparently people do not believe knees are damaging, perhaps no one will understand why you two are hugging.

                  The real reason this will not work is that most people wear clothing which prevents the use of the femur in its God-intended role of abdominal rupture. I can deliver at least twice the force to a bag with my knee as with my hand or elbow, and the penetration is even deeper than that, because the flappy palm reduces heel penetration. No other blow in my arsenal will make the entire water-filled base jump and crack down on the pavement. This is why fighters who walk forward into knees just drop.

                • Koanic says:

                  If you perform a knee correctly, you are launching your entire body forward, with the momentum balanced behind the upper tip of your femur, a large bone whose nearest joint is your hip, your center of mass. Impacts that would damage your shoulder when striking with the elbow, much less your wrist when striking with the heel, much less your knuckles when striking with the fist, just feel satisfyingly right on the hip joint, which is designed to take bodyweight impacts all day long. It is the hardest blow the human body can generate.

        • jim says:

          A logical next step from being on the same side as the adulterers.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Alrenous

          That was my experience in pubic school… err, I meant public school. Bullies would attack their victims, but the teachers and admin are somehow unable to stop the attacks. Then when the victim uses an effective defense against a bully, mysteriously, the evil fat women who staff the public school system suddenly find their enforcement powers!

          • Alrenous says:

            It’s not weird that child torture technicians do this.

            What is weird is that cops go along with this. If cops resigned as profligately as e.g. Mattis, we would probably not have a crime-suppression problem. Perhaps, as cops are the most cowardly of the warrior caste, resignation is expecting too much, but it’s not like that’s the only way they could resist.

            But I suppose cops learned the lessons of school too.

          • BC says:

            >Then when the victim uses an effective defense against a bully, mysteriously, the evil fat women who staff the public school system suddenly find their enforcement powers!

            That was my experience as well. I had a full year of defending myself and ending up in detention before the bullies got tired of being knocked down and left me alone. Oddly, they never contacted my parents about what was going on. I guess they knew it wouldn’t go well.

    • Georgiaboy61 says:

      Re: “As I understand it, the law here requires that your actions be ‘proportionate and reasonable’. The mere presence of another human on your property is not … and quite rightly … sufficient reason for a killing.”

      When there is an unwelcome intruder in your home during the night, perhaps with larceny and violence on his mind and a weapon in his hand, there is no time for the kind of fine distinctions called for by now politically-correct version of British common law. A Briton’s home used to be his castle; no more is that so. If a man can’t defend his home, property and loved ones by simple right, he is de facto a slave or a serf – and not a free man.

    • pyrrhus says:

      The Common Law held, from much experience, that anyone entering your property through force was a deadly threat, and that violence to the extent of killing was fully justified…The current British Regime has imprisoned farmers for defending themselves with shotguns, even when the culprit wasn’t killed. The authorities want you dead.

    • Jay Bree says:

      Bog– you’re wrong. The presence of someone in my property after breaking in represents a great bodily threat, and I have every legal right to dispatch that threat in any way I can.

      Sorry you’re not a free man.

  5. dmv gringo says:

    Blah, blah, blah………
    Yawn……………
    ZZZZzzzzz…….
    The communists and shitbags of the Uniparty
    rage on and win.
    Pffft!!!!!!!!

  6. […] The First Rule of Trump Priests & Warriors Reaction 101: Priests and warriors The Mad Poodle resigns An anonymous iSteve commenter has some challenging […]

  7. I like your discussion of knowledge factions. Knowledge factions are so dominant that most things most people believe are nonsense. Here is a proof tree establishing that: https://truthsift.com/search_view?topic=On-Controversial-Topics,-Who-is-More-Often-Right,-the-Majority-or-a-Minority?&id=466

    please add proofs or refutations of steps wherever you have a rational point to make.

  8. Merchants may not be incentivized to cohere into guilds, but artisans certainly are. Being a member of a guild raises your status and makes people more likely to do business with you. Whereas a guild admitting quality artisans raises its own status.

    When a guild allows bad artisans to be members, it hurts the guild’s reputation. If X sleazebag is a member of Y guild, consumers become ill disposed to Y guild. So the guild is incentivized to make sure its members are doing excellent work, and the members are incentivized to do excellent work and keep out the losers.

    This arrangement of mutually-reinforcing status that ends up producing excellence, imo, needs to be better studied and reverse-engineered in some capacity onto other aspects of society. It seems to have no inherent weak points of power in of itself, i.e. it prevents entryism

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Deleted for telling us what I think. I don’t say that, I don’t think that, and I make my position on these issues absolutely clear over and over again.

        And if I was to allow your comment through would have to make my position crystal clear yet again, which most readers would find tediously repetitious and a waste of bandwidth.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*censored*]

          • jim says:

            Your comment, the frame of your comment, presupposes that I agree with the Cultural Marxist account of reality – it is just that I support the evil bad guys who rule the world.

            If you want to argue your version of reality, argue it on the basis that you are disagreeing with me about the way the world works, not disagreeing with me on which side to support. Produce evidence that your account is true, rather than assuming I agree that your account is true, but am simply being evil.

            I have made it absolutely clear what my position is on guilds and apprenticeship. Address what I plainly said, rather than attribute to me a position that totally rejects what I plainly said in favor of the Cultural Marxist account of the medieval economy.

            You want to retain your monopoly of educating children, I want to destroy that monopoly, and instead of debating me, you tell me I agree with you.

            Any comment by you that references the medieval guild system will be censored, unless you acknowledge my position, acknowledge that there is less than universal agreement with the Cultural Marxist account of history.

            Any account of the medieval guild system that fails to acknowledge the apprenticeship system is misleading. Any account of the medieval guild system that attributes to me a position that fails to acknowledge the apprenticeship system is a lie.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              tl;dr version cos I’m sick of this fucking kike faggot:

              I will not permit any opinion which contradicts my own and I darecent let it be seen by others because I know what I’m pushing is a fucking pile of kike lies because I’m a fucking lying bastard kike.

              • jim says:

                I regularly allow opinions that violently contradict my own.

                I will not allow people to ascribe opinions to me that violently contradict my own.

                People keep telling me that I agree with Marxist Class theory. By all means tell me that you agree with Marxist Class theory. Don’t tell me that I agree with Marxist Class theory.

                Further, I regularly do allow people to tell me I agree with Marxist Class theory – once. Maybe twice. When they keep repeating it over and over, then I delete their comments.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re the one falsely accusing ME of believing in Marxist class theory.

                  Marxist class theory is IRRELEVANT to whether or not capitalism gives us inferior shitty mass-produced garbage _____WHICH IT DOES_____

                  You will NEVER allow this comment to stand because you’re threatened by the fact that you cheerlead for capitalism because THAT IS YOUR JOB, and you know that a comment like this, challenging capitalism FROM THE RIGHT, FROM A POSITION OF REACTION, will utterly DESTROY YOUR POSITION.

                  THAT is why you censor you fuckiogn dishonest disingenuous PIECE OF SHIT, not matter how much you moralise and talk down to other people.

                  YOU’RE NOTHING BUT A LIAR AND I’VE MADE MY OPINION AS TO WHY AND HOW YOU COME TO TELL THESE SPECIFIC PARTICULAR LIES BUT EVEN IF I’M TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT THE WHYS AND WHEREFORES, YOU REMAIN A FUCKING LIAR.

                • jim says:

                  And yet here you are arguing, or rather presupposing, Marxist history, whig history, and Marxist class theory, in these very comments, as for example attributing capitalism to the self anointed champions of progress and depicting it as a recent development.

                  Whiggery is, or began as, post restoration puritanism, while capitalism is ancient beyond history, and corporate capitalism is restoration.

                  History begins late iron age. Capitalism dates back to at least the restoration of order following the collapse of bronze age civilization, thus is literally prehistoric.

              • R7 Rocket says:

                Communist Revolutionary has set his phaser on gamma stun.

    • pdimov says:

      “Merchants may not be incentivized to cohere into guilds…”

      Merchant guilds existed, from which we can conclude that incentives did exist.

  9. There’s also a distinction between the Warrior and the Soldier that should be made clear.

    Warrior virtues are the virtues of mobile society, his glory the glory of fighting a good fight and killing a strong enemy. The Warrior loves war, loves violence, achieves spiritual clarity and fulfillment in the midst of combat. Warrior honor is the honor of single combat, the honor of Achilles or Arthur. I forget the name, but there was a Scotch officer in the British army during WWII who carried a sword into combat, and remarked that the war was a great time and he would love to do it again. It’s pretty much that guy.

    Soldier virtues are very well understood. Any WWII film or Vietnam film captures them. Soldier honor is loyalty to compatriots and faithful execution of orders. It is the virtue of the phalanx, of the privates who mounted the trenches and charged the guns in WWI. Soldiers are commoners, to them war is hell, and they regard it with a dark nihilistic humor. They fight because they have to, to defend their farms and homes, whereas the warrior’s home is the battlefield.

    All societies start as warrior societies, and later become soldier societies. Because soldier armies defeat warrior armies every time. Heroic single combat makes sense when you have a small population and only a few can afford arms and training. If your country is rich, you can spare men from the fields to arm and train them, you win more wars. The phalanx beats a mob of heroes. The Vikings never won a significant land battle.

    Eventually, warriors settle down and become aristocrats, and apply their fierce will-to-power to governance. In the height of cultures, you have warriors leading soldiers into battle. In their degeneration, you have priests leading soldiers. Which does not work out well, as you show.

    • vxxc says:

      There’s disquiet in the military over exactly us being warriors.
      Its all the war you see.
      The disquiet is we’re not soldiers (niggers) anymore.
      We’re warriors.

      You see the leash slips as soon as we’re fighting on our own soil.
      So we pray for war.

      The “soldiers” you refer to seems to mean conscript and would not apply to volunteers. Most of my friend would love to carry swords to war, we settle for knives and tricked out rifles.

      • I’ll defer to your expertise as a real trigger puller on that. Volunteer armies will definitely soak up almost every natural warrior left in society.

        From the military guys I know, it’s the Es and the IOs that are always the real badasses, and the higher ranking Os are generally nerdy bureaucrats.

        I’m guessing the real warriors don’t get the promotions they deserve, that soldiers who are obedient bureaucrats get promoted over the people who know how to win wars.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          In my personal observations when I was in the military, officers with a warrior mindset were rarely promoted past O6 rank.

          • vxxc says:

            Correct.

            A warrior to get past 06/COL is rare and usually a sign of desperation, like when McMaster got promoted to General.

            He’s a winner in Battle, regardless of what else is said by him.

            See 73 Easting, and Tal Afar.

  10. Ad Hoc Reason says:

    Fake and gay.

    Fake because “warriors” aren’t in charge.

    Gay because neither are “priests”.

    Any so-called explanation that fails to explain the central organizing principle of our world is just misdirection from what’s really going on.

    And what is the central organizing principle of our world?

    The dollar, obviously. The dollar as representation of energy. Energy is economy. Economy is jobs and standard of living.

    No one defies the dollar. It is the most powerful idea in existence.

    And a few self-reproducing groups make it on demand.

    I recommend you fuck off with your ideological bullshit. To kill the Petro World Order, farm solar rays.

    • BC says:

      > And what is the central organizing principle of our world?

      >The dollar, obviously. The dollar as representation of energy. Energy is economy. Economy is jobs and standard of living.

      >No one defies the dollar. It is the most powerful idea in existence.

      Hey look the Marxist NPCs are here.

      There’s a common saying that’s proven true over the last few years: Get Woke and Go Broke. Big corporations are destroying themselves by chasing priestly status instead of money. Hence Money doesn’t rule the world, priests rule the world.

    • AnnoGnomes says:

      Yes, the dollar is a powerful idea.

    • Fuck off. It’s obvious that capital is a handmaiden of the ruling progressive religion.

      It would be absurdly profitable for an oil company to pay some mercs to completely take over Venezuela and rule it and its oil supply as a corporate fiefdom. But they do not do so because people who believe that imperialism is a mortal sin (priests) have bigger guns and bombs than anyone with capital can oppose (warriors).

      Solar rays cannot be turned into liquid capital because you cannot store the energy. Our battery technology is shit and not about to get any better anytime soon. Everything that runs on solar has a petro or coal backup.

      You are telling us to do what leftists tell us to do. Obsess over money, focus on the material, and then throw your money away on insane left-religious imperatives like alternative energy to defeat some capitalist bogeyman that has always been Fake Opposition.

      Anybody who can hoodwink a traditional white southern christian boy into spilling his lifeblood in some foreign wasteland for nebulous and perverted concepts like “liberty” and “justice” is exercising priestly power.

      Fiat currency is only worth as much as the promises of the government that issues it. Without faith in the US government, the dollar is a worthless scrap of paper. The US government maintains investor faith in it through military power (warriors) and media propaganda (priests). The “energy” quantified by the dollar is the energy of warrior power and priestly power. The weaker those get, the weaker the dollar becomes.

    • jim says:

      Nuts

      That is Marxist Class theory. Blatantly false when Marx first proposed it.

      And Marxists have never, will never, present arguments or evidence for Marxist Class theory. They just tell us that everyone, including ourselves, know it is obviously true.

      Nah, obviously untrue.

      • Ad Hoc Reason says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Deleted for telling us what we think. You have been issued the same or very similar script as Carlylean Restorationist.

          Deleted for presupposing that we agree with Marxist Class theory, that Marxists Class theory is uncontroversially and universally accepted, when in fact it’s as nuts as trooferism.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Academic Hoc Reason is tag teaming it with Communist Revolutionary!

          • Ad Hoc Reason says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Unresponsive.

              If this is supposed to be relevant to something someone said, you have left out a few intermediate steps in your reasoning.

              Fill in the missing explanation of how this relates to whatever it is supposed to relate to, and I will allow it through.

              In context, one would expect you to attempt to justify Marxist Class theory, but if that was your intent, not recognizable.

              You may have fired off the wrong script to the wrong blog. You might want the “Hail fellow reactionary, capitalism is Jewish, socialism is nationalist” script, rather than the ‘hail fellow anarchist, capitalism is statist, socialism is anarchist” script.

              • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                Couple things.

                1. I believe in freedom of speech, right to free discourse. except obscenity, if obscenity is pornography. or movies. or lese majeste, if lese majeste is insulting Trump, not not lying about blacks, jews or the tranny in Trump’s former beauty pageant. censhorship of valid opinions is heavy-handed and counterproductive and homosexual. making you a samefaggot.

                • jim says:

                  On this blog you are free to argue for Marxist Class theory.

                  On this blog you are not free to assume Marxist Class Theory as the taken for granted universally accepted consensus.

                  Nor are you free to assume as the taken for granted universally accepted consensus that the earth is flat, that World Trade Tower building seven suddenly went into free fall all at once for no apparent reason, that the 9/11 hole in the Pentagon is too small for a commercial airliner to fly through, etc.

                  That method of argument is for stupid, ignorant, morally depraved people, and I am not having it on my blog. You are allowed to argue for improbable stuff. You are not allowed to claim consensus for improbable stuff.

                  Also if you do make an argument, and someone rebuts your argument, you have to rebut his rebuttal, concede, or fall silent. You are not allowed to just repeat your original argument until people get tired of rebutting it.

                • Eli says:

                  Spoken as the Grand Inquisitor, verily.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well this blog is pre-restoration.

                  I imagine that after the restoration even mere belief in either marxism or female equality will be a capital crime. Its a mistake to do any less…

                • jim says:

                  Of course. For now, we debate them. After the restoration, certain debates will be silenced.

                  Ideas are more powerful than guns. We will allow people who are not trying to overthrow us ideas and guns, but disarm and silence people who are trying to overthrow us.

                  Marxist Class Theory is a weapon, thinly disguised as an idea. So is the blue pill on women. Hence my plan to censor Romance novels and movies.

                  Banning Marxism and feminism directly is unlikely to be effective. Marxists and feminists will claim martyrdom, claim we are hiding the truth, etc, though of course feminist or Marxist beliefs should be a disqualification for state or quasi state jobs, and in particular anything relating to teaching or contact with children. Rather we stop feminism by barring certain key themes in Romance stories, and we stop Marxism by insisting on capitalists being accurately depicted performing the capitalist role, by depicting capitalist competition.

                  Banning feminism as such is not going to work, though of course they should be excluded from state or quasi state positions. Rather, we need monitor the content of fictional depictions of relations between men and women – the important thing is not to ban feminism as such, but to ensure that music videos, romance books, and adventure stories are red pilled. Wives and children should be depicted as respecting and obeying husbands an fathers, romantic love should be depicted as dangerous and leading to disaster, and husbands should be shown to beat, or implied to beat, misbehaving wives, as for example in “I love Lucy”

                  And similarly, fictional depictions of money and making money should pay attention to the law of economics, as in the children’s cartoon “Duck Tales”.

                  Come the restoration, the important thing is not silencing Marxists and feminists, though of course they will all be kicked out of the education system, and in some cases given helicopter rides to the Pacific. The important thing is that entertainment has the same stuff as “I love Lucy” and “Duck Tales” and does not have the same stuff as Lancelot and Guinevere. Lancelot and Guinevere, that we are going to totally censor. You will not be able to get that sort of stuff anywhere, but Marxist class theory you will still be able to get from low status non state sources. We will make it low status, like flat earthism, but not censor it totally. Totally censoring Marxists would give them martyr status, and we want to give them low status.

                  We need to silence enemy ideas without giving enemies martyr status. We give them low status.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “ome the restoration, the important thing is not silencing Marxists and feminists, though of course they will all be kicked out of the education system, and in some cases given helicopter rides to the Pacific. The important thing is that entertainment has the same stuff as “I love Lucy” and “Duck Tales” and does not have the same stuff as Lancelot and Guinevere. Lancelot and Guinevere, that we are going to totally censor. You will not be able to get that sort of stuff anywhere”

                  Lancelot and Guinvere actually show a very negative consequence of romance in that in most depictions of the Arthurian legends Lancelot and Guinivere lead to civil war the destruction of Arthur’s kingdom and the Saxon conquest of Britain.

                  Lancelot is ussually portrayed as a weak man (even in modern times) and Guinvere as an impulsive slut.

                  Its been part of Western folklore for 700 years so I’d be against banning it. Just make sure that when classics are taught that Lancelot is portrayed as a man who impulsively slipped into treason and that he should have had Guinivere put under guard and locked up until Arthur returned because of continual attempts to seduce him. If taught right it can give the redpill of how destructive and anti-social romance can be…

                  I prefer helicopter riding egalitarians to censoring anything and if anything should be censored it should be things like Twilight where ordinary girl wins love of Vampire.

                  Romance where ordinary girl’s win love of gangsters, pirates, vampires, demons, billionaire’s or king’s and princess should be censored if anything did. Lancelot and Guinivere (where Arthur leaves his nubile queen under the control of an Alpha in some ways but weak and others) for years and years and what is only too predictable happens with suitably devastating consequences (and despite all involved including Arthur wanting to sweep it all under the rug…) is not something we should be against.

                • jim says:

                  Sure, Lancelot and Guinevere done right is exactly what the doctor ordered.

                  Totally consistent with the red pill account of men and women. Completely realistic.

                  Trouble is when Lancelot Guinevere are done as the good guys.

              • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                2. tbh I don’t even know what is “marxist class theory”. if you mean just divergent interests of capital v. labor, then fuck. I don’t even know what to say to you. capital and labor are so diametrically opposed that if capital had a dick it would literally orgasm if allowed to outsource, offshore and automate. globalism failed SO HARD with “workers of the world unite” that the IC just straight up ditched communism entirely.

                • jim says:

                  And yet here you are, claiming Marxist class theory is self evidently true, and attributing to me acceptance of this belief.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  And yet here you are, claiming Marxist class theory is self evidently true

                  Fish don’t see water.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “capital and labor are so diametrically opposed that if capital had a dick it would literally orgasm if allowed to outsource, offshore and automate.”

                  That requires those to be more profitable then what it is currently doing. Cheap foreigners tend to be unproductive foreigners- any case where you find money on the sidewalk rapidly closes as everyone else rushs in and the price of labor is bid up.

                  What capital wants depends on the industry. The higher the required skill level, the more capital and labor need ways to make sure the other side cooperates because high skills increase the rewards from investment and defection.

              • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing Marxist Class theory without attempting to argue it.

                  No matter what you purport to be arguing, you are actually claiming that Marxist Class theory is the universally accepted and uncontroversial consensus. That is manipulative, deceptive, and I just will not allow it.

                  If you argue for X, and your argument for X presupposes, where Y is some other belief system that is not widely accepted in these circles, you are going to have to explicitly state Y and provide evidence for Y, or I am just going to delete such comments.

                  Assuming a consensus for Y has already been established is an argument made by ignorant stupid vicious people for other ignorant stupid vicious people, and I intend my blog to be a community of intelligent well informed virtuous people.

              • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                Your other points:

                * “capitalism is jewish” for a system to be “jewish”, it would be necessary for a few key jewish dynasties to derive most of the benefit. that description fits our current system, whatever label you want to give it. basically all other permutations of laissez faire form of economy, which is the historical norm with jews safely locked away in the ghetto, fail that description.
                * slightly expand the definition from “jewish” to “occultist”, and you capture the system in its entirety.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  You are a commie pretending to be a Nazi, but insufficiently familiar with actual Nazism, let alone reaction, to bring it off.

                • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                  how amusing. the right-wing freaks call me a commie, and the left-wing weirdos call me a neoreactionary. I must be on to something.

                  fun facts: I read Jacobin Mag on even days, Daily Stormer on odd, bits of NYT and Economist on weekends, and I’m a Moldbug completist. suck on my thick veiny unmutilated penis.

                  also, kvetch a little louder, mr. oven-dodging pedoluciferian. maybe Donald “I’ll kill the Bank” Trump will hear you and repent (unlikely)

                  (btw, the earth isn’t flat, lol, and only a disengenuous sophist drowning in chutzpah would dream to dredge up such sludge. “gradually, I began to hate them”)

                  p.s. fatally landlocked and perennially blockaded Germany was a huge net food importer long before the War, so when you play the “national socialism caused starvation” card you look like a complete buffoon to anyone with rudimentary historical knowledge

                  not that your gross oversimplifications on every other subject don’t do that anyway

                  consider this comment a private insult to a rank buffoon. you people have foolishly gone full SHUT IT DOWN, and this blog is no exception.

                • jim says:

                  I find it hard to believe that anyone calls you a neoreactionary. Give us a link.

                  Maybe they call you a national socialist, but you don’t even fake national socialism all that well – you seem unaware of the differences between national socialism and communist socialism, which made national socialism suck not quite as badly as communist socialism and made it not quite as murderous as communist socialism.

                  A genuine national socialist would never reify capital. It is the reification of capital that makes commies so murderous, vicious, and full of rage.

              • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling me what I think. Waste of bandwidth, for if I allowed it through, would have to tell people yet again what I actually think.

              • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                Whatever. I have better things to do than try to change an old man’s mind. Plastic is more plastic. I’ll fuck off with the words of the world’s smartest man:

                1. https://ibb.co/Xbd0Snx
                2. https://ibb.co/FDdBJNY

                • jim says:

                  These links are to lies about Jews so blatant that they are probably planted by Jewish commies to embarrass Nazis, much like all the false flag synagogue attacks that happened as soon as Trump was elected.

              • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                bonus: movies implant false memories: https://ibb.co/hKmNrn4

                -war in

    • jewish pedophile says:

      Hey, /leftypol/.

      Can you explain how the bottom line of soulless capitalists benefits from:

      1) Egalitarian ideology that demands the ever-increasing affirmative-actioning of room temperature IQ (and often baseball bat wielding) nigs, nogs, and sheboons into various positions within companies?

      2) Feminist ideology that grants the state, and HR cat ladies trained in the latest Gender Doctrine in particular, license to hunt down every cis-het white male for insufficient deference to the sanctity of random bitches?

      3) Low TFR among native competent and creative Aryans, who are to be “replaced” by illiterate, drug-using, criminal Turd Worlders with a standard of work ethics not far from that of Down Syndrome ‘tardos and none of their charm?

      4) Having your customers and employees regularly robbed, raped, beaten, maimed, terrorized, and murdered by the aforementioned parasitic hordes of nigs, nogs, wogs, dunecoons, sheboons, and camel jockeys, many of whom are running their own black market ‘economies’ within the criminal undergrounds of Western urban centers?

      5) The ability of every frumpy-faced BPD-afflicted SSRI-gulping cunt, slut, whore, slag, and skank to accuse every CEO and every employee of accidentally inappropriately touching the corner of her third nipple 46 years ago in a drunken party that never happened?

      6) The ever-growing demands for “inclusivity,” which means that you can get your white-ass fired for calling your co-worker, an AIDS-ridden diaper-wearing vaseline-smelling muscular hairy groid-tranny who moonlights as a prostitute (they all do), a “he” rather than a “she”?

      7) The ever-diminishing ability of members of society in general, and the employees of your company in particular, to communicate with each other in an efficient and easy manner, which artificial communication-difficulty (or “anomie”) is a direct consequence of the introduction of ever-more Diversity, Enrichment, and Multiculturalism into every segment of society?

      8) The over-arching loss of hope, the feeling of demoralization and demotivation, the overall depression, despair, suicidality, and LOW ENERGY, the escapist descent into a psychologically-numbed drug-induced docility, etc., that characterize the modern social landscape in which moderns live?

      9) Related to the previous point: what about the pathologization of male sexuality, the denunciation of testosterone, and the heretical crypto-puritan desire to see all heterosexual sexual relations both criminalized (by ever more absurd definitions of “enthusiastic consent”) and sterilized (by the disturbingly prevalent use, even among married couples, of condoms, pull-outs, contraception pills, etc.), all of which have made reproduction unfeasible and low-status, to the point that, should the trend continue, there simply *won’t be enough whites* to sustain the current political structure?

      10) The democratic (demotist) worldview and its resultant political instability, which make planning for the future next-to-impossible, given the unpredictability and shiftiness of both global and local political trends?

      How is the BOTTOM LINE affected by all those things?

      How’s the BOTTOM LINE doin’ these days, huh, /leftypol/?

      Are all those things good, or bad, for the BOTTOM LINE of capitalism?

      • pdimov says:

        11/10.

      • glosoli says:

        So much effort to ask so many irrelevant questions.

        The ultimate goal of capitalism (not the free market) is the perfect merger of the state and capital for evil purposes.

        The one and only thing that has ever stopped our rulers from treating us as cattle, worse than slaves, is Christianity. Before Christianity came to England, our Kings used to sell us to Barbary pirates, in the hundreds of thousands.

        The shadowy capitalists play a very long game. Their bottom line is not P&L accounts, it’s the count of bodies and souls that they seek to separate from Jehovah for eternity. They’ll look like they’re winning for a while longer too, but to no avail in the end.

        Reframe your thinking, all becomes clear. A few bust banks in the next couple of years won’t affect them at all, but it will affect ordinary mortals. Likewise the collapse of multiple currencies, they won’t care, already in hard assets, but it will wipe out Western savings, move millions more closer to dependency on their evil systems.

        Likewise the swing to communism prophesied for the UK, no profit in it, except it’s the destruction of the heartland of Christendom, which is their goal.

        Stop thinking in terms of money, money is just a figment of our minds. Start thinking in terms of good and evil.

        That’s the issue this blog can never address, unbelievers all. That’s why your hopes and dreams for reaction and space nonsense are just silly dreams, certain to fail miserably. If America is to survive and then prosper again, it’ll only be by turning back to its faith, of which there is none here, just dreams and rhetoric.

        • jim says:

          > The ultimate goal of capitalism (not the free market) is the perfect merger of the state and capital for evil purposes.”

          Nuts.

          And you worship demons – you are neither a reactionary nor a Christian. You say “hail fellow Christian” in the same cynical and hostile way as you say “Hail fellow reactionary”

          Capitalism does not have a goal. Individual capitalists have goals, and their goal is usually to make a dollar.

          • glosoli says:

            >And you worship demons – you are neither a reactionary nor a Christian. You say “hail fellow Christian” in the same cynical and hostile way as you say “Hail fellow reactionary”

            You’re just like CR, telling me what I think and believe,when in fact I think and believe nothing like you state. You and him are very alike, it’s a shame you think you’re something special. Censor thyself, hypocrite, or the curse you are under will only become worse, God sees your lies and your hate.

            Capitalists goal is to have everything, the whole world, and if it means poisoning us all with Roundup, well they’ll get the FDA to sign off on that won’t they. One has to be naive to the extreme to think it’s all about supplying our needs. No, they see as no more than cattle, and unlike cattle, they don’t give a fuck whether we remain healthy, they just seek our destruction, our souls and our few measly possessions. And your precious ‘state’ is their little poodle, taking a few shekels for their trouble. Happy to fight their wars, to kill millions upon millions of Christian men, just for shit and giggles and a few more shekels.

            Man, you’re so wrapped up in it all, evil has you by its knowledge of your foibles: space dreaming and gluttony and fornication. Sad.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              You wrote:

              >I was under literal attack by some kind of supernatural evil entity, and the Lord’s Prayer, something I’d not uttered for decades, found God’s ears and He sent the evil thing on it way.

              https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-intellectual-dark-web-and-jordan-peterson/#comment-1834718

              I don’t discount supernatural experiences. But something about your ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that you know what happened gives off the impression that you are a nutcase.

              Are you a nutcase, glosoli?

              • glosoli says:

                That wasn’t the only incident.

                Plenty of other examples of God being with me during my conversion.

                I wrote a whole post about it at my blog:

                http://watchman-westandwales.blogspot.com/2018/09/jehovah-is-waiting-for-you-part-2.html

                I need to add a postscript to it, to mention that the day I turned 50 was on Good Friday itself, surely just a coincidence.

                Just ask Hid the question, mean it from your heart, tell Him you want to know Him, it’ll happen for you too, and your life will have purpose and joy.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I’ve had my fair share of “strange coincidences.”

                  But “Christians” like you can literally make outside observers inclined to non-ironic (ironic) Satanism. Seriously, there are decent, good, normal Christians on this blog, and by being a nutter, you are giving them all a bad name. The problem with that is that there are quite a few agnostics here who hesitate about going Christian, and your eclectic weird personal religion — tentatively related to the Bible, and nothing more — can only drive them away, instead of drawing them in. Your apologetics are counterproductive.

                • glosoli says:

                  There’s nothing I believe and advocate that isn’t in the Bible. No other supposed Christians ever advocated Jehovahs Laws here until I did. Unsalty, if they sit in silence and don’t speak up for their God.

                  It looks as though Christianity is going to have a revival in America, this blog will be irrelevant as that happens.

                  People instinctively know good from evil. Supporting Monsanto and the FDA in their efforts to kill us for a few more shekels is an evil position, but that’s Jimianiaty. Shekels and space and fuck the rest of humanity.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  After (or before?) Reaction 101 on “Jews and Race,” should be a Reaction 101 on demon-possessed Gaia-worshippers pretending to be Christians.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  P. S.

                  Joshua 1:3: “I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.”

                  It’s one small step for man…

                • alf says:

                  Reaction 101 on entryists.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Yep.

                  Btw glosoli, I have a suspicion that my knowledge of all things Biblical is greatly more extensive than yours.

                  We can start by noting that Joshua 1:3 is an instruction for the Jews to conquer (and drive out) the Canaanite tribes, to inherit the promised land. Applied to Christians, who are the New Israel, Joshua 1:3 is an instruction to conquer whatever space needs conquering – including outside Earth.

                  Do you have any disagreement, Gaia-cuck?

                • glosoli says:

                  > “I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.”

                  By all means give me a shout if and when a man actually leaves the planet, until then you’re dreaming.

                  26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

                  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

                  28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

                  29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

                  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

                  31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

                  Count the times earth is mentioned. Then count the time outer space is mentioned. Then consider the fate of the Babel crowd, who tried to get to heaven. Not permitted, never has been, never will be. Just Jim, dreaming of space chicks with no idea how old and fat he is, with his toupee fluttering in zero G.

                • jim says:

                  God was addressing people who thought the earth was flat and sky was a literal dome. The commands of God need to be interpreted as commands of Gnon, and Nature is mighty clear on the question.

                  You could similarly argue that bible tells us the earth is flat. No it does not. That is just a manner of speaking. Obviously the tribe of Dan knew the earth was round. I suppose the tribe of Judah generally thought it flat (book of Enoch), except to the extent that they hung out with members of the tribe of Dan. Hence the manner of speaking.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  The tower of Babel is an allegory about the failure of a utopian universalist imperialist political project, not a literal tower to Heaven you dolt. And obviously “earth” in that context refers to the material universe as a whole. If God made the fish and the sea and the fowl of the air for us, He also made the iron of 16 Psyche for us.

                  Clever heretics get the pillory, but literalists are too retarded to even merit the inquisition’s attention.

                • jim says:

                  Quite so:

                  For the reasons explained at length by Saint Augustine, and generally accepted by the community of saints, the Bible needs to be understood not as history, biology, chemistry, and physics, but as a mixture of Hebrew poetry, Hebrew poetry loosely based on history, and history improved by selective focus and a certain amount of creative poetic exposition.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There’s nothing I believe and advocate that isn’t in the Bible.

                  https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/SUEAAOSwML1akIwh/s-l225.jpg

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Right, EA. As infuriating as individuals like glosoli are, it ought to be borne in mind that it’s not they who destroyed science and technology; it is not the eschatological fundies — schizophrenic or otherwise — who replaced the scientific method with Peer Review and staffed NASA with room temperature IQ, bloody shank wielding, black lesbian “physicists.” Those who insist that Jesus preached the inherent equality of all mankind, and affirmed the agender agenda, should to be physically removed; those who drop truth-bombs of the Flat Earth variety need not provoke much angst.

                  It is not lone nutters like glosoli who are responsible for the decline of science – it is the Left, the academic Left, and in this case, that disproportionately Jewish abstraction focused element of the academic Left, which abhors Aryan practical (non-theoretical) engineering and applied science, in addition to always being holier-than-thou.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I mean, after prolonged discussions about the matter, Jim posted,

                  “Jews have made many important contributions to science, and we would be poorer and less powerful without them, but to technology and applied science, not so much. Like the classic Greeks they theorize without getting their own hands dirty. For this reason I am inclined to doubt the Jewish nuclear force. Feynman made a big contribution to the Manhattan project, but he never actually laid hands on an actual piece of plutonium. The kind of person who could actually build successful nuclear weapons, rather than merely theorize about them, would insist on actually testing them. That Israel has not tested any nukes inclines me to doubt it has the kind of people who could successfully build them.

                  “There is deep and wide hostility in the government to technological civilization, to commercial application of technology, to technology applied and developed to create wealth and power, to what makes white civilization powerful and importantly different from past civilizations. Not all Jews are hostile to technological civilization, Feynman certainly was not, and not everyone hostile to technological civilization is Jewish, but it is a disproportionately Jewish characteristic. Not all Jews are like that, but that is the way to bet. Blacks will tell us “You did not build that” and tell us “we wuz Kangs” and whites stole all our stuff from them, and history taught at our best universities tells us they were Kangs and we stole all our stuff from them, but Jews, unlike blacks, will condescend that actually building stuff is for menials and inferiors. Blacks would like to be capable of techno-commercial civilization, but are not. Jews snear and condescend at techno-commercial civilization. Which is irritating, but not usefully addressed by gassing them.”

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/not-the-zionist-occupation-government-2/

                  Science has been demolished by the disproportionately Jewish priestly permanent government (e.g., the Global Warming hoax) and by the disproportionately Jewish academia (see: ethno-nepotism and similar tricks), and I do believe that — should a Reaction 101 on the JQ be written — that point should be mentioned.

                • Koanic says:

                  > The tower of Babel is an allegory

                  I don’t think it was. The problem lies in the scope of “all” and related adjectives. Ancient writings and everyday speech frequently use such words in scopes considerably more narrow than a global citizen of 2018 might anticipate. I believe the Tower of Babel incident encompassed only the Adamic race, or some similarly narrow scope of elites. Abraham owed his longevity to descent from those elites, the heavenly race injected into the Middle East at anthropological man’s great leap forward.

                  This race clearly had supernatural powers, being something like Tolkein’s elves, although they gradually degenerated into today’s ruling class. King Tut was one of the last with a noticeably elongated skull, enough to look non-human.

                  So when Jehovah scattered this race by confusing their tongues, and frustrated their Tower project, it should not be understood as merely an artifact of modern purely material technology, but rather a supernatural challenge to the heavens by a race with enough supernatural juice to move Jehovah to take action specifically to crush them.

                  The fallen angels rule the kingdoms of men. Satan is the Prince of the Air. Jehovah tolerates this. However, He has repeatedly intervene to diminish the power of the half-breeds, the mortal men with supernatural power. Noah’s flood was the most notable example of this, after which he limited man’s lifespan. The Bible contains fragmentary and obscure echoes of this great conflict of prehistory.

                  The International Space Station has nothing to do with the Tower of Babel, in the direct sense. However, in an allegorical sense, there is a parallel, and it is no coincidence that the USA which arrogantly reached for the heavens now grovels in the dirt miscegenating with savages incapable of basic math. They thought they were too sophisticated for God, and now they will become insufficiently sophisticated for indoor plumbing and basic hygiene. Star Trek was created by Jews, a people the stars reject.

                • glosoli says:

                  >For the reasons explained at length by Saint Augustine, and generally accepted by the community of saints, the Bible needs to be understood not as history, biology, chemistry, and physics, but as a mixture of Hebrew poetry, Hebrew poetry loosely based on history, and history improved by selective focus and a certain amount of creative poetic exposition

                  Jim and Romans don’t believe it’s true and inspired by Jehovah. Augustine was all for allowing the Jews to live in Christian lands, no doubt like Jim they gave him a nice back-hander for his support.

                • jim says:

                  You can deduce anything from a contradiction, and the bible is cheerfully full of contradictions, thus we need the community of saints to keep people from going off the deep end.

            • jim says:

              > evil has you by its knowledge of your foibles: space dreaming and gluttony and fornication. Sad.

              Gnon commands “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it”

              We are commanded to have a social order that allows us to have families, and enables us to conquer space.

              • R7 Rocket says:

                Let the enemies of spaceflight be lined up in front of a firing squad!

                Praise be Prophet Elon Musk (PBUH)!

                • jim says:

                  Musk is a serial scammer, who seems to have dropped his efforts to produce a re-usable earth to orbit rocket now that the eye of Soros has fallen upon him, but shooting those who would prevent the scientific method and the advance of technology seems like a pretty good idea.

                  See my frequent posts on peer review, where I argue that those who engage in peer review or practices suspiciously resembling peer review need to be convicted of heresy and excluded from state and quasi state employment.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The difference between Musk and other tech-moguls is that Musk had six children while many of his contemporaries are childless.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Elon Musk seems to have the characteristics of previous prophets.

              • glosoli says:

                You’re very good Jim at addressing issues that are not related to my comments, we both know why. You just skirt past the comments that trouble your ‘benign/neutral capitalism’ thesis.

                You are a supporter of evil murderers.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  He’s lying on purpose. He KNOWS he’s lying and he KNOWS WHY he’s lying.

                  His job here is to keep reactionaries from joining the dots, just like libertarian community commentators of his kind keep libertarians from joining the dots and just like counter-Jihadis in the counter-Jihad community of his kind keep counter-Jihadis from joining the dots.

                  His job is to prevent reactionaries from acknowledging that capitalism is WHIGGERY, always has been, always will be, and is 100%, 100%, 100% part of – PART OFYOU CUNT PART OIF PART OF PART OF PART OF – the Cathedral or whatever you want to call it: capitalism is PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF PART OF

                  THAT

                  fucker

                • jim says:

                  Capitalism and corporate capitalism long predates whiggery, and whigs were from the beginning hostile to corporate capitalism, then as now.

                  The start of the Cathedral was Harvard. Whiggery was Puritanism recovering from the purge of Charles the Second.

                  Since capitalism is thousands of years older than whiggery, and corporate capitalism a century older than whiggery, it cannot be true “that capitalism is WHIGGERY”.

                  Capitalism is at least early iron age, three thousand years before whiggery. Corporate Capitalism is the restoration, the Merry Monarch making it socially acceptable and high status to employ the corporate form in pursuit of profit.

                  Whiggery did not exist, except in the sense that English civil war puritans still existed, until a century after Corporate Capitalism, and were from the beginning unremittingly hostile to corporate capitalism, and remain unremittingly hostile to this day, as exemplified by Sarbannes Oxley, the Paris Accord, and the Trans Pacific Partnership.

                  Before 1760, for a century after the start of corporate capitalism, those few people who admitted to being whigs, claimed to be a humble religious movement seeking merely tolerance, and not getting it.

                  Capitalism is ancient. Corporate capitalism was instituted by the restoration, by those who suppressed those that later called themselves whigs, and as a result, whigs hated corporate capitalism then, and you hate capitalism now.

                • Calvinistic Roadworker says:

                  PART OF PART OF PART OF

                  CR BOT IS NOT A BOT…. NOT NPC… CR BOT IS REAL HUMAN ;;;@

                  CR BOT -// MALFUNCTIONING…. SCRIPT FAILURE–///:: error ERROR

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @glosoli

          Shouldn’t you be whiteknighting for the sluts and whores?

          • glosoli says:

            Go find one such comment of mine where I’ve done this and report back. Rhetoric needs to have some basis in truth to be effective, ask the fat fornicator.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @glosoli

              Well then, should women be property of their fathers (unmarried)?
              Should women be property of their husbands when married?
              If a wife defies her husband’s authority and disrespects him through nagging, should the husband slap her in order to correct her disobedience?
              Should child support and child protective services be abolished?
              Should family court judges and divorce lawyers be put in front of a firing squad?

              I would like to know, Gaia-worshiper….

              Praise the Holy Rocket Makers…

              • glosoli says:

                Keep looking fella.
                Merry Christmas.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @glosoli

                  I know you’re too busy failing to conserve the girl’s bathroom and failing to stop an 8 year old boy in Texas from being castrated, but you might want to dispel our suspicions of you. These questions I asked are easy to answer.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          The one and only thing that has ever stopped our rulers from treating us as cattle, worse than slaves, is Christianity.

          Don’t know if you’ve noticed but cattle vastly outnumber aurochs.

          Working conditions don’t get set by generosity.

          • glosoli says:

            Sometimes they do, read your Bible.

            Choose your laws, evil men, or God.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “You’re wrong, read the Bible”
              “Which part?”
              “You know, the part that only I think says exactly what I need it to say right now”
              “Right, that part”

              A fool and a liar like you even mentioning the Bible is a crime.

              • glosoli says:

                It’s very sad that you hate God and love the shekel grabbers.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You presume to speak for God by claiming that the words of the Bible mean what only you think they mean. You are the worst kind of heretic and you won’t stop talking about it – in a sane world that would earn you a stake and a fire.

                • glosoli says:

                  What’s interesting to me is that it’s always Jim who sidetracks to this issue, to avoid getting into the nitty gritty of why the FDA allows Monsanto to give us all cancer? Just to make a few bucks eh?

            • jim says:

              You seem to be reading a different bible to the rest of us.

              While one can plausibly come up with a lot of different interpretations, your interpretations are unreasonable and inconsistent with the interpretations of the community of saints, the ancient Christian tradition.

              Worst of all, your interpretations put God at odds with Gnon. We of the reaction worship Gnon, the God of the first book of Genesis, and the God of Paul. The fall of man puts us under game theory and natural selection.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You have no right at all to utter the name of God or the name of Christ.

                No right at all.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Communist Revolutionary speaks! Now that the Weakly Standard is no more, the Deep State is looking for new controlled opposition to use…

                • Koanic says:

                  You can always tell the fake Christians by how they will occasionally mention God, maybe even Christ, but never Jehovah or Jesus Christ, King and Judge, the only way to the Father, before whom every knee shall bow, who calls many, and chooses few.

                  They are talking about their god, Baalzebub, lord of flies. Or rather Progress, the false goddess more insatiable than Molech, more whorish than Ashtoreth. The worm that dieth not awaits thee.

              • Koanic says:

                > The fall of man puts us under game theory and natural selection.

                Correct. Not being any longer in the Divinely-tended *Garden* of Eden, we are subject to the entropic forces of a cold universe comprised primarily of hard vacuum.

              • glosoli says:

                So Jim mentions the Book of Enoch to make his case. Just leafed through my KJV bible, the idiot publishers left it out.

                And he mentions a Roman Saint.

                Anyone spot the coherence between the two sources and Jims world view? (Hint: he’s full of shit, a liar, in it only for the money and pussy).

                Rome, the first super state to capture and poison and pervert Christian Faith, but they made some nice viaducts and enjoyed the same sort of orgies Jim would love to get into.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @glosoli

                  The Book of Enoch is in the Biblical canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Which predates the KJV by over 1,500 years.

                  You and your ilk’s incompetence is the reason why an 8 year old boy is about to be chemically castrated by the Texas family courts. The reason why you and your ilk failed to conserve the girl’s bathroom.

        • The Cominator says:

          Even if we are not Christians neither are you.

          You want to create the kingdom on Earth before Jesus does it personally. This is the root of progressivism, being holier then God and trying to create his kingdom on earth without him. This has never happened and never will.

          I am not telling you what you believe, I’ve been very consistent about what your insane heresy is and you don’t disagree. You just don’t think that your heresy is heresy.

          • glosoli says:

            You repeat the same nonsense.

            Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name.
            Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

            Praise God.
            Obey His laws.
            Simple.

            • The Cominator says:

              And yet no nation in history has been able to.

              Obeying his law is for individuals to do not nations.

              Nations will not obey God’s laws to the millenial reign of Christ on earth as told in the book of Revealations. Your view is counter-scriptural and goes against the hand of God in history.

              • glosoli says:

                Utter lies.

                Israel was blessed itself for many years.

                England was blessed for centuries, a millennia even, for basing its laws on Jehovah’s. Hence Alfred was the Great. Hence the British Empire. Jehovah’s blessings were for the nation. And now He curses the same nation for turning away.

                • The Cominator says:

                  England did NOT base its law on Jehovah’s that is a lie, there were some Old Testament influences here and there but Saxon and Norman customary law were the main influences.

                  Even under Cromwell England NEVER tried to base its laws on Jehovah’s.

                  Scotland made the most serious attempt in history and those Scots who did were utterly annihilated by Oliver Cromwell in the worst defeat in Scottish military history.

            • jim says:

              Your interpretation of his laws is unusual, and differs from that of the community of saints, from ancient and long established forms of Christianity.

  11. Encelad says:

    Does being capitalist or a priest exclude each other? I would say George Soros is both…

    • jim says:

      Not seeing it.

      Soros is neither a capitalist nor a priest. He is another state department employee, whose job is laundering US taxpayer money and dispatching it to NGOs, it being an open secret that NGOs are branches of the US state department, created to converge all merely local and regional governments everywhere to being ruled by “the international community”.

      • Mike says:

        Not disagreeing with your characterization of Soros Jim, but I suggest you read or at least skim through these articles:

        https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/03/26/patrons-modernity-social-class-political-mechanism/

        https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/03/13/bourgeois-revolution-restoration-problem-capital/

        I hate to keep bothering you with this subject, but I have a deep-seated fear that capitalism is either 1. An enemy or 2. At best a cynical, conniving “neutral” that will take advantage when it can.

        Denounce them as “Socialist Matter” BS if you must, but personally I find most of the points made, and perhaps more importantly, the actual history behind these social/political movements, unfortunately difficult to refute.

        • jim says:

          Socialist Matter gives us Marxist history.

          And Marxist history is transparently bunkum, indeed absurd. Marxists, like Troofers, argue by barefaced lies put forward with total effrontery. To reach the conclusion that capitalism is leftist, Socialist Matter has capitalism start in the nineteenth century.

          What started in the nineteenth century was today’s attack on capitalism.

          Capitalism is ancient, going at least back to our earliest written records – the start of the iron age, shortly following the bronze age collapse, and likely far more ancient than that. The ten commandments command capitalism and forbid socialist thinking. The proverbs of Solomon urge everyone to aspire to capital accumulation and entrepreneurship. The parables of Jesus (the parable of the workers in the vineyard, and the parable of the talents) assume capitalism and finance, as do the similar rabbinical parables, and assume capitalism is self evidently morally right and ordained by Gnon.

          Corporate Capitalism, the capitalism of the joint stock company operated for profit, originated in the restoration, and was profoundly reactionary, both in its origins (the restoration), and its consequences (granting status to prosocial conduct and advancing science and technology).

        • jewish pedophile says:

          Commie bullshit through and through. I’d like to address four points which I found especially disingenuous:

          >For example, in many countries the clergy had the social authority to censor entertainment media which threatened to undermine the religion. This was done partially through voluntary adherence by people to the “thought leaders” of the day, but also through government backing. This being so, the entertainment industry suffered losses which they would not have if spiritual goals were removed from consideration. Similar examples exist in finance, technology, and other industries.

          Implying that now it isn’t so! Entertainment today is just as censored, if not much more so, as in all previous generations; the difference lies in the content being censored. It is illegal to document the feral nature of women, and it is extremely politically incorrect to document the nature of gays and NAMs. When was the last time you’ve seen a movie with girls being lustful, gays being satanic, and NAMs being violent and dumb? Apparatchik Christensen apparently doesn’t notice any censorship these days, because “muh capitalists” are totally in control rather than priests, whose power is not nearly great enough, the poor dears. Cultural Marxist nonsense typical of academics.

          >Mega corporations are not a bulwark against this, but in fact lead the charge through HR departments and internal social engineering.

          What? Does he not know that HR departments are arms of *the state*, implanted within corporations to ensure compliance with state ideology? That article by “Woke Capital” by Parallax Optics makes the case: mega-corps advance the poz, no doubt about it; however, they are doing so because — sovereignty being conserved — the real sovereign (priests) forces them to. If society were ruled by warriors, rather than by priests, HR departments would be used to advance reactionary values, the values of God, King, and Tribe, and the capitalists wouldn’t notice anything different.

          >Left-wing parties, universities, unions, and activist groups are too run through by internal power struggles to present any real threat. For each leader or group that threatens to create a political force, a rival faction can invoke intersectional language to undermine them.

          Which does not prove that leftist academics are powerless. (Did he even read Moldbug?) Just the opposite: it is academics who advance the ever-escalating holiness spiral, and as chantards rightly tell us, “Control memes, control the planet.” That leftists always out-holy one another is an inherent function of leftist power, and it takes a Carlylean “Great Man of History” to halt or reverse the holiness spiral before it reaches a Left Singularity: Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin. Apparatchik Christensen views academia as too weak, rather than as too strong, because in his account, capitalists rule priests, and not vice versa. Facepalm.

          >The reactionary claim of ties between Protestantism, liberalism, and progressivism have sometimes led to erroneous conclusions by those responding to them. Assumptions are made that the logic of Calvinism, for example, inevitably leads to pride parades. This is not the case. Of course, it is true that there are a variety of inherent conclusions to the premises of these ideologies. But the interests of political actors are often a driving force behind which of these conclusions creates the next dialectical stage. The dialectical movements which connect Protestantism to progressivism occur as successive patrons adapt inherited values and language to their interests. We have seen throughout this piece what precisely these interests were.

          In contrast to this commie propaganda, Jim brings up Lawrence Auster’s hypothesis re: removal of the “Unprincipled Exception” to explain how, indeed, the essential premise of proto-Progressivism (“all men are created equal”) did not require the dialectical interference of the evil bourgeoisie or the evil Jews to memetically mutate to modern day Progressivism. According to Jim, in line with Auster, “all men are created equal” does indeed lead directly and inevitably to Pride Parades, by mechanisms with which all reactionaries are well familiar. It is exactly because “all men are created equal” that industry and technology, the products of white male capitalists, are evil; let’s worship Gaia and be vegan primitivists, soyim.

          If you’re reading this, Apparatchik Christensen, consider going over our shibboleths to understand why you’re a fucking commie.

          • jim says:

            > Implying that now it isn’t so! Entertainment today is just as censored, if not much more so, as in all previous generations; the difference lies in the content being censored. It is illegal to document the feral nature of women, and it is extremely politically incorrect to document the nature of gays and NAMs.

            Compare and contrast Shakespeare. Hamlet endorses the Roman Catholic account of the afterlife. Other Shakespeare plays endorse the pagan or materialist account. That sort of deviation is today utterly unimaginable. No entertainment can contradict the slightest jot and tittle of the state religion, and every entertainment has to enthusiastically endorse some substantial part of it, and the ever growing requirements for endorsement of the state religion does not leave much room for telling a story.

            • The Cominator says:

              Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia does but the characters are all clearly psychopaths which makes them somehow able to get away with it.

              Family Guy actually often does despite Seth Macfarlane virtue signalling frequently as a good progressive. South Park (which used to be VERY anti progressive) has otoh become way more pozzed.

              • BC says:

                >Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia does but the characters are all clearly psychopaths which makes them somehow able to get away with it.

                I just can’t get over the weak gay men who star in that show.

                > South Park (which used to be VERY anti progressive) has otoh become way more pozzed.

                South Park was always controlled opposition. They used charted a middle ground and bashing the left in order to persuade people on the right to embrace leftists positions on things like homosexuality. Today there’s just no more room for them to deviate from the leftist line even though that interferes with their ability to recruit young people into the left.

            • Mike says:

              Lmao Jim, you eviscerated me. You know, I’m starting to catch myself while browsing other reactionary sites wondering, “Is this site Jimian?” I think that is mostly a good thing, it’s like looking over your back to make sure you aren’t being heretical while the Grand Inquisitor is around. However, I would like to ask, how much do you personally browse other reactionaries on Twitter, TWIR, etc? I do quite a bit and while I find it healthy to get a nuanced perspective, I feel you would probably think it just leads to getting cucked. I dont know, your stuff is great dont get me wrong, but I would feel guilty if I just ignored all the other reactionaries in the interest of ideological purity.

              • jim says:

                I read other reactionary sites a great deal. Obviously I don’t read Socialist Matter, because I get similar crap from the mainstream. Boring, scripted, and repetitious.

                I suspect that you are about to give me Carlylean Restorationist’s take on Bloody Shovel.

                No, that is not what Bloody Shovel says. I have been deleting no end of Carlylean Restorationist comments telling me what I think, and what I think according to him, is that cultural Marxists are completely right about everything, but I, being evil and Jewish, support the evil side in the conflict between good and evil that they depict. And I expect you are about to tell me that Bloody Shovel says what Carlylean Restorationist tells me that I say.

                Whatever you are about to tell me he says, it is not what he says, not what I say.

                • Mike says:

                  Nah I love Spandrell, the only thing about him I find sketchy at all is his atheism and love for China. Not that China is a bad state, its a very strong one, but I just find myself to be more on the “traditionalist” side of reaction and so to me China lacks a real set of traditional values and seems like a totalitarian dystopia a la the USSR (although to be fair it is rediscovering them with Xi Jinping’s emphasis on Confucianism). Spandrell is self-avowedly more of a technocratic reactionary and so I find myself disagreeing with him on the viability of “inventing a new religion” or on the moral correctness of various biogenetic projects (his recent post on CRISPR babies).

                  In all honesty, I think this is why I sometimes disagree with you Jim. I see what some past traditionalists did, or what ones now are recommending, and they dont always go with what you say. That’s not a knock on you, that’s just me discovering what I believe. Btw, I’m not a part of any church as of right now, I’m too brainwashed by modernity to take that step yet and I dont know what one to join. But I damn well want to.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @mike
                  A good way to tell if a traditionalist is an entryist or for real is to see whether they whiteknight for women.

                • Mike says:

                  Well considering my autism with jim is centered around capitalism and not women, I dont think that is my main problem.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          While we’re at it, let’s examine the other CR-tier bullshit that article peddles.

          >What distinguishes the reactionary from the liberal and the Marxist is the belief in values beyond the economic. This implies the possibility of defining oneself by relations beyond those to capital. Examples of such relations are husband/wife, man/woman, priest/layman, mother/daughter, and German/French. These relations drive consciousness and human action, but are not defined in economic terms.

          Yes, and right here he has erected a scarecrow, a bogeyman, a strawman. Capitalism has not been shown to “reduce identity” to solely economic terms. Nowhere has this actually occurred. Marxists (including those disguised as reactionaries) keep complaining about this problem, for which the solution is undoubtedly more power to the priesthood, but the problem does not appear to exist anywhere outside explicitly Communist countries. “You’ve been reduced to a cog in the machine, maaan. The rich wealthy capitalists stripped you of your identity!” That just did not happen; it is only real in the minds of Cultural Marxist academics.

          (Or maybe I just suffer from “false consciousness,” hehehe)

          Apparatchik Christensen’s class theory, and the reactionary class theory, have nothing in common. He is a Marxist, arguing that priestly academics like himself have been disempowered to protect the proletariat from the irresponsible behavior of the bourgeoisie. Who’s responsible for priestly academics not having nearly enough power over rich people? Why yes, I think we all know (((who did it))), the damned bastards! [CR:] “Jim is not only a pedophile but a Jew also, whose task is to prevent Nazbols from finally liberating the proletariat from bourgeoisie domination.” Meanwhile, the reactionary class theory — priest, warrior, merchant, producer — argues that it is only ever the former two categories that rule, never the latter two categories.

          >This finally brings us to the progressive agenda of the modern day. The 20th century saw two of the biggest revolutions in the modern era: the entry of women into the workforce, and the growth of mass immigration. It is quite easy to see how this is in the interests of capital owners. The expansive growth of the workforce drove down labor costs and expanded production. This also undermined the family structure, which once ensured centers of political power beyond business and party. Of course, employees without families to care for do not require wages to be as high for a good standard of living, and they can work longer and more flexible hours. The resulting demographic decline can be made up for with new migrants, as is unfailingly advocated for by The Economist… Step by step, ever more of life has been conquered by or reduced to the economic sphere. In the words of Heidegger, human relationships take on a technological mode of being, that of the “standing reserve”. Capital and its owners increase their power via waves of unleashed ideological spiraling.

          The evil mind-control rays strike again, as we learn that the cold, calculating, and cynical owners of capital — and not the holy priests embedded in academia, media, and state bureaucracy aka the Cathedral — have ushered in “ideological spiraling” intended to increase their “bottom line” regardless of societal externalities.

          Because if there’s one kind of society that is simply FANTASTIC and WONDERFUL for your capitalist organization, it must be the following:

          Crime-ridden neighborhoods, dysgenic reproduction, lack of competent workers, inability to hire competent workers, an underclass that is allowed and encouraged to loot and burn down stores and rob your employees, an underclass that would rather live on crime, on political bribery, and on welfare — taxed from you — than show up for work, transsexual pronouns, gender-bender theory a la Judith Butler, sexual assault legislation, sexual harassment legislation, sexual harassment seminars, sexual sensitivity seminars, queer sensitivity seminars, cultural sensitivity seminars, inter-religious tolerance seminars, diversity seminars, replacing competent white men with room temperature IQ black women (have you seen D’shaniqua’s nails? Fabulouuuuus), quotas for careerist cunts, melanin-enriched retards, and sexual deviants, affirmative action backed by the state, mandatory courses about the prevention of toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and manspreading, anti-racism training, anti-heteronormativity training, unconscious bias training, anti-racism training, anti-misogyny training, anti-sexism training, anti-homophobia training, anti-transphobia training, anti-ableism training, ever-increasing sex-crime legislation, ever-increasing suppression of forbidden knowledge, ever-increasing demands that whites defer to non-whites, ever-increasing demands that men defer to women, ever-increasing demands that able-bodied competent straights defer to unable-bodied incompetent deviants, anti-fat-shaming campaigns, anti-slut-shaming-campaigns, cis-privilege awareness campaigns, white-privilege awareness campaigns, straight-privilege awareness campaigns, male-privilege awareness campaigns, pride parades, slut walks, chimpouts, Antifa, Femen, BLM, etc., etc., etc.

          Yes, if there is one thing that the evil capitalists want, that’s Social Justice Warriors dictating how, when, where, and what their companies will produce; and a black, brown, and Muslim underclass that lives on crime, welfare, and voting Left is just the fulfillment of that wet dream that the Randian Libertarian GDP-fixated bourgeoisie has always dreamed. Totally, bro. Totally, totally, totally.

          >Conservatives “protected family values” while the market consumed the family, and progressives advocated the expansion of the labor force. The result was a classic high-low game, where the economically powerful were able to fracture the institutions of the working and middle classes from beneath. The results today are clear: the familial and economic institutions of these classes have turned into political wreckage. Brexit and the Trump phenomenon grew out of the anger which this situation created.

          Yes, Trotsky, white proletarians need to out-group white capitalists and in-group you, so that you can protect them from the market, possibly by banning Domino’s Pizza. Holy shit, do these shills all read from the same script, or what? (Rhetorical)

          Socialist Matter is now an officially Jacobin-tier group-blog.

          • Mike says:

            Well ok man, I really set you off hahaha. But I must ask, while all of what you said is pretty damn straightforward and irrefutable, why in the hell did capitalism (at least at first) seem to profit off of “being woke”? Seem to profit off of encouraging a new political order (democracy instead of aristocracy)? I dont see much about the history of capitalism being “reactionary” in that it is conserving what currently exists. That’s what I found persuasive about the articles. You cant tell me with a straight face that the burgers in 15th century Europe were just fine and dandy with the current order and were all cool with feudalism and monarchy continuing as it was. There is a clear link between the rise of stock-market companies and other facets of what we see as the capitalism of today, and the doing away with of the old, more aristocratic social order (yes jim, I am implying that capitalism today is different in some fundamental way than in the past, does that make me a fucking commie? I dont see aristocrats being prominent in today’s capitalism). The burgers and aristocrats were never going to get along because they were diametrically opposed in their interests.

            Is it just some bizarre coincidence that these burgers, the people of “new wealth”, who did not really fit into the old “three estates” classification, produced Protestantism and then Progressivism as well? It all just seems too tied together to me, as if you are arguing that the chicken produced the egg but not the yolk.

            You always retort “well the only reason capitalism is going weird is because muh progressives hijacked it”. Ok, well what if I told you that the people (the medieval burgher) that produced all these joint-stock companies and such, were also the people that eventually ended up saying, “Oy vey! Monarchy bad, feudalism bad, slavery bad, Unitarianism good!” Why does this not arouse any suspicion amongst you? These are the same people.

            • jim says:

              > why in the hell did capitalism (at least at first) seem to profit off of “being woke”?”’

              Never profited from being woke. Woke capitalism was always an attack by social justice warriors who threatened businessmen with personal destruction in order to extort money, power, and status

              And I personally have been in the battle front. My boss, who was theoretically woke, assigned a social justice warrior who was complaining about sexual harassment and such to me, and non verbally indicated to me that he was very far from woke.

              Events proceeded as you would imagine from reading my blog and Vox Day’s blog. My boss was theoretically woke. HR was very woke indeed. But I found myself conscripted into the social justice wars by my boss, which would suggest he saw this as I did – an enemy attack on him and on his business. Not that he, or I ever said anything out loud in explicit words to indicate our opinions on the matter. We acted as if enemy spies were listening at the door prepared to report us to the Stasi, which probably there were.

              • Mike says:

                Interesting, how close to the current year did this occur may I ask? Just curious. One last point, I left this quote on Nick B Steve’s Ask FM as food for thought about reactionaries vs capitalism/technological change:

                “Gregory XVI and Cardinal Lambruschini opposed basic technological innovations such as gas lighting and railways,[12] believing that they would promote commerce and increase the power of the bourgeoisie, leading to demands for liberal reforms which would undermine the monarchical power of the Pope over central Italy. Gregory XVI in fact banned railways in the Papal States, calling them chemins d’enfer (“road to hell”. (From Wikipedia).

                These guys were real, historical reactionaries, and as far as I can tell, they are acting in a decidedly un-Jimian fashion. Make of it what you will.

                • jim says:

                  This was a very long time ago. They are woker now. You think they like it more now than they did then? You think they are less terrified and terrorized now than they were then?

                  Wikipedia is not a reliable source on political history, giving us whig history in place of actual history. I would no more believe them telling me this than you.

                • Mike says:

                  Nah I dont think they like it more now, but I do find it curious that you resort to basically a non-argument in debating my point. Does it flummox you this bad when something doesn’t seem to go exactly lock-step in line with literally every part of your Grand theory?

                • Mike says:

                  Also Jim, I apologize for linking Wikipedia, but ya see the thing is, the progs won and we (for right now) have lost. So it’s not like I can link to a site that is on our side of history.

                • jim says:

                  Carlylelean Restorationist tells me that Carlyle was anti capitalist.

                  Carlyle was pro slavery, pro feudalism, and pro apprenticeship. If you assume Marxist Class Theory, that is equivalent to being anticapitalist.

                  Wikipedia interprets past reactionaries through the lens of Marxist Class Theory, because they interpret everything through the lens of Marxist Class Theory. Thus genuine reactionaries of the past genuinely look anticapitalist to them, and they will tell us with great confidence that these reactionaries totally agreed with them.

                  This should not be taken as evidence of Marxist Class theory, nor is it reason to suppose that reactionaries of the past agreed with them, because that represents Marxists being manipulative by presenting a false consensus. Its is like troofers telling us that everyone agrees that World Trade Center building seven suddenly went into free fall for no apparent reason, that there was molten steel pouring out of the towers, and that the hole in the Pentagon was far too small for a commercial airliner to have flown inside the building and that everyone, myself included, completely accepts this as undeniable fact.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @mike
                  So… do you think women should be property of men, owned by fathers if unmarried, owned by husbands if married?

                  If a wife disobeys her husband, should he lightly slap her to discipline her?

                  Do you believe women deeply desire to be raped and ravished by alpha males?

            • jim says:

              > the people (the medieval burgher) that produced all these joint-stock companies and such, were also the people that eventually ended up saying, “Oy vey! Monarchy bad, feudalism bad, slavery bad, Unitarianism good!” Why does this not arouse any suspicion amongst you? These are the same people.

              commie liar

              William Wilberforce, the most prominent and obvious person saying “Monarchy bad, feudalism bad, slavery bad, Unitarianism good!”, was

              1. Not Jewish

              2. Not medieval.

              3. Not a burgher.

              4. Not a capitalist, not a businessman, did not produce any joint stock companies.

              5. Arguably anticapitalist – at least in that the Africa society was anti capitalist after the antislavery people took it over.

              • Mike says:

                Welll no shit he wasnt medieval, what kind of a strawman argument is that? Its 1800 by this point no one is medieval anymore. And I wasnt implying Judaism, I put the oy vey in there as a meme. Predictably, you have nothing to say about the burgher quite obviously opposing the feudal order and wanted to see their interests advanced. Which as I said, eventually seems to mysteriously lead to where we are now. Were the burghers just more retarded than the aristocrats and more susceptible to the priest’s message?

                • jim says:

                  > you have nothing to say about the burgher quite obviously opposing the feudal order and wanted to see their interests advanced.

                  I said plenty. I called you a liar.

                  You lie when you tell me this story about burghers. It is not true. I said it was not true, and here I am again saying your story is not true.

                  When you say that I have nothing to say about your blatant barefaced lie, you are lying that I agree with Marxist Class theory. I have plenty to say about your lie, and have said it over and over again, repetitiously.

                  Liar liar pants on fire

                  The burghers did not say what you say they said, did not do what you claim they did, and it would have been violently against their interests to say what you claim they said or to do what you claim they did.

                  You lie when you say that I have nothing to say and the lie that you imply is that everyone agrees with Marxist Class theory, including me.

                  I supposedly have nothing to say about “the burgher quite obviously opposing the feudal order” in the same way that I supposedly have nothing to say about molten steel pouring out of the towers, the lack of a commercial airliner sized and shaped hole in the Pentagon, and World Trade Center building seven suddenly going into free fall for no apparent reason.

                  I have plenty to say, and have said it all far too many times.

                  You lie when you say that the burghers quite opposed the feudal order, and you lie when you say that I have nothing to say about the supposed fact that the burghers opposed the feudal order.

                  You lie. Carlylean Restorationist lies. Socialist Matter lies. Wikipedia lies. And the lie is that Marxist Class theory is self evidently true, and everyone agrees with it. Including me, Bloody Shovel, and Thomas Carlyle.

                  No, Marxist Class theory is transparently insane, and I say so all the time. And here I am saying it yet again. It is not what the burgher did or said, and for the burgher to have said so or done so would have been as transparently insane as Marxist Class theory itself.

                  The burgher did not say that, did not do that, and I did not agree that he said that or did that.

                • Mike says:

                  Well then what made feudalism disappear? It’s obviously gone, who is responsible? I’d argue it disappeared between roughly 1517 and 1800 (I know very arbitrary but I’m trying to give you something to work with). You must believe the priests are responsible I would assume, because the warriors were themselves at the top of the feudal order so why would they want to end it? Unless I’m wrong and the warriors saw a better opportunity for themselves with this new way of ordering society in comparison to feudalism. Long story short, what I’m getting at it 1.Feudalism is dead.2. Someone killed it.3. Whoever killed it must have had an interest, whether it was political or economic, in doing so.

                  And then what I’m saying is I’m not sure who (other than as previously stated) the burghers would have been getting a tangible benefit out of the new way of doing things. Tell me what the priests or warriors of the day got out of it that made it worth their time. Otherwise it makes me think that it must have been someone else.

                  And yes, the conditioning of growing up in modern society is hard to throw off. That doesn’t mean I’m an asshole laughing at you, it means I’m trying to learn. Also just calling me a liar does nothing to disprove me. Giving an example like William Wilberforce or William Lloyd Garrison does disprove me.

                • jim says:

                  > Well then what made feudalism disappear?

                  What made feudalism appear?

                  We had capitalism long before we had feudalism, we had capitalism while we had feudalism, and we had capitalism long after we had feudalism. There is better evidence that capitalism caused the rise of feudalism, than there is evidence that capitalism caused the decline of feudalism.

                  Feudalism in the sense of people getting land and castles for military service died around thirteen hundred or so, long before the power of Kings declined, long before industrialization and the corporate form.

                  Feudalism in the sense of aristocratic power and warrior power lasted in England to the Crimean war, outlasted the power of Kings, and was going strong long after industrialization and the modern corporate form, lasted in Germany to World War One.

                  And, in England, around the time of the Crimean war, the decline of aristocratic and warrior power was very plainly a struggle between warriors and priests, not a struggle between warriors and capitalists. By and large, the warriors were capitalists, as for example Lord Cardigan, and the priests seldom were capitalists.

                  Feudalism in the sense of William the Marshal went away far too long ago for Marx’s story to make sense. Feudalism in the sense of Lord Cardigan and Carlyle’s Scotland went away far too recently for Marx’s story to make sense.

                  We first see Ayn Rand’s engineer CEO using the corporate form to advance technology with other people’s capital and other people’s labor three centuries after the likes of William the Marshal vanished, and two centuries before the likes of Lord Cardigan vanished. Timing just does not fit with Marxist class theory.

                  And when we look at the actual events, the attack on King George the Fourth, the attack on Lord Cardigan, it is not capitalists versus aristocrats, it is priests versus monarchs and warriors.

                  > Giving an example like William Wilberforce or William Lloyd Garrison does disprove me.

                  Marxist class theory is as in your face insane as trooferism. It is not my job to disprove it. It is the job of Marxists to prove it. Produce your burgher. Name him. Tell me what he did. You tell me crows are white and shit rainbows. Produce a white crow shitting rainbows.

                  When I see the decline of warrior and aristocratic power, I see the attack on Lord Cardigan – and priests attacking warriors and aristocrats for slaying our enemies was scarcely distinguishable from priests attacking capitalists for dark satanic mills.

                • Mike says:

                  To put this in Moldbuggian terminology then, you basically see this as Brahmins (priests) vs Kshatriyas (Warriors, who btw I dont even know if Moldbug had a classification for, perhaps the Optimates?) What about all the other people or “castes” Moldbug had? The vaisyas and dalits and all the others? I’d assume your answer is that they just all have herd mentality and follow the leader, who is of course always a kshatriya or a brahmin (this is my assumption anyway, all other social classes besides warriors and priests just dont know how to handle power. Well technically priests as well haha, but that of course is the whole problem with modernity to begin with).

                  Just a side note, I have no idea how much you agree or disagree with Moldbug Jim. I’m just throwing out some stuff I’ve read from him. I have no idea if you entirely buy his system.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, none of the other classes matter, so classifying people as one of the other Moldbug classes is not all that interesting, or all that falsifiable.

                  I view the Moldbug castes much the same as I view the Vox Day sociosexual hierarchy. Apart from warriors, priests, and merchants, hard to map onto real people, and not all that informative when you do map it onto real people.

                  The sociosexual hierarchy is what women think it is: alphas and betas, and the betas are invisible to them, and should they deign to notice the betas, want to get rid of them. If women had a shit test that would reliably cause a beta to catch fire and die horribly, while reliably causing an alpha to smack them around with a big stick, they would use it all the time.

                  Hence the women in corporate power problem. If a woman has corporate power, and she is not under the immediate authority of a sexy alpha male, she cannot help but view shareholders, customers, and employees as betas, and proceeds to do her best to get rid of them, running the corporation off the road into the dirt, actively and aggressively trying to drive customers, employees, and shareholders away.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >What about all the other people or “castes” Moldbug had?

                  As a struggle for power and sovereignty, “BDH-OV” can be simplified as “B-OV,” and then further simplified as “B-O.” Fits neatly with both the French and Russian Revolutions.

                  The top-most priests, the intellectuals, seldom do the fighting themselves; they are always able to recruit people from the other castes — sometimes riffraff and ethnic minorities, sometimes legitimate soldiers from military, sometimes both — to fight for them.

                  Regardless of which classes participate in the war for power itself, when the Brahmins win, it is they who are truly in power, not those who fought for them; they invariably establish a dictatorship of the Brahminate, trying to organize by themselves the affairs of the whole realm, which is always disastrous, because a small clique of intellectuals cannot effectively and competently manage billions of things.

                  When the Optimates and Vaisyas win, the Optimates are in power, and the Vaisyas receive relatively high status, much higher than they would receive under Brahmin rule. When the OV coalition is in power, the Monarch is the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, him and his associates — broadly, the governing class — being the Optimates, while the Vaisya class privately manages all the myriad small-scale affairs of the state, and usually makes some money while at it.

                  Thus the respective class interests of O and V are almost identical, and contrasted to the class interest of B.

                  An Optimate is almost always a triumphant former Vaisya whose authority is dynastic, secure, and long-held.

                  Rarely, an Optimate can be a former Brahmin who has more-or-less successfully secured and stabilized his authority, e.g., Stalin, who had clearly been a priest while riding the tiger, but who later on, when he finally consolidated power under his rule, attempted to cease being a priest. But Stalin did not establish a dynasty, because the priestly class — spearheaded within the Communist Party — was far too powerful.

                  Had he succeeded in disempowering the Brahmin class and raising up the Vaisya class, disempowering the Communist Party and securing the loyalty of warriors and potential-warriors both within and without the Red Army, could have become King Stalin, an Optimate.

                  A Brahmin dictator who makes the transition from rule by the Brahmin class (intellectuals, usually forming a political Party) to rule by the army, it being loyal to him and not loyal to other forces, establishing himself as commander-in-chief, as the top-most *warrior*, can become a Monarch and an Optimate.

                • jim says:

                  > Had he succeeded in disempowering the Brahmin class and raising up the Vaisya class, disempowering the Communist Party and securing the loyalty of warriors and potential-warriors both within and without the Red Army, could have become King Stalin, an Optimate.

                  The Kims are trying to manage this transition, but are obviously having difficulties riding the tiger. Whether through incompetence, or because it is just plain tricky, doing badly.

              • The Cominator says:

                “What made feudalism appear?”

                Spandrell said that in at least many cases it was transposing the hierarchy of a conquering army onto a government (straight from his bioleninism article). That is certainly how it arose in Europe with the Germanic tribes though the late Roman dominate became pretty “feudal” as well as central authority collapsed.

                It explains how it came to be in ancient China.

                It does NOT explain quite how it arose in Japan (which had a more centralized non feudal government but somehow became feudal later without the country being conquered).

                • jim says:

                  If we trace feudalism to Charles the Hammer, then feudalism was an effort to raise, train, equip, and pay for a permanent standing army. If we trace it to Charles the Great, then sure, conquest. The two explanations are to some extent two sides of the same coin.

                  The socialism of the late Roman Empire in the West had declined into mobile banditry. Charles the Hammer needed permanent soldiers, so instituted stationary banditry.

                  Japan is an interesting case because patriarchy arose without foreign conquest. I don’t understand what happened, and I don’t think the Japanese understood what happened. I wish someone could spread some light on it.

                • Mike says:

                  I’m not sure I fully understand the China example. Who are the foreigners who took over China EARLY in its history. I mean I know the Mongols, Manchu, and Jurchen did; but that didn’t happen until roughly the 1000s and later. Who were the foreigners who conquered it in say, 500 BC or 100 BC?

                  I have heard that the Qin were actually considered foreign barbarians by the rest of China because the original Qin state that went on to conquer the rest was located in far West China and so wasnt closely related to the rest of the Chinese. Perhaps is this what you are referring to?

                • Japan was taken by conquest. The Yamato tribe liquidated all of the barbarians they viewed as racially inferior and their military hierarchy became Japanese feudalism.

                  When you say feudalism arose later, that is simply the power balance shifting from the Emperor to the Shogun, who in turn gave his military hierarchy greater powers.

                • jim says:

                  I would like to learn how they gained or recovered patriarchy.

                • As to how Japan got patriarchy, in the Heian period when the Emperor was strong, you had degenerate noblewomen laying around writing novels and fucking every aristocrat they could get their hands on. That changed when the Shogun took power and the state religion became Zen Buddhism, which contra hippies is a warrior religion and a death cult, but I couldn’t say exactly what happened to regain control over women

                • Alrenous says:

                  Note: I can fairly accurately be described as an anarcho-feudalist.

                  Feudalism appeared as a result of Roman communism.
                  The Empire, having run out of other people’s money, tried various schemes to arrogate more of other people’s money to itself. First it used the philosopher’s stone of government, inflation, via debasing the currency.

                  The people, having discovered the currency is now worthless, were annoyed, but on the upside they could pay taxes in this worthless currency and trade with each other on barter. The Empire, unfortunately, was not ruled by drooling morons, so they demanded that taxes be paid in barter as well.

                  The peasants realized working the taxed professions was a fool’s game, so once again tax revenues collapsed. The Empire, again not being completely retarded, made it illegal to not work in the taxed professions.

                  During these gymnastics, for obvious reasons, the economy in general collapsed. Folk fled the cities and begged owners of farmland to take them in so as to not, you know, starve to death. As a result we had all these peasants with legally-mandated professions standing around farming manors. In other words, serfs and feudalism. In most cases the lord demanded concessions of obedience in exchange for protection.

                  As the dark ages progressed, the restrictions relaxed to a degree, but it turns out having roughly a Dunbar group of folk very strongly tied to a single leader, and using that as a unit of society, is a good idea. E.g. it went from being illegal to work a different trade to your father to simply being non-customary. Of course, since the peasants relied on the feudal lord for that whole not starving to death thing, it meant the lords had great leverage to determine profession even if they did not have de jure power to compel the peasant to take a job.

                  However, at the same time, the quality of the manor holdings depended on the quality of the peasants tenanted there. As a result the lord had strong incentives not to mistreat them too much, and the poorly administered feus would fall into ruin, even if they managed to keep the serfs from escaping.

                • jim says:

                  This is an accurate depiction of how feudalism arose by individual human action. Anarcho feudalism.

                  I have tended to focus on the other side of the coin – how feudalism arose by Kingly authority. The king decided to go with the flow, and let the lord alone to enjoy his fief, subject to the lord providing military service.

                  Feudalism, like capitalism, springs up everywhere all the time like mushrooms after rain. What springs up spontaneously is anarcho feudalism. But we generally call it feudalism when the King openly and officially makes it legal.

                  However, after legalization, the King is apt to find powerful lords inconvenient, and like the Sun King of France, strangle them in his close embrace, unaware that he is sawing off the branch on which he sits, by tossing papers from his in tray to his out tray, to be dealt with by faceless bureaucrats dangerously close to the throne, which papers confer far too much power on the faceless bureaucrat dangerously close to the throne.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Japan was taken by conquest. The Yamato tribe liquidated all of the barbarians they viewed as racially inferior and their military hierarchy became Japanese feudalism.”

                  The Yamato tribe probably finished that work within the home islands of Japan probably at the latest around the time of the birth of Christ. Japan probably became a completely feudal society around 700-800 years after that. I’m not an expert on this.

                  So what happened in the interim?

            • jewish pedophile says:

              >There is a clear link between the rise of stock-market companies and other facets of what we see as the capitalism of today, and the doing away with of the old, more aristocratic social order

              >Is it just some bizarre coincidence that these burgers, the people of “new wealth”, who did not really fit into the old “three estates” classification, produced Protestantism and then Progressivism as well?

              The bourgeoisie does not possess distinct “class consciousness,” “class interest,” or Memeplex, of its own. The Marxist analysis — which is the framework that postulates the existence of a distinctly bourgeoisie Memeplex — fails to accurately represent reality. It is nothing more than a “just so” story.

              I’ve seen here and elsewhere discussions of the topic of entrepreneurs being inherently right-wing or inherently left-wing, and both sides can bring up some interesting examples to back up their claims; which to me all the more confirms the veracity of the reactionary analysis and the falsity of the Marxist one. Because if it’s so very difficult to determine if the rich are really left-wing or really right-wing, that suggests that there may simply not be a “worldview of the rich,” that merchants — unlike priests and warriors — cannot coordinate their assorted and often conflicting interests into a single political force. If capitalists are politically un-coordinated, if they are not united by any weltanschauung of their own, if what’s good for capitalist X quite often happens to be bad for capitalist Y, then Marxism, absolutely lacking in predictive power, goes kaput.

              As indeed it does.

              • jim says:

                > if it’s so very difficult to determine if the rich are really left-wing or really right-wing, that suggests that there may simply not be a “worldview of the rich,” that merchants — unlike priests and warriors — cannot coordinate their assorted and often conflicting interests into a single political force. If capitalists are politically un-coordinated, if they are not united by any weltanschauung of their own, if what’s good for capitalist X quite often happens to be bad for capitalist Y, then Marxism, absolutely lacking in predictive power

                Exactly so. And that is the reactionary analysis, well put.

                • Mike says:

                  Jim, although this may invite a total shitstorm, I suggest that it may be a good idea for you to do a post on economic history/Marxist materialism. You see the thing is, I’m not sure you quite realize how deeply ingrained these ideas are in many of the (oftentimes young) posters such as myself. That’s not me saying that i want them to be, that is just the reality of modern education and what our society values.

                  Ad Hoc Reason, myself, and probably a helluva lot of others out there as well, as you have noted, don’t even realize when we invoke them all the time. It’s not because we are retarded, or that we literally worship Marx; it’s that no one our whole fucking lives taught us anything else. For someone of your intellect, I’d think that this would be pretty obvious.

                  All this being said though, I still don’t think it’s heresy to analyze capitalism and search for flaws. If the Popes of the late nineteenth century critiqued both socialism and capitalism, I dont see why I can’t. I guess until liberalism and democracy die I won’t know for sure.

                • jim says:

                  I kind of assume that everyone knows that Marxism is a total scam, and that it is as dead as Christianity, hence the ascendancy of what I am calling cultural Marxism and Spandrel calls bioleninism – that the commies had given up on economic arguments because they gave up on the white male working class.

                  Spotted Owl, Global Warming, Paris Treaty, anti fracking, anti pipeline, and Transpacific Partnership were all efforts to destroy the white working class, while Marxist economic theory and dialectical materialism are efforts to mobilize the white working class to create a totalitarian terror state of mass murder and artificial famine. And it is obvious that Obama and the Alinksyites have completely given up hope of mobilizing the white working class, of persuading the peasant with one cow to slay the cows of the peasant with two cows.

                  So on the one hand you are telling me that everyone “knows” that Marxist Class Theory, Marxist Economic Theory, and Dialectical Materialism (dialectical materialism is the medieval burgher supposedly seeking the overthrow of the Lord) is true. And on the other hand, I see Obama and company acting as if no one takes that old stuff seriously any more, that it died long ago, and that its death took down the Soviet Union and Chinese Communism. Instead of trying to get the white working class to destroy us and themselves, they are importing an army of hostile enemy foreigners to destroy us.

                  Maybe I need to issue a death notice for Old Type Marxism, the Marxism of Lenin and Stalin.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  All this being said though, I still don’t think it’s heresy to analyze capitalism and search for flaws.

                  The ingrained part of Marxism that’s like water to a fish is the part that defines “capitalism”.

                  Capitalism is simply the following:

                  The sovereign is expected to enforce contracts
                  The sovereign will at minimum not undermine and preferably back the private enforcement of property rights

                  That’s it. The critiques of that are going to be nearly entirely leftist (and obviously so) – meaning tuned for popularity with the intention of overturning some applecart somewhere so the arguer can steal some apples. Marxism tries to conceal this by shifting the definition of capitalism making it some recent invention or system that only billionaires participate in. The purpose of the former is to make Marxism seem like it’s only removing some weird recent changes while the purpose of the latter is to distract from the harm that Marxism does to basically everyone who isn’t in the status granting game.

                • BC says:

                  >You see the thing is, I’m not sure you quite realize how deeply ingrained these ideas are in many of the (oftentimes young) posters such as myself. That’s not me saying that i want them to be, that is just the reality of modern education and what our society values.

                  Very good point. Everyone talks and thinks in Marxists terms thanks to our education system.

                  >All this being said though, I still don’t think it’s heresy to analyze capitalism and search for flaws. If the Popes of the late nineteenth century critiqued both socialism and capitalism, I dont see why I can’t.

                  Capitalism is the basis for all known human civilizations going back to at least the iron age and probably before (we simply don’t have the records for anything farther back). Socialism destroys Human civilization by destroying the capital originally produced by capitalism. There’s nothing to analyze because the same patterns repeat over and over and over again in history.

                  We’re watching the same story playing out in China as we type. When socialist: Shit poor and starving. When Capitalist: Becoming richer and more advanced every year. What is there to analyze?

                • BC says:

                  >I kind of assume that everyone knows that Marxism is a total scam, and that it is as dead as Christianity, hence the ascendancy of what I am calling cultural Marxism and Spandrel calls bioleninism – that the commies had given up on economic arguments because they gave up on the white male working class.

                  Marxist analysis still underlines most thinking people do about the world. They think in terms of money and financial gain instead of status and status gain. People’s analysis of why crime happens, wars, etc all boil-down o money when it’s quite obvious that status is the primary reason behind them. The fake science of economics hold sway over masses using this sort of money driven reasons for behavior, which certainly isn’t true.

                  The largely crap book Freakonomics did a service in this regard. They analyzed why drug dealers dealt drugs and engaged in street shootings. Their actual earnings amounted to less than what one would make at McDonald’s but they concluded that drug dealers were drug dealers because it made them high status, but they had to use the term “rockstar” instead of status.

                  Status as the reason for why people do what they do isn’t allowed to be discussed or studied. Instead, all the talk has to be about money, which I think comes directly from Marxism. This impairs people’s ability to correctly view the world.

                • Mike says:

                  Well Jim is right, even I’m not so stupid as to think that economic Marxism is the main coordinating factor of modern leftism. N.T Carlsbad has a couple of great posts about how they went irrelevant. I think Shylock has an old post too. My point was, as you noted, it still influences how we interpret things even if it isnt necessarily our guiding force a la the Soviet Union.

                  And yes BC, even I’m not so stupid as to think socialism or whatever alternative economic system you want to pick is as comparatively successful as capitalism. My point is that it fundamentally worries me to think of some concept as invincibly correct when it seems to me (and maybe I am incorrect on this) past rightists advocated for something else or found something wrong with it (Corporatism, consumer society blah, blah, blah).

                • jim says:

                  “Consumer society” is a left wing doctrine, originating from John Kenneth Galbraith, a pivotal actor in the USA destroying the Kuomintang and handing China to the Maoists.

                  Galbraith enthusiastically defended the Great Leap Forward and the Hungry Ghosts Famine, and argued that the policies that produced the hungry ghosts famine in China should be applied in the US to check excessive private consumption in the US.

                  When Galbraith argued that US private consumption was too high, he was in China enthusiastically watching large numbers of Chinese being deliberately starved to death to fund Chinese government consumption, as he very plainly intended from the beginning in getting the US to overthrow the Kuomintang.

                  “Corporatism” is the lutheran descended left singularity, as distinct from the Puritan descended left singularity. Hitler halted endless movement left in the night of the long knives, and ever since then Nazis and fascists have been left behind in movement ever further left, but at the time corporatism was a radical left doctrine of radical leftists, not rightists, but leftists of a different descent to puritan descended leftists.

                  “Consumer society” is a fusion of the Jewish descended communist movement, and the Puritan descended progressive movement, and is primarily Puritan descended, rather than Jewish descended.

                  Franco’s corporatism versus communism was a conflict between two leftisms, but Franco, like Hitler, promptly proceeded to back away from leftism, while the rest of the world went ever lefter.

                  Franco’s socialism and Hitler’s socialism imploded catastrophically, the left singularity going pear shaped, but while Franco responded by backing off from socialism, Hitler went full steam ahead, resulting in the usual famine of socialism.

                • Mike says:

                  I vaguely recognize the name Galbraith from somewhere, maybe when we learned about the Cold War in school. The argument as it seems to be presented today is that somehow “capitalism went too far” and has contributed to the meaningless and atomized life of modernity.

                  Of course you would probably say that this is due to politics pushed by priests, not economics. And I do agree with you, probably 75% of the time. I just wonder if a small chunk of it is real complicity. I think you discussed this a bit when talking about free trade vs protectionism with Trump.

                • jim says:

                  > the meaningless and atomized life of modernity.

                  Is the destruction of the family, and defect/defect equilibrium between men and women.

                  It is not capitalism that has destroyed the family.

  12. BC says:

    So why are other priesthoods like Christianity losing to progressivism? The whole speaking with one voice certainly isn’t happening Christianity.

    • jim says:

      The state church always eats and converges all the non state churches with fire and steel.

      Originally in the US each state had its own state Church. The Mormon war and the War of Northern Aggression was the state Church of New England conquering the other states. World War II was the state Church of New England conquering the world.

      • BC says:

        Not much of a point of attending religious services if they’re in league with the people who want us dead.

      • The Cominator says:

        “World War II was the state Church of New England conquering the world.”

        World War 1… that was the war where the bad guys won it for good.

        World War 2 just didn’t have good guys. Hitler was a heretic progressive but still a progressive.

  13. It’s not that we cannot win wars but that we (the state, the govt., the nation) choose not to because permanent occupations generate economic activity.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      “I meant to do that” is both the first and last defense of a power sliding into decline.

  14. pyrrhus says:

    The mobil banditry is reaching serious levels down here on the Arizona border..The “refugees” are looting houses and defecating in them to show their disdain for the Americanos…Some ranchers have a lot of dogs, which may help, but stronger measures aren’t used because people are afraid of the DOJ and lawsuits.

    • jim says:

      I can see that the invaders are increasingly coming to consciously identify as invaders, and are encouraged to do so by our treasonous political elite who hope to ethnically cleanse the deplorables, without realizing or understanding that they in their turn will be identified as deplorables and ethnically cleansed.

      But I would appreciate you posting some empirical evidence on this psychological change.

      Is there a link to a collection of Arizona invasion anecdotes?

      • Alrenous says:

        It’s not an invasion when the commanding general is domestic. They’re auxiliary units in the paramilitary, a very normal expression of democracy.

  15. matronarchy anonymous says:

    mattis’ resignation letter contain the words of a priest, not a warrior.

    • jim says:

      > mattis’ resignation letter contain the words of a priest, not a warrior.

      Well spotted.

      Cannot win wars if you have gay parades, cannot win wars if your army is officered by priests. And the two problems are closely connected.

      • BC says:

        It’s interesting how much conservatives view him as a warrior. I pegged him for a leftist based on policy, but as long as the said the right things and acted tough so the right loved him while he worked to destroy the US military.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          The men who should be acting as the brains of the American right are completely disconnected from the means to address the American right.

          On top of that the American right is fatally infected with an auto-immune disorder that causes them to be unable to tell friend from foe.

  16. vxxc says:

    This cannot get enough play and RT.

    Want to spread the word? Help your neighbor not with ideology but with their needs [food kitchens, rides to shop for elders/those who can’t drive].

    Hizb and Black Panthers did it and it’s gold.

    ” One such bit of help was found when Marie was attending what is now Rosa Parks Elementary School, when the Black Panthers established their own school breakfast program in the neighborhood.”

    They fed her and the other kids. To this day nice old lady won’t hear a bad thing about them.

    We could add education tutors. Not indoctrinate [including our own] but teach basic skills. Not to mention the trades – get a job instead of pass tests.

    https://antidem.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/how-to-wn/

  17. vxxc says:

    This cannot get enough play and RT.

    Want to spread the word? Help your neighbor not with ideology but with their needs [food kitchens, rides to shop for elders/those who can’t drive].

    Hizb and Black Panthers did it and it’s gold.

    ” One such bit of help was found when Marie was attending what is now Rosa Parks Elementary School, when the Black Panthers established their own school breakfast program in the neighborhood.”

    They fed her and the other kids. To this day nice old lady won’t hear a bad thing about them.

    We could add education tutors. Not indoctrinate [including our own] but teach basic skills. Not to mention the trades – get a job instead of pass tests.
    Learn code young man.

    https://antidem.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/how-to-wn/

    • He is right. But community building has to happen on the down-low because tptb are so hostile. Even if we were already doing it, we wouldn’t trumpet it publicly.

      • alf says:

        Also better to focus on young people instead of the elderly. Better return on investment.

        • vxxc says:

          Help young and old.

          When young people see old people being helped they 1] see someone helping their own family or neighbors, 2] see the proper example. Deeds not words impress people now. I don’t know if anyone has read the Charter or Manifesto of the Cajun Navy. I haven’t and I doubt they even have one. They ACTED.

          3] Young people usually neither need nor want help.

          4] Application of ROI to life has limits and charity even with complimentary political motives is definitely limited ROI.

          The success of Christianity for instance was not measured in ROI until well into Constantine and really later Emperors.

  18. jewish pedophile says:

    Reflections on the way the JQ intersects with “priests vs. warriors.”

    1) Jews are the most priestly ethnicity in the world. If you want to come up with a popular religion, better make use of the Jews. While Jews can hardly produce visuo-spatial semiotics (images that memetically infect your mind), when it comes to the realm of abstract ideas, none comes close to Jewry. Since Jews are overwhelmingly likely to be priests, a disproportionately Jewish government will tend to be a disproportionately priestly government. When Moldbug said, “The new state will be a Jew state,” he missed — or pretended not to realize — that Jews aren’t merely an above average IQ, high socio-economic status ethnicity; Jews are exceptionally gifted at empowering the priesthood and at incentivizing catastrophic holiness spiralling, the two things which both Moldbug and Jim view as the sources of the contemporary predicament.

    2) Triracialism — a synthetic identity for whites, Jews, and East-Asians as a single tribe — cannot work as long as Jews and East-Asians practice one way ingrouping, asking whites to ingroup them without in reciprocity ingrouping whites. The problem is not so much that white silicon valley engineers are willing to ingroup their Jewish and East-Asian counterparts, but that the latter two groups keep outgrouping whites, if not overtly then behind closed doors. For cultural reference: in comedic series like Seinfeld, Friends, HIMYM, etc., we see biological Jews accepted into white groups, even as biological whites are excluded from Jewish groups. (I have no idea what’s going on with East-Asian comedic series; generally Asians lack a sense of humor) If the same trend holds true within the priesthood itself, that means that the priesthood *selects for Jewishness*, since white priests are perfectly willing to ingroup Jewish priests, whereas Jewish priests primarily ingroup their fellow DNA-sharing co-ethnics, resulting in nepotistic preferentialism. Same problem with Asians, except that Asians just aren’t nearly as adept at playing meme-warfare games as whites and, especially, Jews.

    3) If the previous two arguments are correct, it follows that Jews create a vicious cycle in which Jewishness empowers the priesthood (and accelerates Cthulhu’s swimming into the Left Singularity), which in turn selects for greater Jewishness, and so on and so forth: Jews > stronger priesthood and intensified holiness spiralling > more Jews. That, in a nutshell, is the JQ. Its solution need not be “GAS THE KIKES,” and there is no need to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem, but the vicious cycle of Jews empowering the priesthood and the priesthood — by way of the aforementioned one way ingrouping in favor of Jewish kinsmen and its consequent selection for the characteristically Jewish faculty of being holier than thou i.e. supererogation — selecting for Jewishness ensures that the JQ will continue to feature prominently in complaints issued by non-Jewish right-wingers.

    The task is to come up with ways to prevent the Jews from using their superior high verbal IQ brainpower to strengthen the power of priests relative to that of warriors; and to come up with ways to prevent one way ingrouping *within the priesthood* by the biologically Jewish priests embedded in it in a manner that disadvantages their “color blind” white counterparts and thus selects for ever-more Jewishness.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >The task is to come up with ways to prevent the Jews from using their superior high verbal IQ brainpower to strengthen the power of priests relative to that of warriors; and to come up with ways to prevent one way ingrouping *within the priesthood* by the biologically Jewish priests embedded in it in a manner that disadvantages their “color blind” white counterparts and thus selects for ever-more Jewishness.

      Physically remove aliens from your country.

      • jewish pedophile says:

        Well, yes; my theorizing here rests on the assumption that assimilated secular Jews have not committed aliyah (voluntary or otherwise) en masse. Obviously the JQ would disappear if you defined all biological Jews as aliens and then sent all or most of them to Israel; I’m not sure that Jim favors that measure.

        I’d like to once more reiterate the antisemitic argument that I’ve made here, which is quite dissimilar to the “evil mind control rays” argument that alt-righters love so much.

        Jewish power and influence invariably favor priestliness, because the Jews themselves are distinctly priestly. Biological Jewishness can be counted on to strengthen the power of the priesthood versus the power of the army; in any conflict between priests and warriors, the way to bet is that people of Jewish descent will side with priests against warriors, justify a priestly power grab and weaken the rule of warriors. Once biological Jews get into the priesthood, will promote co-ethnics, will outgroup the white priests who accepted them, and ingroup more aspiring Jewish priests from outside the priesthood, thus making the priesthood *select for Jewishness*. The result is a vicious cycle of ever more priestliness and ever more Jewishness symbiotically feeding each other and amplifying each other; a feedback loop between priestly power and Jewish power. Furthermore, Jerry Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy dictates that the Jews, who increase priestly power, will always be favored vis-a-vis other groups less proficient at increasing priestly power, because that serves the naked class interest of the priesthood.

        I’d like to see that argument refuted. I’d like to hear that this is all “nuts,” and that the problem I’ve identified does not really exist.

        • jim says:

          Biological Jews are not the problem. It is identification as an outgroup and one way ingrouping that is the problem.

          Jews that identify as outgroup, or are plausibly suspected of identifying as outgroup should be excluded from state and quasi state positions, and whites should not be compelled to ingroup those that outgroup them – the country club should not be compelled to admit Jews. The inquisition should monitor people who are biologically Jewish and are part of the state or quasi state apparatus for signs of one way ingrouping.

          Meaning prog (reform) Jews, orthodox Jews, and any new forms of exile identity they come up with when they want to join the ruling elite while retaining outsider identity.

          If these measures were in place, I would expect that over time, almost all Jews would either stop identifying as exiles, or move to Israel. Identifying as exile is popular because one can exile or not as convenient.

    • BC says:

      I’m less worried about the Jews than the Mormons. We can get the jews to leave similarly to how French got their jews leave for Iserial. Mormons on the other hand function like a Christan version of the Jews and infest every level of federal bureaucracy, but especially the FBI and DOJ. They have an aversion to manual labor and are a driving force behind importing 3ed worlders for cheap labor and easy converts.

  19. vxxc says:

    Jim et al I recommend this site for broader blockchain and policy issues.

    https://classiarius.net/

    They seem to take the Bismarck/Metternich view of politics in the modern sense and I agree.

  20. vxxc says:

    On Thread: actually you forgot bitches Jim.

    When Women actually Rule:

    “When I sat with Ms. Raggi before she took office in 2016, she talked a lot about recycling and finding a way to wrap Roman babies in more ecological diapers. ……Instead she has faced the mother of all garbage emergencies.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/travel/rome-pollution-trash.html

  21. eternal anglo says:

    Consider a centurion’s helmet, a sixteenth century suit of armour, samurai weapons and a Zulu oxhide shield. All are both decorative and functional. While I suppose it’s normal for ordinary grunts to be issued pretty utilitarian stuff (Brown Bess), officers and powerful warriors have always had cool stuff. The fact that everything modern soldiers use is, if not ugly, then at least purely utilitarian (and I think it is ugly), is priests triumphing over warriors to a degree they rarely have in history, priests telling officers they are not allowed to have cool stuff – same reason the awesome, brightly coloured, well-shaped uniforms of the eighteenth century are now homogeneous baggy camo.

    The last time British officers had cool stuff that they actually carried into battle was when the 1845 infantry officer’s sword was replaced with the utilitarian revolver in 1853, and when the 1853 pattern cavalry sabre, already a downgrade in looks from the beautiful 1821, was replaced with the ugly and dysfunctional 1864 pattern, which dates line up with Jim’s timeline for the usurpation of warriors by priests, the demonization of Lord Cardigan and the whore Florence Nightingale.

    More recently, the priestly rage against high status warriors carrying any weapons, let alone cool, beautiful ones, resulted in this cursed image, which truly encapsulates the decline of the west.

    We shall know the true reaction by their really awesome shiny guns.

    • BC says:

      The interesting thing about warriors gear is no matter how ugly they made it, it becomes cool because warriors and their gear has real physical power that people want to emulate.

    • jim says:

      For warriors to rule, they are going to need custom fitted uniforms, and really cool, really scary, guns. Notice the various “assault weapons” bans are not prohibitions against deadly, they are prohibitions against cool.

      The picatinny rail is practical for big guns, impractically cumbersome for small guns, and ugly and cumbersome for all guns. We need reflex sights and laser sights that integrate more aesthetically with the gun. Also reflex sights that fit with the holster for concealed carry on a small gun.

      We also need “silencers” – which do not in fact silence, just keep the gunshot sound below levels that cause ear damage. And the silencers, like the reflex sights, need to be aesthetically integrated with the guns.

      And we need guns that just look cool. Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas, therefore, contrary to Moldbug, men with guns find it hard to rule with unfashionable guns. The picatinny rail needs to be redesigned by someone with the Steve Jobs touch for making the practical cool.

      • BC says:

        I’ve always wondered why the 1911 was such a good looking gun and most modern guns are not very good looking.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Railz are cool if the receiver itself is the rail, monolithic free-floating upper receivers are peak aesthetic.

        Also, modularity. Modularity is like 70% of the reason the ar-15 system is so endemically predominant in the market, and further makes up like 80% of the after-market gun parts market all by itself.

        • jim says:

          Ar-15 is aesthetically the best. But the Picatinny rail could be aesthetically improved, and, as you suggest, the gun needs an integral silencer.

          I totally support the concept of rails and modularity – it is just that as implemented, kind of big and ugly.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >We also need “silencers” – which do not in fact silence, just keep the gunshot sound below levels that cause ear damage. And the silencers, like the reflex sights, need to be aesthetically integrated with the guns.

        John Garand’s original design for the M1 was to use a gas trap affixed to the end of the barrel to get pressure for action, though it was eventually decided drilling a hole in the barrel would be simpler.

        If you plan on using a barrel device anyways though, you could make a more elegant design by combining both functions into one. A suppressor works in the first place after by using a series of washers and/or vents to trap and slow down gasses from the propellant as they escape (thus reducing the report); you could simply combine that with a gas tube as well to divert some towards the action as normal (assuming you are using a locking gas-operated action; something like delayed blowback would obviously not need any).

  22. ten says:

    I am slightly unclear on what is meant by marxist class theory, as it is used when rebuffing carlylean restorationist (who i initially enjoyed as a dissenter and seed of discussion, now seems to have completely blown a fuse. if you read this, CR, for Gods sake get your shit together or leave. There must be more rewarding ways for you to spend your time, not masturbating your grievance and disappointment here) et al.

    My idea of marxist class theory (which i believe is the one actual marxists espouse): classify people according to whether they pay others for labour while keeping their produce, or not. Paying for reified labour vested in products does not count. Paying the plumber does not count. The relationship of these two groups generate opposing feedback systems, “class interest” aligns with whichever one.

    That would be a sufficient core definition of marxist classes. Their relationships and historical developments would be fitted onto that frame. At this level, marxist class theory seems true to me – please rebut.

    for further interest, the points at which i discard marxist class theory is when it is predicted that proletariat class conscious alignment with class interests
    1) must arise by historic necessity
    2) may be able to do away with capitalist production
    3) may be able to do away with more natural and primary collectives such as tribe or synthetic tribe

    • jim says:

      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. Thus Carlylean Restorationist thinks he only wants to murder “capital”, thinks that “capital” is forcing people to eat pizza, but in fact is necessarily going to wind up murdering everyone like me, since the man who in fact owns the local Domino’s franchise is approximately my own socioeconomic class. Carlylean Restorationist thinks the guy who owns the local Domino’s is a faceless minion of wall street, so no one is going to miss him, but I will miss him, since after the peasant with two cows has his cows killed, and yet strangely utopia fails to arrive, they kill the peasant with two cows, then the peasant with one cow.

      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 he 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.

      Carlylean Restorationist thinks that “Capital” is one person, thus a socialist system, thus the ruler can simply take charge of socialism, without murdering everyone like me – it is completely impossible that it would necessitate murdering everyone like me and boy when we get killed I will totally have it coming to me.

  23. Ihmc says:

    The reactionary position, on the contrary, is that warriors performing the right role of warriors is the most honorable profession, and in a good society warriors shoud be honored, and that priests performing the right role of priest is an honorable profession, and priests should be honored second only to warriors.

    Everyone who sees himself as a warrior or clerk will form a worldview where his own class is perceived as rightfully first.
    Everybody wants to be first, and long-lasting, deep-rooted alliance between warriors and priest is nigh impossible. The two types resent each other, and it couldn’t be any other way.

    Fascisms lost to communisms/socialisms because their hostility towards clerks put all clerks in the left’s side. This seems to be not changing…
    Capitalism (another form of rightism) realized that if they had fed the clerks lavishly, the clerks would have quit agitating the masses against them. Capitalism allied with the clerks, and the clerks moved to only-nominal opposition to capitalism.

    Populaces (amd everybody normal belonging with a social species) are far more contented if, while their need to be provided what they are to think believe and even feel emotionally, the envy-dampening “all people are peers” and “everybody is an independent independently thinking person” things come bundled in.
    It’s doing marvels for the Controller Team because it’s an amazing bundle for the buyers, covering their contradictory needs (like: to have authorities to defer to and agree with, AND to be reassured that they have their own thoughts, like “everybody else”, and are “independent”).

    Besides vanity and envy (ego hungers), physical hunger used to be the one other apletite to play on for controllers or those bent on the overthrow of current controllers. Technology and fiat currency have covered for this for some decades and will continue to.

    Of course, no group (whatever lines it forms along, even racial) rules forever, among inherently open-minded novelty-seeking people like Western Caucasians: pkwer will be more dynamic than static —as long as there are Western Caucasians and they have a culture.
    In the hope that we aren’t turning past that point already.

  24. speed format says:

    Gulp Webp

    Reaction 101: Priests and warriors

Leave a Reply